Lightweight 8x10 for interior work?

[Frank Petronio]

He's using a field camera for 4x5 anyway, so perhaps he isn't trying to do classic professional architecture and instead more personal expressive - art stuff. But that's just a guess. I did plenty of commercial jobs with folding cameras - it's harder than using a flexible monorail but when that's what you've got you use it.

[Ted Harris]

Kirk is right oin in terms of the lighting. Over the past few years a reasonable bit of my commercial work has been restaurant interiors and I frequently use over 5000 w/s of light or the equivelent in a combination of strobes and hot lights. That to do the job with 4x5 or 6x9. I have never even thought of 8x10. In fact, a lot of the work has ended up getting done with a Noblex F150 6x12.

[Oren Grad]

I don't do commercial work, but in the course of tinkering with my toys and learning about what I can do with them, I have tried some 8x10 interiors around the house under available light, and because of reciprocity issues at the small apertures needed I routinely end up with nutty exposures like 45 minutes. You could easily figure this out in advance just by thinking it through, but there's nothing like doing it a few times to drive home just how impractical it would be for routine work.

The alternative, as the professionals here have pointed out, is a monster lighting kit, which poses its own logistical challenges, and which would make the size and weight of the camera itself almost irrelevant as an issue.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Robert,

I would suggest that neither the Phillips nor the Canham will be suitable for true architectural shooting, and seriously doubt that the Chinese knockoff will do any better. The most obvious problem with theses cameras is the lack of available bag bellows. The lack of 'precision' can be a problem as well, especially when attempting to perfectly align verticals and horizontals with their respective sheet edges.

The Phillips, while ideally suited for wide angle lenses, does not have a removeable bellows (unless you were to own my friend's highly modified version). The normal bellows will hinder movements and interfere with the light path when more than a little rise is applied. This is especially true for verticals. The Phillips has the bellows glued permanently to the front and rear frame, so modifying it, while possible, is not going to be an easy task.

I have not used the 8x10 Canham, but I have used 5x7, 5x12, and 7x17 versions, and I have a 10x12 version of the camera that I use (for architectural subjects, even). The same problem occurs here, but the bellows is more supple which may help, however, it is also longer, which will hurt. Regardless, the bellows is not exactly field-removeable, so it would be difficult to swap in a bag bellows easily. It would be possible to configure the camera with a custom bag bellows; if Keith won't provide the bellows, I'm sure you can get the frames from him and get a bellows fabricated by Camera Bellows in England.

As I see it, for real interiors shooting with an 8x10, you will probably be using a 150 SS XL a good bit, maybe (but doubtfully, as there are other lenses that will propbably work nearly as well with the compromise of a dimmer groundglass) the 210 SS XL. The 110 SS XL or 120 SA and 120 Nikkor are all useable for extreme conditions, but offer no movements at all. The 150 SS XL and longer lenses offer substantial movements, and the bellows on these cameras don't come anywhere near permitting their use fully.

I'd go the route of an older 8x10 monorail if I were choosing exclusively for architectural shooting, I think. As a camera for a blend of uses, the Phillips and Canham cameras will work reasonably well, but they are definately a compromise for strict architectural work.

---Michael

[tim atherton]

is light weight most important or are movements (either amount or precision) more important?

You are going to have to compromise on one or the other most likely., aside from the issues mentioned about 8x10 for interiors in general

"Unless you are determined to get a folder, I would think the ARCA Swiss 8x10, which are available used for about what one would pay for the Shen Hao and get hugely more versatile features, including more movements, bag bellows etc, would be worth serious consideration. "

Unfortunatly it's pretty lacking in front rise as I recall (the newer arcas anyway - don't know about Franks black and chrome model...)

And the Metal Canhams are quite limited in rear movements too I think

The Phillips and maybe the Phillips chinese clone may be okay if you are willing to give up on precision to a degree. The bellows can be workable, but I have managed to cut off the corners with the bellows at 159/165mm focal length unless I'm careful. And that's usually with landscapes and not more closely focussed for interiors.

[Robert Knight]

Hello all,

Thank you for all of your prompt comments! Just to give a little more background, I am primarily a fine art photographer who is currently doing architectural interiors, but would like flexibility going forward. I am also starting to do some commercial interior work. Lightweight seems more important than monorail vs field. I have not used the ARCA but understand that it comes in at about 9lbs and thus would be similarly weighted as the fields. So this suggestions seems to be a good one. The only 8x10 I have used thus far is an old TOYO field 810 which seemed on the heavy side, but was other was exactly the same as my current Toyo 45A. Are the older ARCA's heavier than than the current F-line models?

I appreciate the point about bag bellows, as I have had some problems shooting with my 90 SA on my 4x5 where I do not have a bag bellows.

One thing that I hadn't realized was that depth of field would change by a stop when going from 4x5 to 8x10. This certainly does add to the challenge, although at this point I generally use available light. So perhaps I should just stick with my 4x5 and not get too enamored by negative size... Perhaps a better investment would be upgrade my 90 SA to a 110 SS XL?