5x8 format

[audioexcels]

Four 5x8 shots with one 8x10 holder is done with splitters in the camera back.The splitter creates a 5x8 opening on half the film. By moving the splitter and rotating the back you can expose the other half of the film.You end up with two 8x10 sheets with 2images on each sheet.

How easy is this to do and do the images turn out exactly as one would if shooting the entire sheet (meaning, taking movements and the splitter, etc. all into account), you get 4 uniquely nice shots with one film holder? If so, I have to definitely re-think 8X10...

And yeah...for GPS, my math has been terrible...

[audioexcels]

That makes good sense: the mask has to be right up against the film, or not at all. Thanks !

I had become so used to seeing and feeling in 4x5, that even 5x7 required adjustment at first. To get acquainted with 1:1.618, I have carried around a viewing rectangle in that format for a while. It's good to start over again, as a beginner. I have also gone over some of my older images, and experimented with cropping them in the new format. Sometimes, the new image is an improvement...

Perhaps another musical analogy is appropriate. Each format is like a key signature in music. Each has its own subtle feeling. That's why you hear that a particular piece is written in A Minor, or C Major, etc. In European music, there are 12 modes, each with its own name in Greek, and each with its own sensibility or "color", like the Blues. In Indian music, there are countless Ragas, each with its own Rasa or "taste". Given that musical notes and colors are all just numbers in relationship - or ratio - to one another, it's no surprise.

I love this shot a lot...it's truly gorgeous. I should quote it 100X over so I can see it all over this thread and the LF photos threads

[GPS]

Sorry...meant 4 shots with 1 holder...4 entirely different shots with 1 8X10 holder.

It happens... I didn't think you didn't know the split method. You know it now.

[GPS]

How easy is this to do and do the images turn out exactly as one would if shooting the entire sheet (meaning, taking movements and the splitter, etc. all into account), you get 4 uniquely nice shots with one film holder? If so, I have to definitely re-think 8X10...

And yeah...for GPS, my math has been terrible...

Unless there is not a firm decision to limit oneself to the 5x8 format only, the 8x10 makes definitely sens, especially with the weight saved on the film holders (eventually). In such a case the 8x10 film holder almost seems like a Quick pack...

[Kevin Klazek]

Using a splitter is very easy to do ( I have a 5x8 and a 4x10 splitter with my Dorff). The hardest part is remembering which half of the film you have exposed and which side of the holder you used. You do end up with 4 unique exposures with no overlap. Since I do mostly landscapes, movements are minimal and no issues when a splitter is in use. The back has to be designed to operate with the splitters, so I don't think every 8x10 back is set up for it. I can only relate my experience with a Dorff.

[Bruce Watson]

Unless there is not a firm decision to limit oneself to the 5x8 format only, the 8x10 makes definitely sens, especially with the weight saved on the film holders (eventually). In such a case the 8x10 film holder almost seems like a Quick pack...

I'm the OP for this thread. All I was asking about was whether or not the 5x8 format was ever used and if so, what camera manufacturers, film holders, etc.

What I've learned from this thread and other research is that it's pretty much an orphaned format. A little use, but never very popular for some reason. No standards for film holders etc. which makes it difficult for a camera builder to even make a 5x8. So there's only Chamonix now making both cameras and film holders. And the film holders are expensive.

I personally would rather have a dedicated 5x8 and not use an 8x10 for this duty. But I'll bite -- how do you propose to use a dark slide splitter with an 8x10 to get two 5x8 exposures on one sheet of 8x10 film? I can see how it would work with 4x10, but not 5x8. What am I missing here?

[Jiri Vasina]

You'd have to have 2 splitter darkslides - one for the image half at the flap, second one for the other half... At least this is how I imagine it would work...

And yes, the Chamonix 5x8 holders are expensive. If they were not included with the camera, I'd not choose the 5x8 camera at all. There were 2 of them included. For the current going price of the holders, I'm way too hesitant to buy more of them. Instead I adapted the camera back so I can use standard 13x18cm holders and have 8 of these. Here you also see why so many of my pictures are 13x18cm and so few 5x8...

[GPS]

I'm the OP for this thread..
-snip-
But I'll bite -- how do you propose to use a dark slide splitter with an 8x10 to get two 5x8 exposures on one sheet of 8x10 film? I can see how it would work with 4x10, but not 5x8. What am I missing here?

Four 5x8 shots with one 8x10 holder is done with splitters in the camera back.The splitter creates a 5x8 opening on half the film. By moving the splitter and rotating the back you can expose the other half of the film.You end up with two 8x10 sheets with 2images on each sheet.

[GPS]

Wonders of the lateral thinking - 8x10 /2 on the shorter side = 4x10. 8x10 /2 on the longer side = 8x5 = 5x8. It's all the fault of the British users...

[GPS]

You'd have to have 2 splitter darkslides - one for the image half at the flap, second one for the other half... At least this is how I imagine it would work...
-snip-
.

Eventually, you could use only one splitter dark slide - the other one (for the image near the flap) you could just draw out the normal dark slide a half way...