Question again, why just 4x5 or 8x10, why is 5x7 so often never considered?
Bernice
Question again, why just 4x5 or 8x10, why is 5x7 so often never considered?
Bernice
8x10 is nice to shoot for contact prints, and the subjects for portraits I’ve shot at 8x10 seem to enjoy the experience better. Since I typically shoot dry plates I made, cost doesn’t factor in too much. 8x10 can be more of a hassle — no, more of an *experience*. The larger the format, the more special the process in shooting the photo. Otherwise for making prints there’s not much of a difference.
That said, my favorite format is Whole Plate...somewhere between 4x5 and 8x10.
One note: In your photographic journey, you *really* should shoot and then hold up an 8x10 sheet of developed positive film.
Newly made large format dry plates available! Look:
https://www.pictoriographica.com
I expect more difference between two photographers using the same format than between two formats from the same photographer. Which is to say that tools are tools and as long as you know how to use them what matters most is how you use them.
For me, it's the different aspect ratio. I really dislike the 35mm aspect ratio of 2x3. 5x7 is only a quarter of an inch on each side away from that.
I have thought of photographing in 5x6.25 using 5x7 film. This would give me a 4x5 aspect ratio, but with substantially greater area. Plus, it would allow handles on each side by which to handle the negative. But then, one is looking at bigger lenses, a bigger camera, larger film holders, bigger developing tanks, larger enlarger, etc.
And, I don't print much larger than 3x, so there's not really much advantage to the larger area negative.
All this said, I can think of multiple, really excellent photographers, who love the 5x7 format.
These are all very telling observations, especially the last one. Not having photographed that much in 8x10, I was sort of dimly aware of some of them. But, Eric's comments puts them into very clear perspectives.
I prefer 5x7 for landscape.
I have cropped 11x14 to that ratio for portrait.
However I always set my iPhone to square if it fits which may come from shooting 126 when young, even then I knew it was 35mm stock.
I seldom use my Hasselblad it feels awkward.
Trying out 6x7 RF as I like my RB.
Tin Can
Makes more sense to compare different sizes with the same aspect ratio.
I like the idea of 5x7. When I first started large format I thought about 5x7 vs 4x5 for a long time as I like them both, but ultimately decided 4x5 was big enough, that it would be easier to outfit with lenses, and that it was unlikely I'd ever be able to set myself up to enlarge 5x7 negatives. That was the most important limitation for me at the time.
In 1972 when I returned from years overseas where large cameras were impractical, 5x7 had an economic advantage over 4x5. Film was more expensive, but cameras and enlargers were not. Then, when the darkroom with its monster Elwood enlarger burned, 4x5 had become more practical. An improvised 4x5 back on the bigger cameras made the transition easy. Any loss in image quality from the downsizing didn't matter for 16x20 prints. Now even a digital camera comes close enough for much work. Ah, progress!
I find that it's easier to make a super clean image on 4x5 for lots of obvious reason. The films we have now are so fine grained that a guy like John Sexton is basically correct, that for his style, moving up to 8x10 would have diminishing returns and cause him to likely make fewer pictures. If your goal is a technically perfect image, 4x5 makes that easier. You could too say the same thing about 5x7. In fact I think the best 4x5 field cameras are 5x7 cameras with a reduction back. But the aspect ratio changes things quite a bit, and if you're enlarging you need a bigger rig, etc...
8x10 though has it's own unique qualities and I shoot as much of it as I can. IMHO you just get that different world look via 8x10 more easily, which is not really John Sexton's goal.
A sheet of TMax 400 is absolutely stunning from 4x5 and up.
4x5 home scans look a lot better than medium format and 35mm. I don't have an 8x10, so I don't know if those scans would be better than 4x5.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Bookmarks