Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: 4x5 or 8x10

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,792

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10

    5x7.

    4x5 just doesn't seem that large to me anymore, and 8x10 is a bit much to carry around. 5x7 or 4x5, a few holders and an extra lens or two, both fit in a messenger bag. Also, 5x7 is like looking at a real picture on the ground glass in that the viewing distance under the focus cloth is just right for 5x7. I can't get far enough from 8x10 outside to feel like I'm composing the picture as a whole unit, but it's OK in a dark studio. 4x5, too small again. Also 5x7 contacts are sweet--the size I always printed 35 mm anyway. Again 4x5, not so much--too much like prints from the drugstore.

    Thus, 4x5 or 5x7 on the run, 5x7 or 8x10 in the studio; 5x7 either: perfect.
    Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
    Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
    Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
    You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear

  2. #22
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    8,080

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippe Grunchec View Post
    5x7 plus a 4x5 reducing back, then 8x10 and, and, and...
    and, and,...8x10, with 5x7 and 4x5 reducing backs!

    Actually my first camera was a copy of a Deardorff Special -- revolving 4x5 back and a 5x7 back. Great field camera for either format...it would be a sweet way for the OP to go. Not oversized for 4x5 nor undersized for 5x7.
    "Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,404

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
    5x7...
    Ye, me too!

  4. #24
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    14,768

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10

    Depends what you want to do. If you want to make big enlargements, 8x10 darkroom gear takes up a lot of real estate, just like the film size itself does! In the field, lugging around 8x10 is better exercise; you'll lose belt diameter as well as wallet thickness pretty fast. Film can get expensive. With 4x5, everything is one fourth as much.
    I like doing both, as well as med format too, so have a serious addiction.

  5. #25
    Foamer
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    2,168

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    Depends what you want to do. If you want to make big enlargements, 8x10 darkroom gear takes up a lot of real estate, just like the film size itself does! In the field, lugging around 8x10 is better exercise; you'll lose belt diameter as well as wallet thickness pretty fast. Film can get expensive. With 4x5, everything is one fourth as much.
    I like doing both, as well as med format too, so have a serious addiction.

    The other thing is a tripod. I'm just now figuring out my big wooden Berlebach isn't quite up to 8x10 since I added a ries J-250 head to it. I need a bigger tripod and even used ones start at $500 when I can find one. I paid just under $300 for the used J-250 head. It's up to the job but is big and heavy.


    Kent in SD
    Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris,
    miserere nobis.

  6. #26
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    14,768

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10

    I use my smaller Ries for everything 4x5 and smaller, and my big Ries for 8x10 as well as long telephoto use with my P67. But I also have much lighter carbon fiber equivalents for each for sake of longer backpacking or inevitable old age usage. The sheer bully mass of the wooden Ries tripods is a distinct advantage. But as most here already know, I don't use any kind of tripod head for large format work. I don't know what SD is like, but being pretty much open, maybe you get a lot of wind like we do here on the coast. An 8X10 with a long bellows becomes a great kite! The more solid the tripod, the better.

  7. #27
    Foamer
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    2,168

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    I use my smaller Ries for everything 4x5 and smaller, and my big Ries for 8x10 as well as long telephoto use with my P67. But I also have much lighter carbon fiber equivalents for each for sake of longer backpacking or inevitable old age usage. The sheer bully mass of the wooden Ries tripods is a distinct advantage. But as most here already know, I don't use any kind of tripod head for large format work. I don't know what SD is like, but being pretty much open, maybe you get a lot of wind like we do here on the coast. An 8X10 with a long bellows becomes a great kite! The more solid the tripod, the better.

    Yes indeed there is a lot of wind. I've been blown clear off the road on several occasions. We've even had a train blown off the tracks by straight line wind! Today I was working in ~20 mph wind in the open. I do have a heavy duty Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber tripod. It's overkill for my Nikon D850, but since it's so light it just isn't a good choice for a Kodak 2D 8x10. The 8x10 catches a lot of wind and needs some serious mass to hold it steady. I'm looking for either a Ries A100 or J-250-2. There have been times the wind was blowing so hard that I couldn't use LF at all and had to lay on the ground and just use my Nikon.


    Kent in SD
    Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris,
    miserere nobis.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10

    If you intend to contact print then go 8x10.

    If you intend to make enlargements, realize that 8x10 enlargers can be huge and you need a tall ceiling to use one or rig up a way to print horizontally instead of vertically.

    If you want to scan then some of the Epson flat bed scanners will scan up to 8x10.

    If you decide to go 4x5 then never, ever look at an 8x10 ground glass. Once you compose on one you can't ever unsee it!

    If you like a more rectangular image then consider 5x7.

    Welcome to the forum!

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,043

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Gales View Post
    If you decide to go 4x5 then never, ever look at an 8x10 ground glass. Once you compose on one you can't ever unsee it!
    +1

    And, if you contact print, I swear there's something that happens to your brain, composition-wise, when looking at the gg at actual print size.

  10. #30
    Philippe Grunchec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Paris (France, not Texas)
    Posts
    331

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Gales View Post
    If you like a more rectangular image then consider 5x7.
    Paul Strand cropped his 5x7 negatives to 5x6!
    "I believe there is nothing more disturbing than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept!" (Ansel Adams)

    https://philippe.grunchec-photographe.over-blog.com/

Similar Threads

  1. 8X10 Holder Weight and Why 8X10 is called 8X10???
    By audioexcels in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 17-Mar-2008, 15:18
  2. Linhof 8x10 GTL or Horseman 8x10 LX-C or Arca 8x10 M-line?
    By Roger Urban in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14-Oct-2001, 14:42
  3. Linhof 8x10 GTL or Horseman 8x10 LX-C or Arca 8x10 M-line
    By Roger Urban in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 1-Sep-2000, 21:40

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •