Presence in 8x10 photography

[Vaughn]

It is 5x7 that has that high fun coefficient for me...right now, anyway. Big enough for contacts, small enough to to use without much effort. Easy to travel with. Got a bad knee right now that makes carrying the 8x10 a no-go right now.

[Exploring Large Format]

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

Once again, I find your comment to be a little gem that I copy and put in my Notes files so I can reference later.

However, could you explain why there is less of a difference with color:

"Moving up to 5x7 or 8x10 in B&W does make a difference over 4x5 when optically enlarge printed. Color less so."?

Thanks!

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

[Drew Wiley]

Color less so? Not in my opinion! I guess that is if you're dealing with a stock photo selection atop a light box a few decades back deciding which to print in a magazine, possibly reduced smaller than even a 4x5 original. It wouldn't have made any difference. But it can make a significant difference on larger scale, PROVIDED all the relevant logistical issues have been ironed out first, technique-wise. As a darkroom color printmaker, I could go into all kinds of technical reasons pro or con. But 8x10 color film is getting quite expensive.