Is the 5x7 format endangered?

[Corran]

A (810 cut) 57 sheet (BW) may cost $3 more than a 45 sheet, but a drum scan from 4x5 at 4k dpi is $60 per sheet, so we save $57 if shooting 57 and EPSON scanning, and beyond the $57 savings we obtain remarkably better image quality.

Hoo boy.

Shoot 5x7 if you want, 4x5 is way more flexible in terms of lens/film choice, that's pretty much it.

[Vaughn]

I will agree that the concept of 'wasting' paper by fitting a 5x7 neg onto 16x20 paper is pretty insignificant. I suppose some folks print to the edge of the paper, otherwise Eric's comment about borders is right on.

I get around all that by contact printing on hand-coated material. BUT, printing 4x10 platinums on 11x14 sheets of Cot320 does get me to thinking about all that extra paper. The plus side is all the nice heavy 'extra' paper around the image for handling and presenting the image.

I have been printing 5x7s on half sheets of 11x15 Premium Rag (11x7.5) which works out nicely.

If one's tool of choice is 5x7 then scanning 4x5 is a non-starter. I believe the tools shape the artist as much as the artist shapes with his/her tools. And the artist picks the best tool to achieve his/her goal or vision. Tools do not have good or bad qualities, they have characteristics that one uses to create. My choice to take a 5x7 camping in southern Chile for a month was influenced by the type of work I wanted to do there...and the camera influenced the type of work I did there. My 4x5 travel outfit would have been a lot lighter, cheaper per image and so forth. Probably would have taken more than the twenty 5x7 images I made in that month (maybe...that wind was nuts at times and the advantage was to the heavier camera). If all that was more important than the work I wanted to do, I would have taken the 4x5. And using the Eastman View No.2 is quite fun most the time.

And there is no getting around that a 5x7 is almost twice the size of a 4x5 negative. Yes, it is only 1.75 times the area of a 4x5, but it feels more than that.

PS -- exercise was also part of reason I took the 5x7...the extra 8 pounds or so of the 5x7 kit helped me lose 15 pounds on the trip and strengthened my legs and lungs.

[Dugan]

Maybe I should make a panoramic camera that uses 1" x 8" film. But would that be large format?

[Vaughn]

Maybe I should make a panoramic camera that uses 1" x 8" film. But would that be large format?

Not by LFPF guidelines, but cool!
I made an image with a camera that made a negative the width and length of a 120 roll of film. Very cool, but not LF.

Edited to add...could be LF I suppose if made with a LF camera (ie cropped 8x10).

[Bob Salomon]

Not by LFPF guidelines, but cool!
I made an image with a camera that made a negative the width and length of a 120 roll of film. Very cool, but not LF.

Edited to add...could be LF I suppose if made with a LF camera (ie cropped 8x10).

When I was with Rollei of America I bought the first Rollei SLX the ROA received as a sample. Those,of you not familiar with it it was a 6x6 motorized SLR. My son had a Little League that afternoon so I took a shot of f him running out a hit. Pressed the shutter release and the entire 120 roll of film ran through to give me a full roll shot.

They took the camera back!

[Vaughn]

The one I used was a box on top of the tripod that rotated until it ran out for film. Brand? Too long ago (80s)! I figure about a 420 degree view. I could contact 360 degrees by going corner-to-corner on a 16x20 piece of paper.

[Bob Salomon]

The one I used was a box on top of the tripod that rotated until it ran out for film. Brand? Too long ago (80s)! I figure about a 420 degree view. I could contact 360 degrees by going corner-to-corner on a 16x20 piece of paper.

Yours was a panoramic camera. Mine wasn’t!

[bloodhoundbob]

Don't try telling Steve Simmons that 5x7 is dead.

[Bernice Loui]

Many years ago, mentioned to Steve Simmons that 5x7 is the ideal LF format, he did not think so back about the time when he as doing View Camera Magazine.

Much time has passed since then, now Steve Simmonds believes 5x7 IS the ideal format (Still needle him about this from time to time for many of the same reasons previously mentioned over my time on LFF.

Regardless, 5x7_13x18cm is not for all, maybe for some. IMO, all film formats have their place. It really depends on the goals of the image maker, finished print expectations and all that.

All this batting about on which film format is better than that is not really constructive, as film folks need to and can decide on what works ideally for their needs. What we share about film formats, lenses, developers, and all that is based on our individual preferences, discoveries of what works for our specific image making needs.

What is most important is keeping film including 5x7_13x18m alive and well enough so folks who do choose this path has the ability to do so.



Bernice

Don't try telling Steve Simmons that 5x7 is dead.

[LabRat]

Back in the 90's, I wanted a format with a different aspect ratio in sheet film...I had been shooting 4X5 and 35mm, and I wanted something in between, so I took a look at what I had, and could get cheap/easily and their weak and strong points using "endangered" formats...

Long story short, I liked the size 5X7 could contact print to, but did not want to pay what a used enlarger was worth (during the film days) and noticed that the format film that was usually on extended backorder was 5X7, and even the local Freestyle had other odd formats in stock, but even the house brands had dissappear for extended intervals... My take on film is you should be able to get it when you need it without too much trouble, or its not worth it, unless you stockpile it... I passed the format when I realized I could also shoot 2x3 sheet film, although sometimes harder to get, I could at least enlarge it, had the same aspect ratio, had the gear, and could shoot it on the fly, but not that big, nice piece of film to contact print with... But I had some 5X7 cameras and lenses in need of extensive restoration, but the holders I could find were very worn out, and it did not seem to be a good idea at the time...

It seems there is more film for it now then then, so as long as there is film...

Steve K