5x7 instead of 8x10?

[Stpephen Willlard]

Currently I have been using a 4x5 camera and in my quest for greater clarity I h ave been considering moving to a larger format. The natural progression would be to go to 8x10. Unfortunately, 8x10 has a bunch of draw backs such as restricte d DOF, very expensive to outfit, very expensive to operate, and very heavy.

As a compromise I am considering a 5x7. With the 5x7 I can use most of my curre nt lenses (with less movement), and the Wisner 5x7 Pocket camera only weighs 4.5 lbs. I hope to get a 4x5 reducing back when lots of coverage is needed and hav e my 4x10 back standard modified so that it is interchangable with the 5x7 back for panoramics.

So here is my question. To use a 5x7 with color negative film, I plan on cutti ng 8x10 film to 5x7 - two sheets per 8x10 sheet. Has any body had any experien ce doing this? Have you had any problems with dust due to extensive handling? What other problems have you had? And last, for those who have a 5x7, can you give me any advice about your experiences with this format?

Thanks for any help.

[Jeff Buckels]

I've cut some 8x10 to 5x7. You just have to trump up some sort of system -- make palpable marks at the appropriate spots on your cutting board or whatever. I got clean negatives out of it even though it seemed at times like I was doing a lot of fumbling around in the dark. -jeff buckels

[David Bradley]

This is admittedly not an answer to your question, but I'm interested in your statement that you want greater clarity than can be achieved with 4x5. Could you tell us what kinds of things you are doing for which 4x5 is proving inadequate?

[David F. Stein]

The old-timers had good solutions here: look for one of the 8x10 backs that had sliding "doors" to create 2-4x10s or 2-5x8s, no need to cut down film, buy special panoramic backs and holders, etc. By the same token, I have opened many an old glass plate holder and found attached inside a film sheath for a smaller format. Where there is a will there is a way. I think your overall ideas about 5x7 make a lot of sense, including having generous bellows when shooting 4x5. Good luck.

[David R Munson]

FWIW, if done right, 8x10 doesn't have to be any heavier than 4x5. My 8x10 system (Deardorff, 1 lens, 4 film holders, Ries tripod) is noticably lighter than my 4x5 kit and infinitely lighter than that blasted RB67 of mine.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I second David M, my 8x10 outfit even with the 300 Sironar N, 2 film holders, Gitzo CF and magnesium head is way lighter than my 4x5 with all the lenses, and to tell you the truth more enjoyable.

[William Blunt]

Stephen, I use 5x7 black and white film so no need to cut down film but I do cut 8x10 to 4x10 with no problem. I use a roller type cutter I purchased just for this purpose. Jay Dusard told me how to make a template out of mat board that works fine. If you would like e-mail me with a mailing address and I'll send a copy of his instructions along. Hope this may help William Blunt

[Jim Galli]

Stephan, I can speak from both perspectives. I have a Deardorff like David and it is quite useable. Still if I didn't want to fiddle with platinum contacts my 5X7 is so much easier and enjoyable to use. For enlarging negs, 5X7 is a very logical stopping place and like I said other than contacts, I probably wouldn't keep the 8X10 around. And there are so many fabulous lenses for 5X7. Half the ones in your 4X5 bag. I bought a roll of KodaK Aerial Pan that's 5"X 500 ft and have been cutting it down. I have a cheap plastic Fiskar wheel cutter, and I simply tape a ruler where the film is to stop. It works well but......are the pinholes from bodily fluids that come out of my hands even after a good washing?? It's making me think twice about my 17? 5X7 negs. Good luck.

[e]

I heard Wisner is making a 5x8 back for their 8x10 cameras soon.for 2 pics on one sheet of 8x10 film. No cutting and two formats instead of one.I'm in the same dilemma .....I'll most likly end up with a 5x7.

[QT Luong]

I am a 5x7 photographer. I chose to cut myself the film from 8x10. This is done neatly with a Rotatrim Mastercut II, a rotary blade cutter, and while it sounds a delicate task at first, it is in fact very easy to do. I wouldn't use anything else, as precision is critical. One tip: I've found that it is difficult to align the film with minute precision, I cut slightly smaller than 5x7 to be sure there won't be problems to fit holders. Because of that, you'll need to cut a sheet of 8x10 three times to make two 5x7. If you use only one kind of film, it is not necessary to punch a new notch. I just keep the film emulsion facing the top of the film box. I have misloaded film only one time, out of more than a thousand of sheets cut. It takes me between 30 min to one hour to cut 25 8x10 sheets. It's not that tedious if you listen to music at the same time. The problem is that while you don't have to worry about finger marks which are washed away by the developper, you increase significantly the chance of getting dust on your film, which in turn can cause surface scratches as you are traveling. If I was not planning to print digitally all my film, this would dissuade me from cutting film. With this method, you can use any emulsion which is available in 8x10.

With comparable cameras and lenses, 5x7 gear is 1.5 times the weight of 4x5, for about 2 times the surface area. The same can be said of 8x10 vs 5x7. 5x7 is an interesting compromise between 4x5 and 8x10.

If you are a B&W photographer, I believe that by steping up to 5x7, you'll lose only the portability of some lightweight 4x5 systems, and you'll have much to gain.

The color 5x7 photographer faces additional problems related to film and processing, which do not affect the 4x5 photographers. As the gains from the larger transparency are less tangible, 5x7 might a more debatable choice for color.