4x5 with 4x10 camera?

**consummate_fritterer** · 7-Jul-2018, 22:29

Originally Posted by Vaughn

One consideration is that there is a greater availability of different films in 4x5 compared to 4x10.

I assumed the OP is cutting 8x10 but I may be mistaken.

**januarys_v** · 7-Jul-2018, 23:23

Originally Posted by Vaughn

Putting some sort of stop in the 4x10 holder that keeps the 4x5 film in the center of the 4x10 holder. Then perhaps low-tack double sided tape under the 4x5 sheet to keep it from moving.

I use an 8x10 camera with a modified 8x10 darkslide to put two 4x10s on a sheet of 8x10...works nicely and all I need to carry extra is the modified darkslide to have two formats with me! I can't think of an easy fix like that for your situation unless you mounted something inside the camera that could block off half of the image on the 4x10 -- you could get two 4x5s on a sheet of 4x10 that way. Some older cameras were designed for such things.

My modified darkslide: A diagram and a photo of the one I made for two 5x14s on 11x14. This did not work as well as it did with the 8x10.

Thank you for the detailed explanations.At the moment this does seem like the least expensive way of doing it. And I would have to carry only the modified holder with a couple of 4x5s in it, so less weight too.

**januarys_v** · 7-Jul-2018, 23:37

Originally Posted by consummate_fritterer

I would just shoot 4x10 and crop the ends off. If shooting 4x5 is relatively uncommon, this seems to be the simplest and most logical approach.

thanks, yes, for b/w it is probably so, but if I decide to try shooting transparancies, then cost and availability of film and development services become limiting factors

**Pere Casals** · 8-Jul-2018, 02:26

Originally Posted by januarys_v

Since I enjoy shooting panoramas

IMHO a 4x10" camera is less practical than a 4x5" to start with.

> It is a lot more bulk when you shot regular 4x5"

> A lot of lenses that are perfect choice for 4x5 won't cover 4x10, so you will have way higher initial expenses with the glass.

> 4x10" gear may be quite expensive, compared with 4x5". There are a lot of 4x5 offers.

For panoramas you have another choice: a 6x12cm back for the 4x5" camera. You would have next avantages:

> Velvia/Provia in 120 format is half the price per surface unit compared with sheets, (this also happens with Kodak BW film, ilford sheets are cheaper with same per surface price than with rolls), so a shot would cost less than 1/4. You can get 120 Velvia rolls developed easier and cheaper than sheets.

> All lenses you would buy for 4x5" will also cover 6x12cm, being a perfect choice.

> You can enlarge the 6x12cm negatives in the darkroom with an "small" 4x5 enlarger, while 4x10" requires a 8x10" enlarger, that has similar size/weight than a nuclear Aircraft carrier.

> 6x12cm just matches aspect ratio in the monitors and TVs.

You have a drawback with a 6x12cm back, as you use rolls you won't be able to make a special custom development for each sheet, using sheets has the advantage that you can cook each shot as you want. But if needing that you can always shot the panorama in 4x5" and then you crop, just discarting 2cm at the top and at the bottom.

In fact if you don't shot a lot of panoramas the straighter way to start with LF panoramas is cropping from a 4x5 sheet, you won't have additional expenses with gear, you will have a very wide range of 4x5 choices (compared with limited 4x10 options) and you will save weight. Also as you will crop the top and the bottom then you will have the choice to refine the composition, a purist would say that cropping is not allowed, but having the choice of moving the horizon up and down can overcome some pitfalls.

Of course a 4x10" camera will make sense for a photographer wanting just that, but as you start you will need to acquire a lot of things that presently you are not considering, so going to 4x10" gear would would add complications.

Finally, let me encourage you to go forward in this adventure, while I'm a newcomer to LF I'm finding that LF world is amazing. The camera or the format is not linked to better photographs, at all, but LF has an amazing set of aesthetical resources, and also a set of drawbacks. Anyway it creates addiction.

**januarys_v** · 8-Jul-2018, 04:09

Originally Posted by Pere Casals

IMHO a 4x10" camera is less practical than a 4x5" to start with.

> It is a lot more bulk when you shot regular 4x5"

> A lot of lenses that are perfect choice for 4x5 won't cover 4x10, so you will have way higher initial expenses with the glass.

> 4x10" gear may be quite expensive, compared with 4x5". There are a lot of 4x5 offers.

For panoramas you have another choice: a 6x12cm back for the 4x5" camera. You would have next avantages:

> Velvia/Provia in 120 format is half the price per surface unit compared with sheets, (this also happens with Kodak BW film, ilford sheets are cheaper with same per surface price than with rolls), so a shot would cost less than 1/4. You can get 120 Velvia rolls developed easier and cheaper than sheets.

> All lenses you would buy for 4x5" will also cover 6x12cm, being a perfect choice.

> You can enlarge the 6x12cm negatives in the darkroom with an "small" 4x5 enlarger, while 4x10" requires a 8x10" enlarger, that has similar size/weight than a nuclear Aircraft carrier.

> 6x12cm just matches aspect ratio in the monitors and TVs.

You have a drawback with a 6x12cm back, as you use rolls you won't be able to make a special custom development for each sheet, using sheets has the advantage that you can cook each shot as you want. But if needing that you can always shot the panorama in 4x5" and then you crop, just discarting 2cm at the top and at the bottom.

In fact if you don't shot a lot of panoramas the straighter way to start with LF panoramas is cropping from a 4x5 sheet, you won't have additional expenses with gear, you will have a very wide range of 4x5 choices (compared with limited 4x10 options) and you will save weight. Also as you will crop the top and the bottom then you will have the choice to refine the composition, a purist would say that cropping is not allowed, but having the choice of moving the horizon up and down can overcome some pitfalls.

Of course a 4x10" camera will make sense for a photographer wanting just that, but as you start you will need to acquire a lot of things that presently you are not considering, so going to 4x10" gear would would add complications.

Finally, let me encourage you to go forward in this adventure, while I'm a newcomer to LF I'm finding that LF world is amazing. The camera or the format is not linked to better photographs, at all, but LF has an amazing set of aesthetical resources, and also a set of drawbacks. Anyway it creates addiction.

thanks,
yes, valid points and I do consider the 6x12 back route.

I have to say that at the moment I do not even think about having and using an enlarger, although I do think about developing BW myself. I will scan most probably with my 645D, 120mm macro and a light table.

**Pere Casals** · 8-Jul-2018, 06:26

Originally Posted by januarys_v

although I do think about developing BW myself.

I'd recommend you next books:

> Film Developmet Cookbook (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/vi...-third-edition)

> Beyond the Zone System.

> The Negative (Ansel Adams)

> https://kenrockwell.com/tech/exposure-large-format.htm

> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

With sheets you have the chance to make a custom development for each sheet, this is a common resource in LF, so mastering the insights of that it is intereting.

**januarys_v** · 8-Jul-2018, 10:27

Originally Posted by Pere Casals

I'd recommend you next books:

> Film Developmet Cookbook (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/vi...-third-edition)

> Beyond the Zone System.

> The Negative (Ansel Adams)

> https://kenrockwell.com/tech/exposure-large-format.htm

> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

With sheets you have the chance to make a custom development for each sheet, this is a common resource in LF, so mastering the insights of that it is intereting.

thanks for the tips, I will have to learn a bit about the chemistry, I have already looked at a few articles from the home page

**Joshua Dunn** · 8-Jul-2018, 17:57

It would be expensive (even used) but K.B. Canham makes 4x10 cameras. You could probably get a kit based on his 4x5 and 5x7 platform that would shoot both 4x5 and 4x10. Like I said, it would be a lot of money. If you bought one of his 4x5/5x7 platforms you could use his 6x17 roll film back right on the back of the camera. It's a different proportion than 4x10 but offers a lot more film choices.

-Joshua

**consummate_fritterer** · 8-Jul-2018, 19:17

IMO, the cost of extra and/or different equipment is usually far greater than all the 'wasted' film most of us would ever shoot. Also, carrying said extra equipment is likely not worth it for most of us. If one shoots a lot of film and isn't backpacking to the shooting locations then it might be worth the cost/weight/bulk. Otherwise, probably not. I would just crop the ends.

**Vaughn** · 8-Jul-2018, 21:20

I must say that 4x10 negatives do look nice on a light table! As do my 5 x14 negatives (minus a few light leaks and operator errors).

If 4x10 is something that tickles your fancy, go for it. Buy used and you can always resell it at close to what you paid if it is not a good fit. How many holders you need will depend on where and how you work. In the field I like to have 5 holders (5x7 or 8x10), but will sometimes take 7 if I will be getting back late. For some folks this is far to few, I often come back with unexposed film.

A dedicated 4x5 camera can be picked up anytime -- which might be a good choice if one does end up using a lot of color film. Enjoy!

A 4x10 carbon print from a 4x10 negative...Mill Creek, 2014, print 2017