5x7 a significant jump over 4x5?

[dimento]

I've put together an 8x10 kit between the forum and evilbay, and have managed, fingers crossed, to set up a number of portrait projects where my costs will be covered. However, this means I can only afford to shoot 8x10 if/when these projects go ahead.

I've been looking at and considering a 5x7 camera as an improvement on 4x5 (in terms of enlargement size) and the film costs roughly half what an equivalent amount of 8x10 would cost.

I've done some googling and forum searches as I figure it's a topic that has been raised before. I'll be shooting almost exclusively portraits, maybe occasionally still life and I'd like to be able to do decent size enlargements (maybe up to 4-5 feet in length)

I do my own developing and scan on an epson v700 and figure on scanning myself when working on personal projects and going for drum scans if/when there are exhibition funds.

So my questions are, at 4-5 feet is there a significant difference in IQ between 4x5/5x7
How big have you enlarged from this format?
Any thoughts on scanning ? Have you enlarged flatbed scans and how do they look?
Anyone tried the "betterscanning.com" holder/glass for this format

Thanks

D

[Lachlan 717]

Why not make a 5x7 back for the 8x10?

[dimento]

Why not make a 5x7 back for the 8x10?

thanks, I had thought about getting a 5x7 back but there's the portability issue too. I'm often on location with lights and a backdrop and no assistant, and it looks like I can get a 5x7 camera reasonably cheaply.

I'm curious to hear about image quality as per the original post, thanks

[Ken Lee]

These sorts of discussions are subjective. You'll have to determine the sweet spot for your projects: the convergence of affordability, image quality, portability etc.

If you shoot 5x7 instead of 4x5 (and keep the longer ratio), then you have an image which is 6.5 inches long instead of 4.5 inches long. That's an increase of 2.0/4.5 inches or 45%. There are other ways to measure the increase however, like the increase in area of the image, or the longer diagonal. How those translate into image quality is not as objective.

Will you see an increase in image quality and decrease in grain in a 5-foot enlargement ? Of course but you'll have to judge whether it's adequate. From how far away will your audience inspect the prints ? What film/developer/printing/scanning method do you use ?

Bigger film has less grain and better tonality, but longer lenses give less depth of field, are generally less sharp and can therefore tolerate less enlargement.

Here's a sample page with comparison shots using the holder from Betterscanning.com. I use mine all the time.

For the record, I shoot 5x7 but crop it to the 4:5 ratio because I don't care for the 5:7 ratio

[dimento]

These sorts of discussions are subjective.

If you shoot 5x7 instead of 4x5 (and keep the longer ratio), then you have an image which is 6.5 inches long instead of 4.5 inches long. That's an increase of 2.0/4.5 inches or 45%.

Will you see an increase in image quality and decrease in grain in a 5-foot enlargement ? Of course but you'll have to judge whether it's adequate. From how far away will your audience inspect the prints ?

Bigger film has less grain and better tonality, but longer lenses give less depth of field, are generally less sharp and can therefore tolerate less enlargement.

You'll have to determine the sweet spot for your projects.

Here's a sample page with comparison shots using the holder from Betterscanning.com. I use mine all the time.

that's very useful Ken, thanks. I guess what I was getting at, in a subjective way was to try to find something with a lot of the image quality of 8x10 without the expense. Those enlargement sizes would be at the very limit of what I'd hope to do. Thanks again, Damian

[dimento]

http://www.photocritique.net/digest/1999-12.html

5x7 is large enough to work well for contact prints. There are also 5x7 enlargers available.

It is a format that does a good job for many of us.

Many a fine lens is available and if you have 8x10 lenses you are already set. Tray processing works just fine. Film holders are easy to find.

Film is available tho in more limited emulsions than with 4x5. Most of us don't film hop anyway. A few solid performers and we are out shooting.

thanks for that, I'm pretty much sold. Will a fujinon 180mm W f 5.6 (outside lettering/white) cover 5x7? I'm guessing it would be moderately wideangle?

[Ken Lee]

A 180mm lens on 5x7 will be roughly like a 120mm lens on 4x5.

Here's one sample of what we can get from 5x7 using a modest scanner and a bit of sharpening.

[dimento]

A 180mm lens on 5x7 will be roughly like a 120mm lens on 4x5.

Here's one sample of what we can get from 5x7 using a modest scanner and a bit of sharpening.

many thanks Ken, that's pretty impressive detail. My plan was to use my existing 300mm lens on 5x7 format, I think I'd find the 180mm too short, I seldom shoot anything other than portraits

thanks, Damian

[djdister]

many thanks Ken, that's pretty impressive detail. My plan was to use my existing 300mm lens on 5x7 format, I think I'd find the 180mm too short, I seldom shoot anything other than portraits

thanks, Damian

A 300mm should be a great portrait lens on 5x7.

[pasiasty]

I've been looking at and considering a 5x7 camera as an improvement on 4x5 (in terms of enlargement size) and the film costs roughly half what an equivalent amount of 8x10 would cost.

I wouldn't expect any significant improvement in sharpness or definition. Much more gain for money you may get from better lenses (unless you've already got a set top-notch ones). Practical reasons for going to larger formats are usually:
* contact prints
* wet plates and other ancient techniques
* better view on ground glass
* picture plasticity or extremely small (apparent) DOF
* use of old or ancient lenses for their imperfections
* (rather in case of ULF) need for something exceptionally expensive to justify enormous prices of pictures

There is also one, strongly subjective but important reason - urge for having something big.