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