Preferred Format, and why?

[neil poulsen]

What is your preferred format in which to photograph, and why?

Thinking about it, I would have to say that mine is 4x5.

I have others: medium format, 5x7, and 8x10. But, there's something about 4x5 that's special. It's a nice cross between convenience, expense, and availability. Yet, a 4x5 negative is large enough to obtain beautiful tonalities in smaller photographs.

In addition to liking the 4x5 size, I would have to say that 4x5 is my favorite aspect ratio. I can handle 4x3; but, 5x7 is a bit long for my tastes. And, I really dislike the 2x3 aspect ratio of 35mm photography. (Digital or film. Yuk!)

I also like processing 4x5 negatives in the darkroom. Larger than 4x5 negatives become a little cumbersome. But, 4x5 is large enough for individual sheet processing. It's nice having control over each negative.

It helps that I really like my particular 4x5 camera. It's a delight to use.

With this said, I'm fond of medium format. One can do nice work with medium format; yet, it's compact. That said, paradoxically, medium format camera outfits can be heavier than 4x5 outfits. The lenses are often larger in medium format, and carrying multiple medium format film holders is kind of a drag.

[eric black]

Im with you on not liking the 2x3 aspect ratio!
my preferred format is 4x10- I'm a panorama-type shooter and this set-up gives me film that can be scanned for file sizes that allow me to print as large as I can go with the equipment at my disposal. The Chamonix camera I have is also light enough to backpack without breaking my back. Other formats I shoot are 4x5 and 8x10, plus digital SLR when the situation calls for it (ie wildlife)- and I typically crop those 2x3's to a more likelable format!

[Ken Lee]

Aspect ratios are like colors: there is an infinite variety and they can all look lovely or work effectively at times.

I have tried cropping certain images to fit my own preconceived notions but in the end had to accept that they looked best as they were, sometimes even in 2x3 !

[Pere Casals]

But, there's something about 4x5 that's special. It's a nice cross between convenience, expense, and availability.

+1

Enough quality for anything, with modern lenses and film a larger format is an overkill. A lot of choices for the lenses.

5x7

IMHO "5x7 is an interesting compromise between 4x5 and 8x10". https://www.largeformatphotography.info/5x7.html

Close to have all advantages of both 4x5 and 8x10, and way less the drawbacks.

Perhaps best choice if scanning with a flatbed, cheaper to shot it than drum scanning 4x5. Cameras and enlargers still with moderate size.

We may have to cut 8x10 sheets to have 5x7 with many films.

and 8x10.

if one makes the mistake to look through a 8x10" GG... it generates addiction...

[neil poulsen]

. . .

IMHO "5x7 is an interesting compromise between 4x5 and 8x10". https://www.largeformatphotography.info/5x7.html

Close to have all advantages of both 4x5 and 8x10, and way less the drawbacks. . . .

I've often thought of using 5x7, but cropping the negative to a 4x5 aspect ratio. (So, 5x6.25.) Effective area of 27.5 sq-in, versus about 17.25 printable area for 4x5. That's an increase in area of 60% for this expanded negative.

Indeed, a nice compromise, versus going to 8x10.

Of course, this requires a larger enlarger, etc. So if not practical, at least interesting.

[Pere Casals]

I've often thought of using 5x7, but cropping the negative to a 4x5 aspect ratio. (So, 5x6.25.) Effective area of 27.5 sq-in, versus about 17.25 printable area for 4x5. That's an increase in area of 60% for this expanded negative.

Indeed, a nice compromise, versus going to 8x10.

Yes... if one ends enlarging to 16x20 paper a 57 negative it is what actually happens !

[CreationBear]

I've often thought of using 5x7, but cropping the negative to a 4x5 aspect ratio. (So, 5x6.25.)

I think I remember Ken Lee mentioning that he does that as well. I'm not sure if he does that primarily for "portrait orientation" shots, but one thing I've noticed is that 5x7 vertical landscapes often strike me as too skinny and crowded. On the other hand, I usually don't read "horizontal" 5x7 landscapes as noticeably wider than 4x5--and for some reason, it seems a great format for still lifes...it seems to sort disparate objects and their spatial relationships very elegantly.

[Alan9940]

Though I have all formats from 35mm to 8x10, my preferred format is 8x10. Yes, it can be bulky and it is fairly expensive (I shoot only B&W in this format so it's not too bad), but IMO something happens to my brain when viewing the image at actual print size (I only contact print.) And, speaking of contact prints I just love a good 8x10 silver gelatin contact print! During the decade of the 80's and, probably, for about half the 90's 8x10 was all I shot.

[darr]

My favorite format is a square. Why? It just feels right most of the time for me. My favorite camera is an ALPA SWA. My second favorite camera is my Linhof 4x5 and then my Mamiya 6. A square cropped from 4x5 or 120 film is fine for me. I also like the 6x17 format from my pano back made with the Linhof.

[Vaughn]

I only contact print, so it depends on how big of a print I want, what type of image I want to make...and where I need to get to!

120 roll film up to 11x14...including 4x10 and 5.5x14.

I've been making my first 11x14 pt/pd prints...pretty cool!