Who uses 8x10 to 4x5 reducing backs, and what for?

[CXC]

I find myself using longer lenses of late. Recently bought a 600mm lens for the 8x10. The 4x5 will accommodate up to my 450mm. I'm tempted to get a reducing back for the 8x10, to see how the 600mm would look on 4x5. The 8x10 would also provide MUCH more stability for the 355mm and 450mm. In particular, macro work with the G-Claron 355mm (a monster) would be easier, and I could get a lot closer.

Do people use reducing backs for these sort of reasons? Or are they mostly used to hold 4x5 polaroid for testing exposure?

P.S. I don't do telephoto lenses...

[Jeremy Moore]

A reducing back on a larger camera is fantastic for portraiture where I have more bellows length to play with and a larger lensboard size than is available on my smaller cameras (easier to use the longer length and larger lenses I usually like when doing portraits).

[Michael Graves]

Those times I shoot 4x5, I do so with a reducing back on my 5x7 Toyo. To be honest, my real reason is that I'm too cheap to buy a dedicated 4x5 and even if I wasn't, I'm already out of storage space for the gear I've got. So my wife would kill me. However, I get good results from the reducing back.

[Ralph Barker]

"Do people use reducing backs for these sort of reasons?"

Yep. That's one of the main reasons I made a reducing back for my 8x10 - I get to use all the longer lenses that exceed the bellows on my little 45AX.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, I have a 4x5" reducing back for my Sinar P and use it for this reason. If I'm making portraits or still lifes at home but want to shoot 4x5", or if I just want to make a quick test, it's handy to have all the features of the Sinar and not have to swap the bellows and rear carrier frame. I just leave it set up all the time on a stand as an 8x10" camera, and switch to the 4x5" back when I need to.

[Eric Leppanen]

I'm one of the folks who seriously thought about getting a reducing back and decided against it. I'm sure you've done the math and know that, from strictly a film and processing cost standpoint, you might be better off cropping 8x10 negs than purchasing the reducing back. As for stabilizing your large 355 and 450mm lenses, a long lens support arm (I use the Bogen 3252) achieves a similar aim for much less cost and bulk. But of course to achieve longer extensions for macro and portrait work, there is no substitute for a larger camera.

The one issue I wanted be sure got covered was that of camera/back compatibility. If your 8x10 is a metal studio monorail, then most likely any sample of a reducing back made by your camera manufacturer will work fine. If you are envisioning purchasing a third-party adapter to reduce cost, or have a wooden field camera, then you may need to have the back custom fit to your camera. When I was evaluating 8x10 cameras, Ebony told me that, even if I purchased both an Ebony camera and Ebony camera reducing back, the two should still be fit at the factory together to make sure they seated properly (apparently there is some variation between camera-to-camera and back-to-back). Other wooden camera manufacturers told me similar things. Just something to be aware of.

[George Losse]

I use both a 4x5 and a 5x7 back on my 8x10, mostly in the studio. I like the 4x5 back to shoot parts of the small portions of the body of models. I like the 5x7 for more of a portrait type of work.

Why not just shoot all 8x10 in a session???? change of pace, different look to the image, different series of work with each format.

Why not just use a smaller format camera to do the same thing???? controls are easier to use on the 8x10, the bigger lenes work great with the smaller format with the longer bellows of the 8x10.

I have tried the 5x7 back for some landscape work, I liked the costs savings but would rather have the 8x10 negative to work with. Never tried the 4x5 back for landscape, the Speed Graphic is still too much fun.

[Alex Hawley]

I use a 4x5 back on the 8x10 a lot. Still lifes, close-ups, portraits just to name a few. On landscapes, I use it for polaroid test shots to check contrast and tonal range. If I have the bellows racked out for an 8x10 close-up, I'll use the 4x5 for a polaroid shot to nail down the exposure. Then thee are just the occasional things that make a good 4x5 contact print.

One of these days, I'll get a 5x7 back for many of the same uses described above.

The other advantage I like is not having to re-aclimate to the controls of a different camera. As others have mentioned, I find the 8x10 to be much easier to work with that the 4x5.

[Robert Skeoch]

I own a 8x10 to 4x5 back for my wisner and never use it .... it was a waste of money.
-Rob Skeoch

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I made a 4X5 reducing back for my V-8. I have a 4X5 also but I can't shoot the 24" red dot on it. I used it for macro last week. It was kinda fun using those dinky holders again.