Selling All 8x10 Gear & It Feels Good!

[John Kasaian]

I'm partial to my 8x10. I find it worth the exercise. YMMV, of course.

[Michael R]

I think you’ve made the right decision.

After years and years, I'm selling all my 8x10 gear, and strangely, it feels good. Not that 8x10 isn't a worthy format; we all know the opposite to be the case. But, I'm just not an 8x10 person; I'm a 4x5 and medium format person.

So, why did I collect this gear? In part, I was inspired by Ansel Adams, and how he made such good use of the 8x1o format. Someone asked him, what's your favorite camera, or words to that effect. He responded, the heaviest one I can carry. So, all of that influenced me. And practically speaking, every once and a while, it's been nice being able to capture an 8x10 image for the detail and texture that it can offer. But, no more. I'm in my 70's, and I need to "pare down." Oh my gosh, to what low levels have I descended to actually admit to, "paring down?" Jeepers!

In a John Sexton workshop that I took, he mused similar sentiments. He's just always been a 4x5 type of person. He admitted to owning an 8x10 camera; but, he wasn't sure where it was in the house.

Life can be full of transition, and this definitely qualifies as one.

[Tin Can]

Good for you!

I feel sick that LFPF is moving to smaller formats

At 4 AM today, there were 39 members signed in, 3 names I know

1000 Lurkers

I'm partial to my 8x10. I find it worth the exercise. YMMV, of course.

[Duolab123]

I shoot medium format but large format is awesome, something that can't be duplicated with d***tal, no way. I'm organizing my studio. I've got a monster Deardorff like Tin Can's, a very portable Deardorff V8, well used, holders etc. All great fun. It's a cheap hobby if you don't chase the newest dig**** nonsense.

[Michael Kadillak]

Good for you!

I feel sick that LFPF is moving to smaller formats

At 4 AM today, there were 39 members signed in, 3 names I know

1000 Lurkers

Completely agree that the trend line is discouraging at times. That being said, every time someone avails themselves of 8x10, the hope is someone else takes that baton and runs with it. Sometimes all it takes is a bit of knowledge to pass along to a younger "interested" party particularly when they they are considering getting off of the expensive "planned obsolescence" digital train can make a huge difference. Every time I have a curious fellow hiker look at a photograph about to be made on the 8x10 ground glass, the response is priceless. When I have the Deardorff 11x14 set up it blows their mind. I have had people pull off the road and double back when their curiosity gets the best of them as the size of this format is formidable. A friend of mine (Michael Roberts) and I were at the Dallas Divide in SW Colorado one recent fall day adjacent to a group that was attending a digital seminar. There must have been 15 photographers all set up identically - looked like the same tripod, ball head, Canon camera and lens. Michael and I set up on the other side of the parking lot and after the wave of shutter activations came and went over a few minute period Michael and I were still waiting for the light to get a bit better and found ourselves with an audience from the seminar asking some great questions and the level of curiosity was tremendous. Michael had his 10x12 and I had my 8x20 camera set up. It was only the seminar leader calling everyone back to the van that broke the conversation up. I distinctly remember when we mentioned to our curious audience that even if Michael and I had the same B&W film in our cameras, the results in the prints we produced could be vastly different because of the variables we each uniquely control such as exposure, developer, developing procedure, printing paper and the "vision" we saw. The looks on the faces of the folks told us they had something to think about.

[Steve Sherman]

Rarely do I ever hear of the format / perspective preference. I'm all about sq. in. of film, first and almost foremost, what trumps that is format for me. 90% of what I shoot is horizontal, I prefer the 5x7 format, or, an even greater panoramic format. When I look at an 8x10, 4x5 full frame negative, most times I believe the better image is actually 7x10. That said, in the vertical orientation the 8x10 is perfect where the 5x7 vertical is too narrow. One photogs 2 cents.

[Serge S]

I don't know if that is the case.
Seems LF still has an appeal, a few year's back there were not many YouTube videos on LF.
Now I see a bunch.

Maybe we are out shooting & not online

I feel sick that LFPF is moving to smaller formats

At 4 AM today, there were 39 members signed in, 3 names I know

1000 Lurkers

[Michael Kadillak]

Rarely do I ever hear of the format / perspective preference. I'm all about sq. in. of film, first and almost foremost, what trumps that is format for me. 90% of what I shoot is horizontal, I prefer the 5x7 format, or, an even greater panoramic format. When I look at an 8x10, 4x5 full frame negative, most times I believe the better image is actually 7x10. That said, in the vertical orientation the 8x10 is perfect where the 5x7 vertical is too narrow. One photogs 2 cents.

You make a great point Steve. Where the rubber meets the road for me is being able to buy a standard size of sheet film relative to "off" sizes that have to be custom cut. The variability requirements of adjusting the place to drop legs or gain verticality and opting for different focal lengths is easier than the rigors of special order sheet film.

[Tin Can]

7X11 Soon

It is so odd, I will cut my own

[r.e.]

Rarely do I ever hear of the format / perspective preference. I'm all about sq. in. of film, first and almost foremost, what trumps that is format for me. 90% of what I shoot is horizontal, I prefer the 5x7 format, or, an even greater panoramic format. When I look at an 8x10, 4x5 full frame negative, most times I believe the better image is actually 7x10. That said, in the vertical orientation the 8x10 is perfect where the 5x7 vertical is too narrow. One photogs 2 cents.

I think that people are well aware of the difference in aspect ratio between 4x5/8x10 and 5x7. When comparison of these formats is up for direct discussion, my recollection is that the issue comes up regularly. I think that what holds back 5x7, even among people who like the aspect ratio, is concern about the availability of film and gear (basically, concern about the viability of the format), and less than full buy-in to the idea that 5x7 can replace 8x10 for contact printing. Re panoramas... At 1.25:1 (4x5 & 8x10) and 1.4:1 (5x7), and as the attached spreadsheet shows, none of these cameras work for panoramas without substantial cropping/masking or a special or roll-film back. If wide cinematic images are the aim, I think that 8x10 is the most versatile, although not the cheapest, solution.

Aspect Ratios & Image Height:*




* Note that landscape height for 5x7 in the spreadsheet is overstated because it's based on sheet film dimensions, not image dimensions. I didn't have 5x7 image dimensions available when I made this spreadsheet.