4x5 or 8x10

[Pawlowski6132]

So, I've really taken to the 4x5 format.

I've sold my digital camera. I've sold my MF outfit. I'm keeping my 35mm SLR.

I'm starting to wonder now if I should concentrate on the 4x5 or put that behind me and focus on 8x10. As I see it, the issue I need to resolve is, does the benefit of being able to enlarge 4x5 negatives vs. only being able to contact print an 8x10 negative outweigh the detail I can get in 8x10?

I shoot almost primarly portrait photographs.

What other issues am I missing that need to be considered?

[Lachlan 717]

Price and availability of film.

[jp]

Lens price is a biggy. Lenses suitable for 8x10 cost about 2-3x more on the used market.

Longer lens focal lengths for bigger formats will mean less DOF. This could require a smaller aperture use, and thus a more powerful flash (or longer exposures if naturally lit). You could be on the verge of a flash system upgrade depending on how you light your subjects.

Cameras are cheap for both systems.

I don't think you'll see all the detail in an 8x10 simply by contact printing it. It will be a very nice contact print of course.

You can scan both sizes with an epson v700/v750.

[Pawlowski6132]

Thanx Lachlan 617. I like your tag line.

Can't I always buy 8x10 film at, say, B&H? Are you talkking about long term viability?

[Frank Petronio]

There is plenty of 8x10 and customers to buy it, but it isn't cheap. B&H has tons of it.

[Pawlowski6132]

Longer lens focal lengths for bigger formats will mean less DOF. This could require a smaller aperture use, and thus a more powerful flash (or longer exposures if naturally lit). You could be on the verge of a flash system upgrade depending on how you light your subjects.

I don't think you'll see all the detail in an 8x10 simply by contact printing it. It will be a very nice contact print of course.

Ahh, something I didn't think of. I guess I can pull the charts and/or do the math but I usually like about 4 to 5 inches DOF for my portraits. Hmmm...

I really prefer natural lights. 400 ISO??


Also, If I can't see all the detail in an 8x10 contact, I would have to enlarge to appreciate the detail? I don't have to buy another enlarger do I????

[Mark Woods]

I think that the scan is a judgment call. I get wonderful prints from 8x10s both in contact and enlargements (I do own an 8x10 enlarger). I haven't found the lenses to be particularly expensive, but I think that's a relative issue tied to ones income/resources. That said, I shoot most of my 8x10s with a TR triple convertible or a 210mm Repro Claron. The TR is usually in the 12" configuration. I just purchased a Chamnoix 11x14. What I've discovered is that each format has a "feel" for the subject. Some compositions are right for 4x5 while others are 8x10. Most of the lenses I use on 4x5 are multi coated. Most of the shots I do on the 8x10 are not coated. It's a different look. I have yet to work with the 11x14, but I'm sure it will have it's own personality. I still shoot with my dad's 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 Crown Graphic with a 120 roll film back. Non coated lens and a very particular look. When I shoot 35mm, I don't use my modern Pentaxes, but a 1938 Leica IIIa with an uncoated 50mm Tessar lens. I love the old feeling of the images. Finally, if you're going to do alternative processing, and do it in the traditional manner (i.e., no digital interface) you generally need a bigger negative. That said, I have some lovely 4x5 Platinum/Palladium prints that are little jewels. Per Volquartz mentioned to me that he was at a photography exhibit of all the dead lions of photography and the image that stole everyone's heart was a contact print that Stieglitz shot of Georgia O'Keeffe. Shoot what's right for you and don't sweat the small stuff!

[jeroldharter]

The lenses for 8x10 are somewhat more expensive, but often you don't use as many lenses which partially offsets the premium.

For portraits, the big issue is less depth of field, the need for more light to compensate for stopping down, and the expense of film. TMY2 is about $5 per sheet. Make you wish people never blinked.

I have spent the last year getting set up in 8x10 and I am still working at it. On paper, it is just a large 4x5 but everything weighs 4x as much and takes up 4x more space which is easy to understand but not so easy deal with at times (e.g. travel). If you are not going to enlarge 8x10's, then you are left with contact printing which is much different. I don't find contact printing as enjoyable and don't like being limited to 8x10 prints.

If I were you, I would stick with 4x5 but consider buying a beater 8x10 with a single lens for portraits. You might try renting a kit for a weekend if you live in a big city or borrowing/practicing with someone from the forum if you live in the vicinity.

[Pawlowski6132]

The lenses for 8x10 are somewhat more expensive, but often you don't use as many lenses which partially offsets the premium.

For portraits, the big issue is less depth of field, the need for more light to compensate for stopping down, and the expense of film. TMY2 is about $5 per sheet. Make you wish people never blinked.

I have spent the last year getting set up in 8x10 and I am still working at it. On paper, it is just a large 4x5 but everything weighs 4x as much and takes up 4x more space which is easy to understand but not so easy deal with at times (e.g. travel). If you are not going to enlarge 8x10's, then you are left with contact printing which is much different. I don't find contact printing as enjoyable and don't like being limited to 8x10 prints.

If I were you, I would stick with 4x5 but consider buying a beater 8x10 with a single lens for portraits. You might try renting a kit for a weekend if you live in a big city or borrowing/practicing with someone from the forum if you live in the vicinity.

How far is Stevens Point from South Bend??

[aduncanson]

Consider how many lenses you might want to own and how far you will want to carry them. Many 8x10 lenses are large and heavy.