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

[Michael R]

The vast majority of us, myself included, probably make better images with digital now. If I just want a picture of something, I use my phone like a normal person.

Agree. I mean to implicitly include digital cameras under "smaller formats".

[Serge S]

A few observations....and ramblings

I've never used 8X10 but admire the portrait work I have seen in that format. Weight being an issue for me I settled on 4x5 as I like the aspect ratio. Since my camera came with a 5x7 back, I shot 5x7 although I had no initial interest in the format.
A lingering thought of one day possibly acquiring an intrepid to do 8x10 contacts....I want to try platinum prints also & 5x7 will work.

My favorite portraits are done in 6x7 & 4x5 formats. I like the way the look is rendered. I don't find my 35mm digital or film work as compelling.
The bigger cameras force you to work differently & result in different looking work which I like vs the smaller format.

Now that I have a 4x5 enlarger, it will be interesting to see how my prints will look.
(I have been using an epson V800 to scan my negatives).
On a side note my 5x7 epson scans are a huge jump in quality compared to the 4x5 scans. I was quite surprised.
Also my 6x7 negatives (8x10 prints) are sharper than from 4x5 negatives. I don't really mind, just an observation that initially surprised me.
Not sure if it is a lens issue, as I tend to use the same lens 95% of the time.

I have been intrigued by soft focus lenses for portraits & in the Kodak soft focus lens with that big number 5 shutter.
That big shutter needs a sturdy camera.
Soft focus lenses to my eye work better with an 8x10 negative. I like the look!

I recently visited a gallery and my eye was pulled by a great series of portraits.
It happened to be 8x10 camera work & printed on silver gelatin paper.
They were wonderful environmental portraits - something about the 8x10 - maybe it's the fact the lenses are longer but the images have a great look & more immediacy and pull you in - more personable I guess.

Hope everyone has a enjoyable day!
Glad winter is over & I can shoot outdoors more!

[Roberto Nania]

A few observations....and ramblings

Hello Serge, you said it right. It's not (only) how big the negative is, there is more than that.
I do like the proportion of 4x5 / 8x10 (and 6x7), for portrait work it gives a sort of focusing point to the subject which I found it is not the case with 35mm (and 6x9); you can have very beautiful portrait with both (think about Steinmetz work which is mainly 6x9 - 35mm) but the photograph (the way we "read" it) will be different.
Big soft focus lens renders better on 8x10": I agree as well. I have a big Dogmar 5.5/360 (not a true SF lens but it is when used at FA) and I was amazed by the last portrait I made to my son on direct positive paper, there was like "magic" (allow me the word).
Then, I have shot many beautiful photographs on 4x5 that simply I couldn't do with 8x10" (mostly for lack of commitment, maybe).

Cheers

[gfeucht]

Ask Ansel.

Moon and Half Dome was taken with a Hasselblad. Cropped to portrait aspect.

Unless you intend to make contact prints in 8x10 from non-digital-negatives, I don't see much of a point to 8x10.

[Tin Can]

I prefer to make contacts up to 11X14

I will be making far larger contacts

this year

[Drew Bedo]

"Downgraded"? That sounds so judgmental!

I have shot both for years. Why limit yourself to one format? While many do, I just can't take my 8x10 rig outside, but the little Wista-made Zone VI goes into a shoulder bag that fits under the airplane seat or in the overhead.

[Drew Wiley]

I'll have to downgrade someday when the 8x10 finally gets too heavy, or else the film gets too darn expensive. In the meantime, I'll happily remain a format schizophrenic : MF last week, 8x10 in the pack for tomorrow, maybe 4x5 next week, even 35mm once in awhile.

gfeuct - gotta take exception to your remark. Put one of those cropped Hassie 16X20 prints in the same portfolio as optimized modern enlargements from 8x10 film printed the same size, and oh my, something just won't look right! And I'm very familiar with the actual AA print you're talking about, not just its reproductions. It's famous, of course, but barely holds up even to 16X20 scale. Different era. Most of his 8X10 images didn't fare so well larger than 20X24 print size. But relative to my own standards and full modern fillm and lenses, I would personally never print anything 645 (essentially 6X6 cropped) any larger than 11X14.

I do print a lot of 6X7 and 6X9 negs, color ones up to 20X24. They look great unless they're side by side with ones printed the same size from LF negs. Right now, in my fresh darkroom stack, I've got some of each, and the distinction is obvious. An 8X10 enlarged to 20X24 (only 2.5X) using a graphics apo lens has almost a micro-etched contact print look, maybe better. What's 645 at 2.5X? - smaller than a 5X7 postcard.

[Certain Exposures]

Hello,

I use both formats for different projects and for different reasons.
Honestly, I would downgrade to 4x5 if I didn't have something specific to do with 8x10; it is so much lighter and less expensive that I cannot see really a reason to use 8x10 for the same kind of images that can be done with 4x5, at least for current times.

Yes, that makes sense. I've been thinking about what I would want to shoot 8x10. I did a small project recently (on 4x5) as a "test."

Have a couple of DIY 8x10's around but have never really embraced the format. Smaller LF's (mostly 5x7 these days) work so well for me for all kinds of reasons (aspect ratio, logistics, field-condition performance thresholds, enlarge-ability, relative costs, etc.), and if I want to do contact prints...I go right to 11x14. Works for me!

11x14 would be so fun to try but my wallet protests!

Of course, downgrading from 8x10 to 4x5 can be a matter of degrees . . .

At various times, I've had a Sinar P 8x10 (a lightweight version), a Toyo 8x10 G, a very nice Deardorff, and an Arca Swiss 8x10 older version. (Not necessarily at the same time.) All were excellent cameras. And, I had a set of 8x10 lenses, including a 250mm f6.7 Fujinon for moderate wide-angle (ic of 398mm), a 355mm G-Claron, a Nikon 450mm M, a Nikon 450 Q, a 600mm Fuji C, and a Repro Claron 610mm. And, I should probably mention an 8x20 that I owned.

But, I didn't really use them. Any of them.

Alas, they've all been sold. I still have an 8x10 representation. I have a Bender kit 8x10 that I've customized. (It's actually quite a nice camera.) And, I recently purchased a 355mm Red Dot Artar in a Copal 2 shutter mounted by S. K. Grimes. Not to be caught short-handed, I also own an 8x10 enlarger. I'm keeping these items for one purpose, to photograph an old violin that I own.

The fact is, straight out and simple, I'm a 4x5 person. That's what I like, and that's what I've used the most. I took a workshop from John Sexton, and he articulated much the same sentiment. He said that he owned an 8x10, but he wasn't sure of where to find it.

I guess I'm in good company.

Was it the size and weight that turned you off?

I am still working slowly on my largest possible/affordable camera for me

I have 500 sheets of 2x 14X36" X-Ray

Maybe I get it done and usable before the sky falls

I keep busy as I fiddle about

PTL

Sounds interesting!

I'm not sold on the idea that going from 8x10 to 4x5 is a downgrade. I use 8x10 and 4x5 for different purposes, but tend to use 5x7 the most. The downsides of 8x10 can be many.

5x7 seems like the "Goldilocks." I'm really tempted to try it. The entry cost keeps me out.

I couldn't think of a more fitting word than "downgrade" the time. "Down-size" would have been perfect.

Having ended my professional activities, I have no more use for the 36x60" prints, so 8x10" gets less use.
I now have time to walk in rough terrain, then I take the 4x5" Linhof Technika.

Heavy camera but beautiful!

Why is it a downgrade? Best camera is the one with film in it.

I just couldn't think of the word "down-size" at the time. No harm meant. We agree.

The vast majority of us, myself included, probably make better images with digital now. If I just want a picture of something, I use my phone like a normal person.

For some reason, I find it hard to do impressionist soft focus landscapes on 4x5. So I still use 8x10, or I will this summer after a 2 year hiatus for health reasons.

Sometimes when I'm out shooting 4x5 in the city dozens of people will see what I'm going for, pull out their phone, get the shot way before me, walk off, and look super pleased. It's really funny.

I have found a lot of fun with 4x5 this past year. I only contact print (alt processes), so working with the small image has been challenging. Form becomes dominate over detail, and that sort of thing. The 4x5 has made it possible to do a small series of images while solo backpacking in the redwoods, hopefully continued when the water goes down this summer. Although the 5x7 is also possible, the extra weight is killer on the hike back out (and up). But 8x10 is a load unto itself these days...my equipment is too heavy, and spending the bucks to lighten that load no longer makes sense for backpacking concerns. That wind has blown...can't do both at the same time.

But for portability and print size, I have been loving the 5x7 quite a bit. 8x10 is still a lot of fun...it was cool and fun to get it out in Yosemite Valley for the participants of my workshop to use last month! And I need to make the purchase of the 11x14 worthwhile by printing the negatives! Especially the 5.5"x14" negs.

Wimping out on this trip to Scotland with family. Time-wise and all, the Rolleicord is going. Hopefully the 5x7 to Japan in the late Fall...but who knows, the 4x5 might be sweet in Kyoto.

TLR's are so easy to travel with. Boxes fit anywhere, they offend no-one, they're light, the image quality rocks. I'm super tempted to try 5x7. Enjoy your trip(s)! Japan is on my list.

I've generally settled upon 5x7 negatives for scanning and digital printing ( I have a 5x7 Omega E5 cold light enlarger but prefer digital processes for 5x7) and upon 11x14 for silver gelatin contact printing. The 5x7 Canham MQC57 outfit is only marginally larger and heavier than the 4x5 outfit and uses the same lenses, yet the larger negative and wider aspect ratio are preferable, at least to me. The Ritter carbon-fiber 11x14 is about the same weight as many 8x10 rigs, but my own sense is that the 11x14 negative makes a usefully bigger contact print. It's certainly larger and more awkward, though.

I may well be quirky, but 4x5 and 8x10 are the two formats that I generally do not use.

I would love to try 11x14 but I can't justify the expense. 11x14 contacts must look sooooooooo good.

No plans to downsize in this life

I need to get back to work on 14X36"

Lol, keep us posted .

I can't afford 8x10 film on a regular basis. that said, I did just buy an 8x10 studio camera. For me, there is a huge difference in looking at an 8x10 ground glass vs. a 4x5. Magic. 4x5 seems small after shooting 8x10

4x5 really is small if you compare a contact to the effort. I wouldn't be able to shoot 8x10 regularly either.

A few observations....and ramblings

I've never used 8X10 but admire the portrait work I have seen in that format. Weight being an issue for me I settled on 4x5 as I like the aspect ratio. Since my camera came with a 5x7 back, I shot 5x7 although I had no initial interest in the format.
A lingering thought of one day possibly acquiring an intrepid to do 8x10 contacts....I want to try platinum prints also & 5x7 will work.

My favorite portraits are done in 6x7 & 4x5 formats. I like the way the look is rendered. I don't find my 35mm digital or film work as compelling.
The bigger cameras force you to work differently & result in different looking work which I like vs the smaller format.

Now that I have a 4x5 enlarger, it will be interesting to see how my prints will look.
(I have been using an epson V800 to scan my negatives).
On a side note my 5x7 epson scans are a huge jump in quality compared to the 4x5 scans. I was quite surprised.
Also my 6x7 negatives (8x10 prints) are sharper than from 4x5 negatives. I don't really mind, just an observation that initially surprised me.
Not sure if it is a lens issue, as I tend to use the same lens 95% of the time.

I have been intrigued by soft focus lenses for portraits & in the Kodak soft focus lens with that big number 5 shutter.
That big shutter needs a sturdy camera.
Soft focus lenses to my eye work better with an 8x10 negative. I like the look!

I recently visited a gallery and my eye was pulled by a great series of portraits.
It happened to be 8x10 camera work & printed on silver gelatin paper.
They were wonderful environmental portraits - something about the 8x10 - maybe it's the fact the lenses are longer but the images have a great look & more immediacy and pull you in - more personable I guess.

Hope everyone has a enjoyable day!
Glad winter is over & I can shoot outdoors more!

Nice comment. Maybe it's harder for you to focus on the 4x5 ground glass than the 8x10 or 6x7? Who was the photographer behind the prints you liked?

Hello Serge, you said it right. It's not (only) how big the negative is, there is more than that.
I do like the proportion of 4x5 / 8x10 (and 6x7), for portrait work it gives a sort of focusing point to the subject which I found it is not the case with 35mm (and 6x9); you can have very beautiful portrait with both (think about Steinmetz work which is mainly 6x9 - 35mm) but the photograph (the way we "read" it) will be different.
Big soft focus lens renders better on 8x10": I agree as well. I have a big Dogmar 5.5/360 (not a true SF lens but it is when used at FA) and I was amazed by the last portrait I made to my son on direct positive paper, there was like "magic" (allow me the word).
Then, I have shot many beautiful photographs on 4x5 that simply I couldn't do with 8x10" (mostly for lack of commitment, maybe).

Cheers

8x10 is just so big that hauling it out has to be a song and dance. 4x5 still takes a lot of commitment. I just got back from a shoot and my back is still feeling it. I had to carry the camera around in a bag for a few hours. The weight piles up fast.

Ask Ansel.

Moon and Half Dome was taken with a Hasselblad. Cropped to portrait aspect.

Unless you intend to make contact prints in 8x10 from non-digital-negatives, I don't see much of a point to 8x10.

Yes, I'll be going for contacts and big slides if I ever try 8x10.

I prefer to make contacts up to 11X14

I will be making far larger contacts

this year

Link us when you do!

"Downgraded"? That sounds so judgmental!

I have shot both for years. Why limit yourself to one format? While many do, I just can't take my 8x10 rig outside, but the little Wista-made Zone VI goes into a shoulder bag that fits under the airplane seat or in the overhead.

Yes, I couldn't think of a better word (like "downsize") at the time. My main limits are weight and budget. I'd still like to expose a few 8x10 frames some day though. Maybe a workshop is the best bet.

I'll have to downgrade someday when the 8x10 finally gets too heavy, or else the film gets too darn expensive. In the meantime, I'll happily remain a format schizophrenic : MF last week, 8x10 in the pack for tomorrow, maybe 4x5 next week, even 35mm once in awhile.

gfeuct - gotta take exception to your remark. Put one of those cropped Hassie 16X20 prints in the same portfolio as optimized modern enlargements from 8x10 film printed the same size, and oh my, something just won't look right! And I'm very familiar with the actual AA print you're talking about, not just its reproductions. It's famous, of course, but barely holds up even to 16X20 scale. Different era. Most of his 8X10 images didn't fare so well larger than 20X24 print size. But relative to my own standards and full modern fillm and lenses, I would personally never print anything 645 (essentially 6X6 cropped) any larger than 11X14.

I do print a lot of 6X7 and 6X9 negs, color ones up to 20X24. They look great unless they're side by side with ones printed the same size from LF negs. Right now, in my fresh darkroom stack, I've got some of each, and the distinction is obvious. An 8X10 enlarged to 20X24 (only 2.5X) using a graphics apo lens has almost a micro-etched contact print look, maybe better. What's 645 at 2.5X? - smaller than a 5X7 postcard.

You must have a killer darkroom setup! I'd love to see 8x10 enlarged to 20x24 in person.

[Tin Can]

Just u wait

I am expecting Friday the biggest and heaviest 8x10 ever made

[Alan Klein]

Even Clyde Butcher had to downsize. Even went to digital.
https://clydebutcher.com/about-the-a...l-information/