Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52

Thread: Does the 5X8 format have advantages over 5X7?

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kingwood, Texas USA
    Posts
    274

    Re: Does the 5X8 format have advantages over 5X7?

    Does anybody have a viable solution for using 810 holders to shoot the 58 format?

  2. #12
    Michael Alpert
    Guest

    Re: Does the 5X8 format have advantages over 5X7?

    I know that some people love the well-made Chaminox 5x8 camera. I just don't understand why. If you are contact-printing 5x8 negatives and specifically want that ratio, then it would make sense to choose 5x8. Otherwise, I don't see any advantage in using a non-standard format. None. Cameras, film, and holders are easily available from a variety of sources in 5x7 but not in 5x8. Cutting 8x10 film to 5x7 is only slightly more difficult than to 5x8, with really insignificant waste. If you are going to use a traditional darkroom, a 5x7 enlarger is much more manageable than an 8x10 enlarger. You can crop 5x7 to different ratios without any discernable loss in resolution. If (as you mentioned) you are going to depend on a commercial lab to process and scan your film, the file size from a 5x7 scan should be more than ample.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    104

    Re: Does the 5X8 format have advantages over 5X7?

    Quote Originally Posted by aduncanson View Post
    timberline,

    I too love the idea of 5x8.

    1) You can crop your 4x5 film to approximately 3x5 to achieve your 1.6:1 aspect ratio and only lose about 21% of your film area. (Don't forget that you only get about 3.75 x 4.75" in your 4x5 negs due to masking by the film holder.)
    I think I like this idea since 4X5 film has a lot of options for film, labs, etc.

    If I crop (postprocessing) my 4X5 photos to 3X5 (or 1:1.618) aspect ratio, what enlargements are possible?

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    104

    Re: Does the 5X8 format have advantages over 5X7?

    Quote Originally Posted by timberline12k View Post
    Recognizing a 5X8 has twice the film area of a 4X5, I will be effectively wasting half my exposed 4X5 film if I like the 1:1.6 aspect ratio.
    Oops, I would only loose 1/4th of the film with a 3X5. I would loose half with a 2X5.

    5X8 is still double the film area of a 4X5.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,439

    Re: Does the 5X8 format have advantages over 5X7?

    Quote Originally Posted by timberline12k View Post
    Who is Juri? Oh I think you meant Jiri: http://www.vasina.net/?p=94.........
    Yes I did,
    I often post from an iPhone and it replaces what you write with what it thinks you meant to write, if you don't catch it....

    So, Jiri and the iPhone's version, Juri, is a very good shooter and very nice guy.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    1,195

    Re: Does the 5X8 format have advantages over 5X7?

    Allen, thanks a lot for the kind words. And I don't mind the misspelling of the name - I sometimes misspell other's names too, if they are in a language I do not know (Jiri is a Czech variant of George).

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Alpert View Post
    I know that some people love the well-made Chaminox 5x8 camera. I just don't understand why. If you are contact-printing 5x8 negatives and specifically want that ratio, then it would make sense to choose 5x8. Otherwise, I don't see any advantage in using a non-standard format. None. Cameras, film, and holders are easily available from a variety of sources in 5x7 but not in 5x8. Cutting 8x10 film to 5x7 is only slightly more difficult than to 5x8, with really insignificant waste. If you are going to use a traditional darkroom, a 5x7 enlarger is much more manageable than an 8x10 enlarger. You can crop 5x7 to different ratios without any discernable loss in resolution. If (as you mentioned) you are going to depend on a commercial lab to process and scan your film, the file size from a 5x7 scan should be more than ample.
    Michael, I have to respectfully disagree in several points.

    The amount of disadvantages of using a non-standard format only depends on how you look at it (it's similar to the old one: half full/half empty bottle). You are right that cameras and holders are much easier to come by on the used market, and the Chamonix has a rather long delivery interval, so even if you buy new. But if you think of film the situation quickly changes vice versa, especially if you consider color films.

    In BW, a lot of (almost all?) the films that are available in 4x5 and 8x10 are also available in 5x7/13x18cm. So (almost) no problem there. But in color, most films are available in 4x5, some in 8x10 and only very few in 13x18/5x7. And if they are, it usually means ordering from far away for a premium. It's much easier to get 8x10 film than 5x7 one.

    Cutting: each manipulation with the film in the dark is a chance for dust to get on the film, for the film to be scratched, for fingerprints from mistakes in manipulation. It's best to minimize the amount of handling. So IMO (and we may differ there), it's best to do only one cut (8x10 -> 5x8 or 4x10). You can prepare the trimmer with lights on, and then cut the film sheets, put the film back in the packs and you are done.

    If you have to cut twice (8x10 -> 5x7), you have either to cut several sheets to 5x8 and then put them in a lighttight box, change the setting on the trimmer and cut 5x8 -> 5x7 (better workflow). Or you cut each sheet 8x10 -> 5x8 -> 5x7, where there is higher possibility of cutting for a wrong dimension (and as you all know, even milimeter can be too much of a difference).

    You are right that if you enlarge, having a 5x8 mask for a 8x10 enlarger is more hassle (if it can be had at all), than having a 5x7 enlarger and masking for 4.25x7. And the quality difference is not detectable in most cases. But as I am scanning all my films and have then a digital workflow, there is no difference to me. Only gains from the larger film area.

    You are also right that commercial processing of 5x8 might be more difficult. But since I do not know of any lab willing (or able) to process sheet films larger than 4x5 around me (for at least a partly reasonable price), I process all my films myself. You don't have to have a proper darkroom for processing, only darkness to put the films from holders to developing tanks. And you have to have that, otherwise you could not put the film in the holders, could you?

    A question like yours was recently asked about the 7x11 format, why would people go for that instead of just cropping 8x10. One of the answers that I liked most was ~"if you have to ask, it can not be explained to you" (roughly).

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Fisher View Post
    Does anybody have a viable solution for using 810 holders to shoot the 58 format?
    yes, there is an easy solution, but you need 2 spare darkslides. you cut a 5x8 window in each of them (or very slightly less, leaving a border around the window). In the first one you cut it far from the "flap"(?) (tab?, handle?), in the second you cut it close to the "handle". But you have to place the cuts to fit on the film and not overlap themselves.

    Then for shooting, you pull out the (full) darkslide from the holder, replace with the proper window-darkslide (with the window on the side that was not already shot), get the shot, replace the window-darkslide with the full one, prepare a second shot and use the second window-darkslide...

    (I hope it's clear enough).

    Jiri
    Jiri Vasina
    www.vasina.net

    @ Google+ | @ Facebook | @ flickr

    My books @ Blurb (only heavily outdated "Serene Landscape").

  7. #17
    Michael Alpert
    Guest

    Re: Does the 5X8 format have advantages over 5X7?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiri Vasina View Post
    One of the answers that I liked most was ~"if you have to ask, it can not be explained to you" (roughly).
    Jiri,

    Okay. I mean your point of view is okay. Only what you are doing and what the original poster wants to do are not the same. (I wasn't trying to help you.) He wants to use a commercial lab to have film scanned. I don't think what he wants fits your situation. And I don't think 5x8 fits his situation. Perhaps it would make much better sense for timberline12k to use 4x5 film. That's his call. In any case, the answer (above) that you liked most seems a little too smug to me. But, of course, if you need to have its smugness explained . . .

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    1,195

    Re: Does the 5X8 format have advantages over 5X7?

    Michael, I did not mean it to be smug. English is not my native language (and in the past year my almost sole use of English was here in the forum, and for some books), so I may use it in a bad way involuntary not understanding the nuances. It was not meant to be smug (or arrogant, or anyhow negative. I had to look the "smug" word up).

    I also understand that David's situation is different, and I completely agree with you, that 4x5 masked to the ratio is probably the best solution for him - and then later when he finds out his needs/wants/limitations, he can choose to drop it, or to pursue a 5x8" camera. I've written so in one of my previous replies...

    Jiri
    Jiri Vasina
    www.vasina.net

    @ Google+ | @ Facebook | @ flickr

    My books @ Blurb (only heavily outdated "Serene Landscape").

  9. #19
    Michael Alpert
    Guest

    Re: Does the 5X8 format have advantages over 5X7?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiri Vasina View Post
    Michael, I did not mean it to be smug. English is not my native language (and in the past year my almost sole use of English was here in the forum, and for some books), so I may use it in a bad way involuntary not understanding the nuances. It was not meant to be smug (or arrogant, or anyhow negative. I had to look the "smug" word up).

    I also understand that David's situation is different, and I completely agree with you, that 4x5 masked to the ratio is probably the best solution for him - and then later when he finds out his needs/wants/limitations, he can choose to drop it, or to pursue a 5x8" camera. I've written so in one of my previous replies...

    Jiri
    Jiri,

    Thank you. All is well. With your explanation, I understand you better.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    104

    Re: Does the 5X8 format have advantages over 5X7?

    The 4X5 format has a low entry cost and will give me an opportunity to explore large format photography. I plan to experiment with aspect ratios to determine my preference.

    I plan to crop photos to see what looks good with different ratios. Attached is an example how I plan to compare original 4X5s with various aspect ratios, in this case a 5X8.

    I am assuming 3X5 film should still allow reasonable enlargements, although I suspect I may start to run into problems with 12X20 or 18X30 prints.

Similar Threads

  1. Large format vs. medium format
    By Jon Warwick in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 13-Oct-2008, 01:54
  2. Advantages of 5x7 over 4x5 - flexability?
    By Michael_4021 in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 26-Feb-2008, 05:05
  3. Another odd format
    By Martin F. Melhus in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 27-Aug-2001, 02:18
  4. 5X7 vs 4X5
    By Jef Torp in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13-Feb-2001, 17:22
  5. State of the art large format lenses for 4x5 and 5x7
    By Eugene H. Johnson in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26-Dec-1997, 22:46

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •