Have any of you downsized from 8x10 to 4x5? Why?

[Certain Exposures]

EDIT: This title and post should read "downsize" not "downgrade." I couldn't think of the appropriate word at the time.

I decided to make this a "sister" thread to this one. I'm curious if any of you "downgraded" from 8x10 to 4x5 for reasons beyond just health or fitness and why you did so.

I thought about it hard this weekend.

I decided I won't go from 4x5 to 8x10 despite the temptation because:

1) The price.
2) I often want to print a size larger or smaller than 8x10.
3) The subject matter I like the most usually requires some speed.
4) I've walked miles with my Crown Graphic in my backpack. I could still get a 4x5 with even more movements, less weight, and a smaller footprint.

Moderator's note: just saw this now, I've revised the thread title. -- Oren

[Michael R]

5) The vast majority of people will do better work with smaller formats

(not a popular opinion here but I stand by it)

[Andrew O'Neill]

I still shoot 8x10, but not as much as I used to. Why? Price.

[Mark Sampson]

I actually began in LF with an 8x10 camera, in 1981. After a year I downsized to 4x5, basically for your reasons 1,2, and 4.
Since then I've used 8x10 on the job, sporadically, and very occasionally for personal work. That not since 2010... I admire the format but it's still not optimum for me. As you gain LF experience you may change your mind; nothing is more beautiful than a big contact print. But those will be waiting for you when you're ready.

[ethics_gradient]

I bought an 8x10 for wet plate, and while I love the handful of (successful) bigger plates I've done, the vast majority of what I shoot is still 4x5.

1) Much more work to get the gear out - I'm pretty much stuck shooting "tethered" to my van. The 4x5/5x7 setup I can pack everything into a big pram and take on-site.
2) More limited range of lenses - I have a pretty complete set of 4x5 lenses already, but only a 180 (with marginal coverage) and 300 for 8x10.
3) Less happy to risk it because it's more expensive - last time I had it out I actually aborted the shoot because I was worried a stray wave might knock it over while I was going back for my plate. I also don't want to leave it on a tripod out in public, although in fairness everyone seems to think my beater Rittreck is expensive and it's always been left alone.
4) Collodion is really expensive here in Australia, so only getting 1/4 as many plates out of a bottle is tough.

[earlnash]

I've shot 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. Much of what I love about large format is present in any size - the intentionality of it, the procedures and work flow, the patience of it, the relationship to the subject, the film, the darkroom or scanner/printer. Unless you're Alec Soth shooting 8x10 color for massive wall-sized prints at exhibitions, or you do work like Edward Burtynsky, or maybe you like contact printing...

I'd be interested to hear from others where they see the niche for 8x10.

www.michaelsobel.photo

[Eric Woodbury]

I like the idea of 8x10, but it is too heavy for me now. Too many trips. The contact prints are beautiful, but it is just too much for me. I still have 5x7 and 4x5. That's fine. The Deardorff is on the auction block soon.

e

[linhofbiker]

I started shooting 4x5 in 1973 and always had a 4x5 camera along with various 35mm and 120/220 and lately several digital including my iPhone 8.
Over the years, shooting 4x5, I tended towards wide angle.
Changed my Linhof 4x5 Kardan TL to a 4x10 with a Chinese back.
Now with the 4x10 and the Super Angulons in 121 and 165 I am all set for shooting wide stuff that interests me.
Still have 4x5 and 5x7 cameras and a bunch of lenses - may have to sell these to concentrate on the 4x10 (less distractions).
I always thought that you can never have too many cameras and lenses. I was wrong. At 78 I intend to practice the KISS principal more astutely.

[gypsydog]

Blaspheme

[interneg]

5) The vast majority of people will do better work with smaller formats

(not a popular opinion here but I stand by it)

And they could do with jettisoning most of the lenses they have too...

A great deal of the better 8x10 work was/ is done with much more minimal setups than opinions on here seem to think people must have for 8x10