Is 4x5 big enough?

[Rayt]

I still make stupid mistakes with 4x5 such as forgetting to close the lens before pulling out the dark slide! I still lose 2 out of 50 sheets this way. Also I am not 100% confident about metering so always bracket by shooting the same scene using both sheets in the holder. I already bought the 8x10 but still not confident enough to take it for a long shoot out of town. Getting the processing down is another challenge. I told myself the 4x5 is just training for larger formats but after a while given the weight, cost, film and lens selection, greater movements possible via choices of cameras available , relative ease of processing I might just stay with it. I am now thinking about a Technikardan for the movements.

[John Kasaian]

I pretty much started my LF adventure with an 8x10 because I wanted to shoot an 8x10 and I wanted to make contact prints. It has worked out very well for me and I wouldn't want to dissuade the OP from starting with 8x10 if that is where he really wants to be.
If that's not what he wants, or if he has no idea what he wants, a 4x5 has several advantages he may sincerely appreciate.

A while back I was putting a LF photography class syllabus together for a senior home, it revolved around 5x7s because it was easier for the seniors to compose on the larger ground glass and was a better size for contract printing (we had no 4x5 enlargers available and besides enlarging would have added a whole other dimension to what was supposed to be a simple activity class.) Film was cheap Ortho with diluted Dektol and developed in trays under a safe light.
Subject matter was to included a portrait of a family member (or volunteer) architectural and garden elements surrounding the facility, and a still life culminating with an end of class "exhibition" in the dining hall for the other residents to enjoy.
The wooden 5x7 cameras I'd collected for the class were no heavier or complicated than metal 4x5 monorails and the film holders only slightly more bulky. Since the residents were going to be "teamed up" to share a camera, one could assist the other (with a small cart for moving the stuff around the place.) Three cameras, six students.
The idea got sandbagged for a number a reasons but the staff still wants to do it if we can overcome the obstacles.

[Jim Jones]

I used a 5x7 B&J flatbed for years, and then with a 4x5 back. Some of the B&J monorails would handle both sizes, too. The flatbed was bulkier than a Speed Graphic or MPP, but little heavier.

[Kodachrome25]

Now that you have experienced the large format lovefest, go and ask this same question on a site like APUG where other formats are readily discussed.

I think 4x5 is great, love the movements and the larger film size and I have even been thinking lately about getting a 16x20 camera for contact prints. But the reason I am still thinking instead of acting on it is that the results I get from 6x6 negs let alone 4x5 really leave me and the people who buy my prints wanting for nothing. I can only print up to 20x24 now anyway so for the time being there is really not any need to go larger than 4x5.

But my best photographs in terms of overall impact still come from medium format, it's by far the best combo of great neg quality to reaction time ratio in my world and is my number one image producing system.

Get a 4x5 kit and give it a shot, explore the workflow and the tragedies and triumphs that go along with it. Then later if you feel you are justified in getting into 8x10, go for it, unlike ULF it is still a reasonable format in terms of tools and materials to be had.

[Bernice Loui]

Bigger is not always better, much depends on the goals of your finished print, post processing methods, visualized image and a LOT more.

The transition from fixed roll film camera to sheet film is not direct or easy as there is a learning curve involved with this transition. Figure burring many sheets of film before the entire process of using a view camera along with all it's capabilities (movement and more) becomes comfortable and second nature. Beyond camera and lens, there is post process and print making and print finishing. Traditional wet dark room with enlarge, films to be scanned post development or ? These are just a few of the post process considerations.

For these reasons, starting out with 4x5 make good and rational sense. Film is easier to obtain, lenses and cameras choices are broad and the entire post process requirements are not too bad. Staring out a larger format will make the transition more difficult, camera and lens choices more limited (with increasing film format size, lens choices become more and more limited) , post process and ... all more difficult and challenging.

I'm not convinced larger film format results in greater "sharpness" as there are a host of factors involved that can significantly degrade "sharpness" with increasing film format size.

Generally, larger film format does offer improved image tonality over smaller formats, specially if black & white film is involved.

After the first 100+ sheets of film is done and using the view camera becomes second nature with lens choice, camera set-up and required movements, focusing on the ground glass, post processing and ... if discovering this sheet films stuff meets your image making needs, then consider moving to a larger film format.




Bernice

Hi I'm really interested in getting into LF, partly for the quality, and partly for the control. It seems that most people advise that 4x5 is the most obvious choice for people who're moving from smaller formats. However I'm currently using medium format, 6x6 to be specific, and (taking the dimensions of square medium format in inches to be 2 1/4", by 2 1/4") that makes 4x5 only 78% taller, and 122% wider. It doesn't really seem like a significantly big increase in resolution between the two formats. In area the difference is roughly a factor of four, but this comes at a significant weight and size disadvantage.

Is it better to move straight to 8x10? I've heard that the quality of 8x10 contact prints is second to none, and this is the sort of size I was thinking of typically printing to, and 8x10 cameras aren't that much larger than 4x5 camera. I know even 110 could be blown up to that sort of size without much issue, but obviously this is that cost of quality, control (and depth of field).

So far I have short list of pros and cons (well, really just pros) for the two formats. I'd greatly appreciate the input, or opinion of anyone who has made similar decisions, or is experienced with LF, thank you all greatly.

8x10
+quality
+depth of field (in my case, whilst a high degree of control is useful, a shallower dof is preferable to deeper one.)
+size of contact print
+ability to scan with cheaper scanner
+maximum printing size

4x5
+price of camera
+price of film
+price of lenses
+variety of lenses
+portability

N.B. This is my first post on here, I hope I have followed the correct format, and guidelines. If not I'd greatly appreciate your constructive criticisms.
P.S The sort of photography I'd be using it for is mostly landscapes, and outdoor still life. Although I was thinking of getting into a little portraiture too.

[IanG]

One big advantage of 5x4 not listed is daylight processing tanks are available, Jobo, HP, Combi etc. 7x5 and 10x8 film needs tray processing unless you have the room and the throughput to warrant using deep tanks.

I find processing a major disadvantage of larger film sizes, I like the convenience of my Jobo 2000 series tanks (pre Rotary) both of which enable me to process a dozen sheets at a time. I can process 5x4 sheet film anywhere and often take a tank and chemistry with me when traveling, it's not practical with larger sizes. I do shoot 10x8 and am starting to use 7x5.

Ian

[Oren Grad]

7x5 and 10x8 film needs tray processing unless you have the room and the throughput to warrant using deep tanks.

Jobo Expert drums if one has money to spend, print drums or home-brew BTZS tubes if not.

[John Kasaian]

It would be interesting to know to which format the OP is headed.

[Tin Can]

I'll argue the other way.

Tray processing is the cheapest and possibly best way to process. The film is not rolled up in a tight tube and stays FLAT. The backside gets plenty of developer, stop and fix and the negatives come out fully processed with the back side anti-halation coating removed.

My fumble fingers have a hard time inserting and removing film with any tube. I can get film into a tray very easily.

A set of 5X7 trays takes up way less room than any roller system.

I enjoy long totally dark developing. I really calm down while doing it.

[Luis-F-S]

I'll argue the other way.

Tray processing is the cheapest and possibly best way to process.

A set of 5X7 trays takes up way less room than any roller system.

All I ever got with tray processing were scratched negatives which is why I develop in 1 gal tanks and hangers. L