Cost of Upgrading (4x5- 8x10)

[Tin Can]

Disagree

8X10, and 11X14 are wonderful

Yes I use a lot of x-Ray as reenactor as it's FUN

and my very bad eyes can SEE it

I cannot wait until I hear how I am not authentic Or true to LF

soon

LOL

ps I have plenty of the best film, KODAK

John,

I am a Sinar shooter in 4x5, 5x7 (which I use for 6x17) and 8x10. The real question is why do you want to move to 8x10? Are you printing extremely (in the area of 5' x 8') large? Do you need it for alt process? If you are shooting large format and then scanning you can make huge prints from a 4x5 negative.

Moving to 8x10 is crazy expensive, burdensome and limits you in movements due to the massive image circle you need from lenses to cover the format. If you want it for the quality that comes from such a large negative you will lose much of that by using x-ray film. You mentioned that you are still working towards getting your processing going. If I were you I would invest in making your 4x5 Sinar kit meet your needs and spend the money you save on a Jobo processor with a 3010 drum.

-Joshua

[Joshua Dunn]

Tin Can,

I agree that 8x10 is wonderful, I still shoot it. If you read my post I ask "The real question is why do you want to move to 8x10?" If there is a good reason (not format envy as Interneg referenced) to move up then so be it. I have worked with several film photographers who spent a lot of money changing to 8x10 format that did not see an appreciable result for their process. For example one of them did not want to spend the money on a large format printer. He had a printer that could print 17x22. So he would shoot 8x10, pay to have it scanned and then print 17x22. He could have easily done that with his 4x5 and eventually that is what he went back to. After selling his 8x10 gear at a loss he figured the whole experiment cost him $2000.

There is nothing wrong with x-ray as a film if it works for you but investing thousands to move up in format to then change to a medium you are unfamiliar with does not seem like a good idea to me.

Just my two cents.

-Joshua

[Drew Wiley]

Pricing of the necessary switch-out Sinar components is all over the map. Then you need to think of the portability of the system afterwards. Even though I had all kinds of Sinar components already on hand, when it came to field use of 8x10, I switched to a simplified Phillips folder instead. But most of my lenses had enough image circle to use on both 4x5 and 8x10 applications, and were precise enough for even smaller 6x9 roll film format too. So additional expense? - all depends. Yeah, film costs a lot more; but the bigger format makes one more contemplative too, and so you might trip the shutter less carelessly, and less often, and not really spend more for film in the long run.

8X10 has its own learning curve, especially with respect to depth of field strategy. But if one has big optical enlargements in mind, and the space and budget for an 8x10 enlarger, it's the way to go. Otherwise, you have the option of classic contact prints. And simply viewing the bigger ground glass of 8X10 is rewarding in its own right.

[Peter De Smidt]

Don't forget the costs of weight and bulk, especially of the film holders, and overall hassle. Now if you are only working in a studio, and you have a good studio stand, then those things don't really matter, but that's not how most people use 8x10 these days. I spent 20 years mainly using 4x5. I spent a few years with 8x10, and I found myself no longer willing to put up with the hassle. I still might use an 8x10 studio camera for portraits, but I've been meaning to do that for about a decade, and so far, it hasn't happened. There is significantly more hassle with 8x10 than 4x5 in many use cases.

[Vaidotas]

And simply viewing the bigger ground glass of 8X10 is rewarding in its own right.

If the ground glass size is the last concern, I would make a stop at banquet camera.
The bottle neck is BW film, so 8x10, being biggest LF format with constant film supply, sounds very attractive for most newcomers per se.

[bmikiten]

Good points. I think we all have to remember the magic in an 8x10 contact print as well. That's my main reason for shooting that format.

[xkaes]

If the ground glass size is the last concern, I would make a stop at banquet camera.

Are we're degenerating into "ground glass envy"?

[Tin Can]

The weight of 8X10 plastic holders are heavy

I also have nice wood 8X10 DDS, way lighter

However my 14X17 holders are VERY heavy plastic



and I am very sorry I wasted years with scan and print

never again

The ONLY rule is 4X5 And BIGGER FILM

[Drew Wiley]

The bigger the film, the greater the risk of sag in the holder unless you've got either a special adhesive holder of a vacuum one. But weight. Starting out, by selecting relatively petite lenses, a modern lighter weight 8x10 folding camera, and even a serious carbon fiber tripod, and coming to one's senses and realizing the whole point is to capture one or two really good shots per outing rather than a dozen "what if" ones, and thus carrying only a couple holders at a time, you're not going to be toting much more weight than a Sinar F2 4x5 system.

But converting a 4X5 Sinar to 8x10, especially if installing a good strong P back, is going to end up darn heavy. And in fact, it might be cheaper, if you want to stay in the Sinar system, to get a good deal on an outright fully equipped classic old Sinar Norma 8X10 - they're stronger than F cameras yet significantly lighter and more portable than P's.

[Tin Can]

My new and latest 8X10 Intrepid 4 is the lightest thing in my kit

and I just got 2 Luland SINAR to Technika amazing adapters

Very well made and fit perfectly on the Intrepid