They say to start with 4x5, but...

[jdk]

If you want to shoot 8x10 stop being a Nancy about it and shoot 8x10.
Life is too short to futz around.
It's only $$
If it's what makes you happy you'll only wonder why it took you so long to grab the ball and run with it.

You're ruining my foreplay.

[Two23]

The best advice so far is to have someone send you a well done 8x10 neg and see what can be done with it. I have an Epson scanner and know it's nowhere near up to what you want. You'll need a very high res drum scan. If it were me doing this I'd go for a digital medium format camera with something like a Leaf Aptus back and Zeiss lenses.



Kent in SD

[jdk]

The best advice so far is to have someone send you a well done 8x10 neg and see what can be done with it. I have an Epson scanner and know it's nowhere near up to what you want. You'll need a very high res drum scan. If it were me doing this I'd go for a digital medium format camera with something like a Leaf Aptus back and Zeiss lenses.



Kent in SD

I just sold my GFX100

But I think you're right, I'm going to get in touch with some of the few remaining drum scanners out there and see if they have some demo files they can send me.

[lenicolas]

I did consider 617 as an alternative. The Fuji GX617s are very cool, compact, and the benefits of roll film are obvious. But print size is the issue, which is why I started looking at 4x10 as essentially 6x17 on steroids. I get two shots out of an 8x10 sheet, and the camera size and weight is far more manageable than 8x10. Once I started down that path, the only question was whether to start out with 4x5 in accordance with conventional wisdom or just jump in and go for it. Turns out conventional wisdom may have shifted.

I hadn’t read the thread on onlandscape when I posted about 612 and roll films.
Based on that thread, if a Mamiya 7 can trounce the iq80 then one would think 612 has plenty of potential for huge enlargement.

I would definitely give roll film a chance before going into 8x10.
I’ve read all your comments that you’re not afraid of the weight or the cost, but I also know from experience that going from a small digicam such as your gfx to a large view camera makes a huge difference in the field. It’s easy to underestimate that difference until you’ve tried it.

I can try to digitise the center of a 612 neg to the point that film grain becomes detrimental, and send that file to you.
Then you could print that file at A3 and compare the detail to your 8ft prints.

Also at the risk of repeating myself, do not discard my suggestion of shooting 4x8 panoramas on two sheets of 45 via rear shift. (The Chamonix 45H-1 has enough rear shift to do this.)
It would give you the same enlargements as 4x10 on a much more practical sheet format.
Keep in mind that your lab and drum scanner operator will still charge you the price of 8x10 to process and scan your 410 slides…

[George Losse]

jdk,

I understand you want to limit your wasted effort in buying the wrong camera system, but you haven't mentioned where you are located. Are there any rental options in your area? Is there anybody shooting 8x10 in your circle of friends? Or region? If you were in my area, I'd suggest getting together and shooting together for a day.

It's hard to explain how different each camera/format is to work with. 4x5 is different from 4x10, 5x7, 8x10 or 8x20. Each format brings different problems and rewards. Sometimes there is no better way of learning than just doing. It has been suggested, buy something and shoot with it. I agree. Working with a camera is the only way to find out if a format. But be careful, the wrong camera can turn you off of a format also.

The best advise I ever received was to buy an affordable used camera and give a new format a try. If it's not for you sell the camera and move on. I did this with 4x5, 8x10 and also 8x20. I still shoot all three formats on upgraded cameras, and have sold off my first cameras for each format.

[rdenney]

With 6x12, the challenge is film flatness even more than with sheet film. I like my results, but my prints are not measured in many feet.

Rick “theory may not meet practice because of film flatness” Denney

[Bernice Loui]

More than just film flatness, camera alignment, camera stability or movement of any kind become non-linear difficult as the sheet film size goes up.

Stopping the lens down as the film format size goes up is NOT the proper cure. The actual cure is to assure film flatness in the film holder by adhesive, vacuum or other methods. Then there is the camera issue, front to rear standards to ground glass to film holder area MUST start out as parallel as possible (like 0.01" or better at each corner) before applying any camera movements and check for absolute focus with a proper magnifier (~7x) on the GG before the lens is stopped down and at lens taking aperture to. Then lens mounting and all related to the camera mechanics. Then comes keeping a BIG camera from moving in the real world of image making. This is one of the most often neglected then taken for granted aspects of view camera image making.

Yes larger lens apertures are used for view camera work, it is a image making style thing.. More on this later, and yes some view camera lenses are have remarkable optical performance at full aperture.


Bernice

[Willie]

Maybe try B&W and shoot glass plates?