Presence in 8x10 photography

[Michael R]

Haha yes... Its when people present their opinions as fact, that the trouble begins. I went through so many phases in thinking about photography - the Pictorialists, with their perfect prints and inaccurate, "pretty landscapes" were indulgent and shallow, the New Topographics were boring and full of false humility, get politics out of photography, the experimenters weren't interesting enough, and on and on... It has all been an enjoyable journey. For me, its quite easy, lazy, and boring to tear something down due to personal taste. I prefer people who can recognize what is good in something they don't like.

Interesting - I have also gone through phases, not only regarding photography but also in thinking about the other artforms in my background, and of course art in general. In my case it has roughly been a giant circle.

[ColonelKurtz]

As I’ve stated before, in my experience very few people make large format photographs as good as they do (or don’t) with smaller formats. But even if nobody agrees with me, which is fine, it is utterly preposterous to say that literally (or figuratively) anything produced with an 8x10 camera is necessarily good art. I still think we are being trolled by the Toronto guy.

I think a real problem is the motivation to try and convince other people of one or the other... Its bizarre. (not saying you are doing that)

[ColonelKurtz]

Interesting - I have also gone through phases, not only regarding photography but also in thinking about the other artforms in my background, and of course art in general. In my case it has roughly been a giant circle.

Yeah I go back and forth all the time, with all these things. For me, flexibility is key, and changing one's mind is what can often lead to discovery / real creativity...

[neil poulsen]

Being unfamiliar with Stephen Shore, had to look. These images does not a lot for "me"..
Brings up the question of what "IS" art and artistic expression? _again. Would art be defined by individuals privileged to impost their judgement, opinion and ...
upon what they value and be Judge-jury-decider?

What about David Graham's Book ~Only in America~
https://www.lensculture.com/david-graham-2


Bill Owen's book ~Surburia~
https://americansuburbx.com/2010/01/...rbia-2000.html

Bernice

My favorite definition . . .

"If it works, it's art."

[ColonelKurtz]

My favorite definition . . .

"If it works, it's art."

Hahaha the thread derailment that comes with the inevitable kiss of death question "What is art and what is not?" is always hilarious

[Drew Wiley]

Any term that has the potential to mean just about anything tends to mean nothing. And when it comes to actually articulating what constitutes the manner a person might gravitate to something specific or not, those who wave this little "art" flag around all the time might be doing so because they can't really trust their own eyes. But at the end, it's only the opinion of some little art Pope that counts. I can do without both.

[armentor1@mac.com]

Good morning all,

Bringing it back around, after shooting 8x10 for the past few weeks I've decided to move back down to 4x5 for my personal work. Here are two images scanned to 40x50 (300) with a creo flatbed.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ygu6v0ety...gILMS24ea?dl=0
Although it is not a fair test, given they were shot at different times and using different films and speed, it gives me a good enough idea. I believe the 8x10 is clearly visible and would make a stronger object however, not good enough to deal with the logistics and the cost. As many of you mentioned where it really shinned was 8x10 contact prints. After making a few quick and dirty prints I had a moment where I though about changing my entire practice to just do this. They were absolutely beautiful and extremely easy to make. I did an enlargement with a 4x5 negative to 8x10 for comparison (again different negatives ) and once again found the 8x10 to be a stronger print when it came to the presence that I spoke of earlier.

I'm lucky enough to share a studio space with a few old geezers who have been in the photo world for a long time; our studio space does not lack in analogue gear. My approach moving forward will be to continue my mirror / window work with 4x5 as it requires travel and lots of film and once again just borrow the D2 beater to do contact printed portrait work which I found to be extremely fun using 8x10. If I sell a bunch of these or get a big commission I will def upgrade to the Chamonix Alpinist with the rotating back as it is incredibly light weight and would give the best of both worlds however, I'll never sell my beloved 4x5 again.

Thanks for all who chimed in to this thread there is lots of great knowledge on this forum.

Mirror / Window working project - all done with 4x5 (HP5)
https://stveronicasphotography.com/a-mirror-a-window

8x10 family portraits -
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vqdotebqq...4wSocLjca?dl=0

Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/davidarmentor/

[armentor1@mac.com]

Now for lens research... GAS is unrelenting

[Bernice Loui]

There are very good and very real reasons why the majority of high quality commercial was done on 4x5 (often done in studio, highly controlled lighting with a monorail camera), these images were most often more than good enough for the image goals needed with a good trade off of film cost, processing cost, GOOD results (if properly done), and more.. Applying a view camera allowed excellent control over the images produced. GOOD number of these images were color transparencies, followed by color negative with B&W being significantly fewer. This said, it is why 8x10 was not always the better film format in many ways. Moving up to 5x7 or 8x10 in B&W does make a difference over 4x5 when optically enlarge printed. Color less so.

If ever 8x10 again, it would be for contact prints only. Going this route, suggest finding a source for Silver Chloride contact print papers like the long gone Kodak AZO paper. Stuff really works for contact prints.

As for 8x10 optics with contact prints in mind, there are more choices due to the greatly reduced optical demands inherent in contact printing.
This is where exposures at f90 is quite viable. Soft focus lenses can produce rather special images on 8x10 film then contact printed. As for the
8x10 camera, it is of MUCH lesser importance than lenses use, film used and the print making process. Not a lot wrong with a Kodak 2D, beater it may be, fact is you're likely going to use that "beater" 2D in ways that are different than a Spanky and shinny new and precious 8x10 camera.

~It is the images created that is of greater importance, the hardware should be considered tools as means to a result.


Bernice

Good morning all,

Bringing it back around, after shooting 8x10 for the past few weeks I've decided to move back down to 4x5 for my personal work.
Although it is not a fair test, given they were shot at different times and using different films and speed, it gives me a good enough idea.
I believe the 8x10 is clearly visible and would make a stronger object however, not good enough to deal with the logistics and the cost.


As many of you mentioned where it really shinned was 8x10 contact prints. After making a few quick and dirty prints I had a moment where I though about changing my entire practice to just do this. They were absolutely beautiful and extremely easy to make. I did an enlargement with a 4x5 negative to 8x10 for comparison (again different negatives ) and once again found the 8x10 to be a stronger print when it came to the presence that I spoke of earlier.

I'm lucky enough to share a studio space with a few old geezers who have been in the photo world for a long time; our studio space does not lack in analogue gear. My approach moving forward will be to continue my mirror / window work with 4x5 as it requires travel and lots of film and once again just borrow the D2 beater to do contact printed portrait work which I found to be extremely fun using 8x10. If I sell a bunch of these or get a big commission I will def upgrade to the Chamonix Alpinist with the rotating back as it is incredibly light weight and would give the best of both worlds however,

I'll never sell my beloved 4x5 again.

[Drew Wiley]

I find that stirring up fresh creativity rather than just doing what I already know how to do well often comes about by switching to another format or film. 8x10 is simply different from 4x5. And I do enlarge it. Then there are different logistical considerations. I'm basically a format schizophrenic. Sometimes it just comes down to the weather. I simply don't want to be drying out a bellows camera at the end of the day right now; laziness dictates MF gear. But I know how to make the most of that too. But for me, nothing has the sheer fun coefficient as much as 8x10.