4x5 vs 8x10

[xkaes]

Would a 4x5 be sufficient for a 48x65 inch print?

Just as I expected -- if you ask 10 photographers for their opinion, you'll get 25 answers! In short, it all comes down to an opinion -- YOUR opinion. While I know that it is hard for you to have an opinion on formats that you haven't used, you can try it now with your current MF gear. If you can't get the results you want -- however you define that -- you can try a larger format.

I've done a lot of close-ups in B&W and Color from 8x11mm to 4x5" and made lots of LARGE prints -- up to eight FEET. I've got some GREAT (in my opinion) SIX foot prints taken with 35mm Kodak Plus-X. Sure, you can see the grain from a foot away, but due to the subject matter and normal viewing distance, it works great -- again, in my opinion. I've done the same with my Mamiya RB67 and TOKO NIKKI II 4x5. Yes, the 4x5" results have less grain -- depending on the film used. For example, my 35mm Ektar 25 shots hold up pretty well when compared to my 4x5" Agfacolor 125 shots. Another example? Back in the 80's, Peterson's Photography did a comparison of 35mm Agfapan 25 and 4x5" ISO 125 film and could not find any difference in the final prints.

What will you like? Only you will know. Push what you have to the limit. See if it works. You might just need a different film or technique -- instead of a different format.

[Drew Wiley]

Sounds like an article written in the 1880's, not 1980's. Or else the author was an utter klutz with a view camera. But it is better to deal with the devil you know than the devil you don't. Try a big print with your current camera gear and see if you like it or not.

[Drew Wiley]

Apples to apples. Try comparing current 35mm Ektar to 8X10 Ektar, not to 16-grit sandpaper.

[xkaes]

Sounds like an article written in the 1880's, not 1980's. Or else the author was an utter klutz with a view camera.

You're absolutely correct, of course. It's obvious that David Brooks, Chief Editor of Peterson's Photographic (who has more experience in photography than you and I put together) is "an utter klutz":

http://www.subclub.org/apx25.pdf

His conclusion?

"The only way any distinction between prints from the two formats (SIC, 35mm vs 4x5") can be made is by examination with a magnifying glass".

My conclusion? I have to assume that the other, numerous editors at Peterson's (AKA "utter klutzettes") were simply asleep at the wheel when it was published.

Me? I'm just glad I've got a freezer full of Agfapan APX 25 in 35mm, 120, and 4x5 format -- AND EKTAR 25!!!

[Drew Wiley]

That magazine had about as much credibility with me as the Natl Enquirer reporting on Bigfoot sightings.

[xkaes]

That tells me all I need to know -- about you! Thanks for the tip.

[Drew Wiley]

You know zero about me. That magazine's target audience was amateur anyway. I saw the same nonsense published about 35mm Tech Pan versus 4X5 unspecified. Well, I've got a couple boxes of 8x10 TechPan in the freezer; but even that constitutes a lousy taking film. I use it for pan highlight masks in color printing.... Not the kind of thing they talk about in a drugstore magazine rack.

[xkaes]

You know zero about me.

Right again -- I know you are a zero.

[Leigh]

I shot 35mm and medium format for the past few years and would like to move on towards large format. They would predominantly be used for still life (with speed lights and strobes) in colour. I often do macro shots as well. I'm moving to large format because I would like to make large scale print (as large as 48x65 and 32x96 as well as smaller 30x40 / 24x72).

Given your goals, I STRONGLY suggest 4x5 over 8x10 (I shoot both).

Your interest in macro work points to one major difference in the formats.

Any 1:1 image (on film) requires that the lens be extended from its infinity-focus position by a distance equal to its focal length. For a 4x5 with a 150mm lens, that's not too great.

But for an 8x10 camera with a 300mm (normal) lens, adding another 300mm of bellows extension creates a monster.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I've done it. But it's very cumbersome and unwieldy.

- Leigh

[Drew Wiley]

I have a picture of an 8x10 micro (not macro) setup using about a dozen Sinar standards and bellows mounted on a 16ft structural iron beam. That must have required one helluva strong light source!