Presence in 8x10 photography

[armentor1@mac.com]

Why not consider 5x7 _ 13x18cm? Not a lot larger than 4x5 system, absolutely smaller and lower weight than 8x10 with often equal or in some cases better image capability (projection enlargement 2-3x) than 8x10 due to lens variety and required aperture and film flatness is easier to manage.

Gave up 8x10 about 25 years ago, no regrets in any way. Not the camera and related that makes 8x10 clunky, stack of twelve 8x10 film holders can be a challenge to transport.

What you're likely going to find, different between 4x5 vs 8x10 is in tonality, total lack of grain (B&W), and overall better ability to hold shadow detail and overall contrast rendition.

Another plug and opinion, ultimately you'll need to make this choice.
Bernice

Def have been considering it. I've been deterred by the longer ratio.

[Bernice Loui]

Crop to 5x6 or to your preferred ratio.
Done.


Bernice

Def have been considering it. I've been deterred by the longer ratio.

[arthur berger]

Many years ago I took a workshop with Oliver Gagliani and I was able to hold and view many of his 11 x 14 or so photographs ( mounted to
Approximately 17 x 22 ) They were beautiful and impressive.I then found out that they had all been taken with 5x7. However like you,
Oliver didn’t like the elongated format. So, he took 1/2 inch strips of wood, one on each side of the back that the film holder would rest on,
And had converted his 5x7 deardorff into a 5x6. This way he could visualize the cropped size on his ground glass and the negative would be the same. I would say his enlargements were as beautiful as any contact print.

[Bernice Loui]

Does not appear to be much difference between 4x5 to 5x6, except the difference in print image results is surprising.


Bernice

[neil poulsen]

Does not appear to be much difference between 4x5 to 5x6, except the difference in print image results is surprising.


Bernice

It's 50% more surface area on the negative. That's quite a bit.

I've considered going to 5x6.25, which is the largest 4x5 ratio one can pull from a 5x7 negative. But, I print small, so why bother? And, it just seems like everything's so well optimized towards 4x5.

For example, I like my 121mm SA as a super wide. These are inexpensive lenses. But, the corresponding lens for my upsized 5x7 negative would be a 150mm SW. (Jeepers!) Or, maybe a Sironar 150mm W with the 80 degree (?) image circle, which is also expensive. And of course, the camera and necessary enlarger are both quite a bit larger. Etc.

As I mentioned, I print small. But if I were regularly printing to 11x14 paper, I would give this up-sized negative serious thought.

[John Kasaian]

My camera of choice for places where the 8x10 'dorff can't go is a 5x7 Speed Graphic.
I'd love to find a 5x7 Nagaoka some day.

[Thom Bennett]

Keep in mind that there is no color film available in 5x7 format.

I think one of the benefits of 8x10 vs. 4x5 has not as much to do with film resolution, etc. but that composing on a larger piece of glass practically forces the photographer to pay attention to every aspect of the image and the end result is that the final print has that remarkable yet undefined presence. When composing, the edges are easier to see and how elements relate to each other in the scene is more obvious. You spend more time looking at that mesmerizing piece of glass.

Also, because of the expense and effort required to create an image, the photographer is more selective in what the subject matter will be, what the light is like, and how the image will look as a final print. Basically, 8x10 forces you to slow everything down and experience the image as it will appear as a photograph. I think this is what we are seeing when we look at images made with the larger cameras: the photographer's intention and execution is more apparent.

That said, I think a careful worker can pull off enormous prints with smaller formats. Polidori worked with 5x7 I believe. And perhaps some of Ansel Adams most famous images were created with 4x5. Locally, Kristina Knipe https://www.kristinaeknipe.com/ is doing great large color work with a 4x5.

Me? I'm committed to the contact print so 8x10 and 7x17 are ideal for what I'm doing. If I were to do any kind of color work at all I'd opt for 4x5 simply because of the expense.

[Bernice Loui]

There IS color film available for 5x7. As with most film for 5x7 or 13x18cm, order ahead and plan for what is needed.

Keep in mind cutting down 8x10 film to 5x7 is not difficult and done more often than most believe.


Larger GG does NOT increase seeing what is being presented on camera. This is a myth. It is more an issue and question of learning how to see what is in any view finder. Composition and visualizing skills apply to the display on a digital camera, view finder of a digital or film camera to a 20x24 or larger view camera. This skill is similar to learning how to see and visualize the view camera GG image that is upside down and backwards.

After doing the 8x10 view camera thing for two decades and a few thousand sheets of 8x10 film, that 8x10 GG is no longer special, mesmerizing or ___ . It becomes nothing more than tool and means of image creation.

Image making skills acquired from using a view camera can easily be applied to any image creation device be it film or digital or ?


Bernice

Keep in mind that there is no color film available in 5x7 format.

I think one of the benefits of 8x10 vs. 4x5 has not as much to do with film resolution, etc. but that composing on a larger piece of glass practically forces the photographer to pay attention to every aspect of the image and the end result is that the final print has that remarkable yet undefined presence. When composing, the edges are easier to see and how elements relate to each other in the scene is more obvious. You spend more time looking at that mesmerizing piece of glass.

Also, because of the expense and effort required to create an image, the photographer is more selective in what the subject matter will be, what the light is like, and how the image will look as a final print. Basically, 8x10 forces you to slow everything down and experience the image as it will appear as a photograph. I think this is what we are seeing when we look at images made with the larger cameras: the photographer's intention and execution is more apparent.

That said, I think a careful worker can pull off enormous prints with smaller formats. Polidori worked with 5x7 I believe. And perhaps some of Ansel Adams most famous images were created with 4x5. Locally, Kristina Knipe https://www.kristinaeknipe.com/ is doing great large color work with a 4x5.

Me? I'm committed to the contact print so 8x10 and 7x17 are ideal for what I'm doing. If I were to do any kind of color work at all I'd opt for 4x5 simply because of the expense.

[Oren Grad]

Keep in mind that there is no color film available in 5x7 format.

Not off the shelf, but Keith Canham has been periodically organizing special orders for Kodak color film in 5x7 as well as other sizes.

https://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html

[ColonelKurtz]

After doing the 8x10 view camera thing for two decades and a few thousand sheets of 8x10 film, that 8x10 GG is no longer special, mesmerizing or ___ . It becomes nothing more than tool and means of image creation.

Image making skills acquired from using a view camera can easily be applied to any image creation device be it film or digital or ?


Bernice

Heh, Alec Soth begs to differ, saying that his main reason for using the large camera is because of the "jewel like" image on the ground glass. Don't get me wrong, it'll probably always be wonderful for me to look at, but I got over that pretty quickly, myself. Love the discussion here. Thanks