Why not 8x10?

[Drew Wiley]

A good compromise position starts with the lenses themselves. I'd get small lightweight lenses that are simultaneously crisp enough for 4x5, but with enough coverage for 8X10 too - things like G-Clarons, Fujinon A's, Fujinon C's, etc. That's your main investment anyway. Otherwise, shooting an 8x10 is obviously more expensive than 4x5, esp in color,
and esp if you want to equip a color darkroom. I wouldn't worry much about black and white, either regarding film availability in 8x10 or processing, but a big enlarger needs big
space. I really love both formats, and in the print size you're discussing, the end result will
be similar but not exactly equal. If you do choose 8x10 you should have a good back and
knees. They can be a workout - but sure beats being on a treadmill like a rat in a stinky
gym!

[Peter Spangenberg]

I really enjoy shooting 8x10 in the field. Having said that, you might want to consider a 5x7 camera with a 4x5 back. For me, the jump up in image size from 4x5 to 5x7 on the ground glass is significant. The contact print size difference feels significant to me as well. It also gives you two different aspect ratios whereas 4x5 and 8x10 are the same. A caveat is that I also print platinum, and often prefer an 8x10 negative. You could solve that problem by making digital negatives (that is a skill that I haven't yet attempted). Bottom line is that lenses are cheaper, tripod is cheaper, film holders are cheaper, film is cheaper, and you can find a 5x7 enlarger very inexpensively. Lighter weight, easier to travel, etc. Film availability for 5x7 is waning, but I shoot B&W so HP5 and FP4 cover my needs.

[Steve Smith]

You sure that isn't XX Top?

It's ZZ Top... but over here, we use the correct pronunciation!


Steve.

[ROL]

Do you need a beard to shoot 8x10?

Of course. A full pearly white beard, a booming voice capable of intoning the proper "810" incantation (which I do not recall and am forbidden from reciting as I do not so practice) upon exposure, and a black velvet cape (aka, the "focussing cloth") are all absolute requirements. Oddly though, specific age does not appear to be critical, as long as you can carry off the pomp of a golden ager.

[Freezer]

So here's another LF novice perspective: If you have limited time to do LF, would you rather be opening the shutter on a 4x5 or 8x10? My perspective is that if I can only make a few negatives a month, and I spend time selecting subjects and applying a thoughtful process to composition and exposure, I want the satisfaction of a big negative for my efforts. Otherwise, I'd just continue to shoot digital and MF film. It's a purely emotional perspective, but if you're not paying the mortgage with your pictures, isn't that ultimately the best perspective? Flame away; I've got the nomex on!

[Pawlowski6132]

Other than weight, size of the camera, and cost of film, are there any good reasons to shoot 4x5 over 8x10?

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

[Ron Stowell]

O no we don't----- I'm bald

[stradibarrius]

I agree with Ken, I use both digital and several formats of film including 4x5. I don't shoot 8x10 but The jump to LF format is just the same.

Still trying to get the stones up to make the jump to LF from digital.

It's not either/or. Each format has its own advantages and disadvantages. You can use them all.

There is no jump: You just use what you like, whenever you like. If you don't like it, you sell it. If you miss it, you buy it back.

[C. D. Keth]

I think you'll develop better habits with 4x5. You'll think less about how big and heavy it is and more about taking pictures. You'll shoot more film with less worrying about how much it costs. You'll develop better focusing habits because enlarging will bite you if you don't.

Have you considered what will be needed to develop 8x10 film compared to 4x5? For example, I do 4x5 in BTZS tubes in my bathtub. If I went to 8x10, I don't know if it would be enough room.

I don't at all want to dissuade you from shooting 8x10 but I do think shooting 4x5 would be the better way to learn and, chances are, you'll want a 4x5 camera at some point anyway for the easier portability.

[Drew Wiley]

Although I like 8X10 the most, I still shoot 4x5 quite a bit. For one thing, I like really long
perspectives. I can tote and focus 4X5 with a 450 lens on it quite easily. On an 8x10 the
same view would amount to 900+ mm of bellows extension. As it is, the longest lens I own
for 8x10 is 600mm, which also happens to be about as long as I'd want it supported by a
single tripod; and anything longer would amount to a much heavier camera too. You have
less depth of field issues with 4x5 too due to proportionately shorter lenses, combined with
faster exposures due to wider stop-down. But 8x10 is sooooo nice to focus and to print
from!