Thinking about going to 8x10

[nightbringer]

I've had a Super Graphic for a few months, and with all of the ups and downs that go with going up to a newer format, I've decided I really like it even though I have to steam up my bathroom and put up the darkroom drapes whenever I want to load, unload, or develop film.
Now, I've been checking out Deardorffs and other 8x10 cameras, and really thinking about going up. I've been doing mostly portraiture in the studio, and haven't really explored movements much. The only thing dissuading me is the cost of equipment, as well as film - I know that if I want to go up this time I want to get a quality camera. I've also been justifying it to myself by telling myself I can get a reducing back to keep on shooting 4x5.

Talk me out of ... or into it.
It's either shooting 8x10 or a Hasselblad 500CM.

[Daniel Stone]

do you WANT to contact print, or do you plan on making alternative-process prints(albumen, cyanotype, pt/pd, carbon, etc..?)
what size are you currently enlarging your film too, or are you scanning? Can your scanner(if you're scanning your film) HANDLE 8x10 film?
if you are enlarging 4x5 conventionally, 8x10 enlargers are CONSIDERABLY larger.
Perfect your technique with 4x5, maybe pick up a more capable "portraiture" camera, like a good monorail.
-Dan

[DannL]

Life is very, very, short. And you deserve the best that life has to offer. And, if you want to ride the same train that many of us already have, you're going to have to pay for the ticket. That is, unless you find someone to make the monetary sacrifice for you. ;-)

[Jody_S]

Yes, the equipment is expensive, but if you buy well you're not really taking much of a risk. You will be able to resell for the same price as you paid, +/- a few $.

I'm with the 'life is short' crowd, if it's something you want to do, and you can afford to try it, well what are you waiting for? Yes, film is expensive, but many of us cheapskates are using x-ray film or alternatives to keep the cost down, often substantially lower than brand-name 4x5 film.

[nightbringer]

Thanks for the replies, the other motivations for shooting 8x10 were simply to try the bigger negative, and also alternate processes, as well as trying out Impossible in 8x10. I haven't done any darkroom printing for a long time, I figure contact printing would be a good way to get back into it since I have a huge 120 enlarger that I am too lazy to lug into my bathroom/darkroom.

I have an Epson V700 so scanning should be okay.

[JW Dewdney]

you should TRY IT first - and consider your reasons for doing so. How do you know you can compose on 8x10? it's a really different thing. Different people take to different formats differently. Or - if you go the hasselblad route consider you can probably knock your productivity and QUALITY of your images (not format related quality) WAY UP since you'll have more practice and throughput. I would only go 8x10 unless you have no choice. It sounds to me like you want to do it just because others are - which isn't the best reason to do anything... I would highly recommend maybe sticking with the 4x5 for a few more years at least until you feel you have no choice but to change formats. Don't knock medium format though either - there are some huge advantages to be gained there. just my 2 cents.

[nightbringer]

I've been composing almost exclusively through the ground glass on my Super Graphic so I figure the principle should be similar on a 8x10. It's always been mounted on a tripod and I rather liked the contemplative way of shooting with that I had been doing with my Mamiya RB67 and Super Graphic - on a tripod, interacting with the subject while I made my preparations.

Thanks for your input - it's more gear lust for the Deardorff than anything else, and also the idea of shooting chromes that I can actually frame as prints too that are appealing to me.

[Leigh]

The selection of lenses that cover 8x10 is severely limited as compared to 4x5, at both ends of the focal length range.

To cover the 8x10 film with no movements requires an image circle diameter of about 325mm.
LF lens ICs are commonly spec'd at f/16 (sometimes f/22), and wide open by some manufacturers.
The IC diameter decreases as you open the lens up, so a lens that barely covers 8x10 at f/16 won't cover at f/5.6.

Whether this is of concern to you or not depends on what you're shooting.

- Leigh

[Bruce Barlow]

Richard Ritter believes that 8x10 is easier to learn and use than 4x5. I would tend to agree.

Yes, lens choices are more limited, but that can work to your advantage by having you really learn what one or two lenses can do.

8x10 contact prints are delicious. 8x10 PT/PD prints are, too, if you can afford them. Michael Smith's Lodima paper will render wonderful contact prints using a light bulb as a source.

Have enough film holders. I always seem to have one too few.

Film speed becomes more important, in my mind. Ilford HP5, since you need as much depth of field with the longer lenses as the materials can give you.

My two cents. I agree with Old Fart, being one myself, that life is too short. Do it. You won't regret it.

[Alan Gales]

You will never know what it is like until you try it and if you don't try it you will always wonder.