Is 8x10 worth the trouble???

[Michael Gaillard]

Hello again everyone,

A few days ago I posted a question regarding 8x10 camera choices. Now, after some fairly disappointing internet searching, I am starting to think it might not be worth it.

After thinking about it, I realize that there are so many more expenses that I had been blind to in my quest for a cool camera and lens... Namely, film cost, scanning cost (no more Imacon scanning, have to outsource drum scanning which, as you all know, is insanely expensive), etc, etc...

Of course, there is always the argument that there is nothing like an 8x10 negative, and there probably won't be a digital equivalent that is even remotely near my financial capability for some time.

Any thoughts on the longevity of 8x10 photography, film, and the merits of jumping in at this point when I've long since been immersed in a 4x5-exclusive practice would be greatly appreciated.

Maybe just renting whenever I need to shoot could suffice.

Thanks for humoring me and my ramblings.

[Vaughn]

Its a tool.

If it does the job you want done, then it is a sound investment.

I contact print in alt processes, thus it is the perfect tool for me. You have to decide what tools best fit your vision and needs.

Yes, there will be B&W 8x10 film into the foreseeable future. Color? I do not know what choices will remain.

[Pawlowski6132]

You don't mention it but, I assume you're already shooting film whether it's 35mm, MF or LF. I don't think ou incremental costs will be that much. You're already scanning your 4x5 (or something) right? So now your scanning 8x10 instead. Film? It's not that much more for 8x10.

[Michael Gaillard]

I am shooting film. Generally color. Then scanning on an imacon. I often print very large, and thus the 8x10's detail makes sense. The film is at least 4x as expensive per sheet, I believe... and the scanning difference is in the fact that I can rent use of an Imacon by the hour and get at least 10-15 scans done in that time for about 75 bucks. With a drum scan, if scanning for a 6 foot print, it can cost upwards of 400 per sheet of film. But perhaps I'm wrong. I had a sense that the incidental costs of an 8x10 practice far exceed those of a 4x5 practice.

[BarryS]

At this point, it falls into the realm of philosophical questions, since no one *needs* to shoot 8x10. Sure is fun, though. It's better look at it as a new medium and figure out how you might make it work, than a simple scaling up of everything you do in 4x5.

[Jay DeFehr]

If I didn't already have an 8x10 outfit (or two), I don't think I'd make the investment under current market conditions. There are almost always many paths to any destination, and sometimes the most direct, is not the most wise.

Even if you want to make large contact prints, you might be better off using a smaller capture format and making an enlarged negative, either digitally, or in the darkroom.

Using an in-camera negative to make a contact print is a very direct, and straightforward process, and I can't deny the appeal, but it imposes certain limitations, like any approach. I think Vaughn was right when he said, "You have to decide what tools best fit your vision and needs.", but I understand that can be difficult to do without hands on experience with the tools under consideration.

If there's any way you can test drive 8x10 without going to all the trouble of deciding what's best for you in the long term, I think it would answer many of your questions. I don't know where you're located, but if you're near Seattle, PM me, and we can work something out.

Good luck!

[Zaitz]

I certainly feel it is worth it. The size and weight is not an issue for me. The cost of the camera is the same. Lenses can be more expensive but there are deals to be had. What makes it all worth it for me is just how insanely big the 8x10 negative is. The gap between 8x10 and my dslr is gigantic. Since I do not care about the size/weight I like to use the largest camera I can. The troubles of 8x10 compared to 4x5 are nearly the same for me. My pack will end up weighing almost the same. The development is the same. And scanning is the same. The difference ends up being how insanely awesome the 8x10 negatives are and for not much more trouble - for me. The gap between my dslr and 4x5 is obviously there, just not close to the extent of 8x10.

Film costs are the only thing that bother me but I don't shoot enough to really care about that - 4x5 or 8x10.

[Sizam]

I went to the 8x10 mountain a year ago after having shot 4x5 off and on and I ultimately went back to 4x5 (sold all the 8x10 gear) because the cost in money and time per shot wasn't worth it for my desired output, its a hobby for me.

If, on the other hand, I were shooting professionally w/a 4x5 and planned on printing 6'+ prints I'd go to 8x10 in a heartbeat. I wouldn't shoot _everything_ in 8x10 though, I'd use a 8x10 and carry around a 4x5 reducing back, if the shot is worth it use 8x10 Just scann the 8x10s on your flatbed for reference and if you're printing big get it drum scanned, its not $400, dannyburk does 8x10 at 2000dpi (1.7GB) for $160 (if you do your own spotting).

http://www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning.htm

[Michael Gaillard]

Well, I am in New York City, so I certainly can find some cameras to try, I'm sure. If anyone knows anyone who might have one lying around collecting dust in my vicinity, I would be infinitely grateful and willing to pay a fee, just not the 125/day fee that most rental outfits charge.

I am meticulous and careful with all my equipment, and would happily sign a waiver.

[Brian Ellis]

A digital equivalent "remotely near" your financial capability depends on what size print you want to make. If you're thinking in terms of multiples of feet - like 4, 5, or 6 foot prints you're right. But if you're talking about more normal size prints - e.g. 16x20, up to maybe 20x30 - a 21mpx digital camera used to maximize image quality (e.g. on a tripod, with cable release and mirror lock-up, excellent lens, etc.) certainly can do better than "remotely near." Not as good but closer than "remotely near."

I used 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 cameras for quite a long time and have used an excellent digital camera as well. For me 8x10 was "worth it" for more normal size prints only because it was a wonderfully enjoyable format to use. But if one doesn't get great pleasure simply from using it then IMHO 8x10 is pretty much a waste of time, money, and energy for normal size prints. The image quality from smaller formats is the same or so close the difference isn't worth talking about and it's obtained with far less time, money, and energy.