Opinions on upgrading from 4x5 to 8x10

[Alan Gales]

8x10 has the advantages others have mentioned above, but how many of us really need that? We may take many more good photographs with smaller cameras. Most of my favorite photos were taken on 35mm or digital. Good enough is good enough.

The same could be said about 35mm or digital cameras, Jim. Most people only need their iPhone.

[ic-racer]

Of course operating the camera is easier because everything, including tolerances, would be bigger than 4x5. Once you see some 2x enlargements of 8x10 you will not want to go back to 4x5.

[Two23]

I've been shooting 4x5 for ~20 years and recently bought a nice vintage 5x7. I've been tempted to buy a really nice vintage 8x10 but just keeping stopping myself. The reason is mainly the expense--film, processing, holders, and pretty much everything. I also love the lightness and portability of 4x5. I scan negs to make prints, so the enlarger question doesn't apply to me. So, I remain on the fence. I really like 5x7--it's sort of the "moma bear" size, i.e. "just right." The only reason I was even thinking of 8x10 is I like to use old lenses and old cameras and this was one I haven't tried yet. A vintage Petzval that covers 8x10 is well over $1,500 though, and that puts me off. I really like the versatility and flexibility of 4x5. I don't really see 8x10 as an upgrade, just different. Maybe if I did more portraits I'd have more interest. Then again, where I live on the Northern Plains it's very windy, and I just question how viable 8x10 would be for me outdoors much of the time.


Kent in SD

[Leigh]

8x10 and larger formats (and maybe 5x7) were invented because enlargers did not exist.

If you wanted an 8x10 print, you needed an 8x10 negative.
If you wanted an 11x14 executive portrait to hang on the wall, you needed an 11x14 neg.

Once enlargers were invented, the NEED for ULF formats dropped to near zero.

- Leigh

[Bernice Loui]

Similar discussion not too long ago:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ecommendations


Re-post from that discussion. Fundamental to this question, ponder why 8x10? Yes, the ground glass can be impressive due to size, the processed films can be impressive due to size, but consider all the related items to 8x10.. Know the impressiveness of size can wear out over time.. give using 8x10 a decade or more will decide if that film format is really one's proper choice.

Will going to a larger film format really make that much difference in expressive image creation?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is more to LF imaging than camera, lens, tripod. Size-weight difference between 4x5 to 8x10 is about four times the size, four times the weight, four times the bulk. Add to this film cost and consider how will exposed film be processed? Ready to spend $10 and much more per sheet of 8x10 film? Add to this film processing.

Lens selection for 8x10 is limited and can easily get pricy really fast.

A sturdy and stable tripod is a must, this enforces weight and bulk. While the camera might be low weight, the tripod can easily equal then exceed the weight of a lightweight field camera.

Add to this 8x10 film holders, dark cloth, light meter, tape measure, focusing loupe, filters, cable release, case and other non-optional accessories.

If optical printing in a wet darkroom is the post processing is the desired method of print making, 8x10 enlargers are not small or light weight.
One can do contact prints which can be OK to really excellent, but the print size is limited to 8x10_ish.


Essentially, 8x10 carries a HUGE penalty with IMO, not a lot of benefits unless contact prints are to be the resulting prints.

Step on size down to 5x7 (IMO, the ideal LF format unless larger contact prints or alternative process prints are to be made) and most of these problems are very significantly reduced. Further down to 4x5 is easier still with lower cost and THE place where anyone interested in LF should begin for many, many, many reasons.


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Difference in optical print quality form 4x5 to 8x10 can be remarkable... Difference between optical prints made from 5x7 to 8x10 far more often than not- unremarkable. Essentially 5x7 can produce similar to better print quality than 8x10 for a host of reasons once the entire image making system is accounted for.

Difference in optical print quality between 4x5 to 5x7 is a LOT more than most would believe.


Bernice

Of course operating the camera is easier because everything, including tolerances, would be bigger than 4x5. Once you see some 2x enlargements of 8x10 you will not want to go back to 4x5.

[Liquid Artist]

I personally started with 4x5 6 years ago switched to 5x7 3 years ago, and although I bought a 8x10 that still needs restoring 2 years ago it wasn't until I bought a 8x10 enlarger plus a beautiful 8x10 Kodak 2d 3 weeks ago that I started shooting 8x10.

Here is my take on it.

If you like to enlarge images listen to Brad S, and only get a bigger format if you can find a big enough enlarger.
I lucked out and found a 5x7 ( Durst 138 ) before even buying a 5x7 camera.
It took me 2 years to find my 8x10 enlarger, a Durst 184.

With that in mind 4x5 is my choice for travel. However I grab the 5x7 95% of the time. It isn't much heavier than my Linhof 4x5, and is my first choice for life in general. . Plus I prefer the image dimensions.
I do love the 8x10, however it is just too big to take on hikes.
If you choose to lugg around an wooden 8x10 you will draw a crowd.

Good luck on your decision

[scheinfluger_77]

Great thread. Here is my take on the situation. First of all i can add nothing to the size/weight/quality/output suggestions above. For me personally if going to 8x10 for “better quality” images is my goal... I may as well go up to the Banquet Camera formats and stick with contact printing (the 7x17 whispers in my ear).

Years ago in high school a friend showed me his dad’s 5x7 Burke & James, with whopping bellows extension. I have wanted that format ever since. Since college my LF of choice (read... availability) has been one of two Crown Graphics my dad purchased long ago. I enjoy using the camera for landscapes and abstract details and wanted a 4x5 with movements. But when thinking of my upgrade options, my early fascination with 5x7 came back to life.

Consequently I now have a 5x7 Kodak 2D, along with everything else needed for wet darkroom work. I just don’t have the “dark” yet.

Didn’t Weston use an 8x10? And isn’t he the one who said ‘the only good photographs were within 100 yards of the car’?

Just my 1.5 cents worth.

[Chuck Pere]

If you can afford the investment and are physically able to handle the equipment I'd say do it while you can. Don't like it just sell the stuff. Not like buying a new couch. You also need to have the time and energy to research what to buy and how to process the film.

[consummate_fritterer]

If you can afford the investment and are physically able to handle the equipment I'd say do it while you can. Don't like it just sell the stuff. Not like buying a new couch. You also need to have the time and energy to research what to buy and how to process the film.

I agree completely. If you really want to do something and are fiscally and physically able, then do it. There will come a day when you either don't have the funds, or are in poor health, or both. By then, it's too late.