Why no love for the 5x7?

[largeformatguy]

The main reason people don't like 5x7 is they haven't tried it. The secondary reason is that to many people beieve, "Bigger is better" and they don't want to buy a 5x7 enlarger. My pre-1939 Deardorf has been my favorite camera since the 1960's.

The problem with "Bigger is better" is that it literally forces the viewer away from the photograph. Somehow there seems to be a greater intimacy, not just physically but emotionally when the viewer is nearer to the work, any work.

[ROL]

A really big adavantage of 5x7 if you are interested in making books, is that a 5x7 inkjet 'contact' or even a gravure or a carbon tranfser (slightly cropped to 120mm x 170mm) will fit an A4 page size in the golden section. Probably in most places A4 and A3 are the standard size for inkjet paper. Even if you only want to frame a matted print, the proportions fit beautifully in an off the shelf A4 frame or if you like an A3 frame.

Coincidentally, one remark made to me once upon a time was that 5x7 was for 'car guys'. It seems that 5x7 lengthwise covers automobile copy on a two page magazine spread.

I almost always crop 5x7, under my 5x7 enlarger, for reasons given here.

[Steve Hamley]

Folks,

Well David (mdm) gave an example I've never seen...

It's a great format. It's the smallest - to me - format that has a presence contact printed and framed on a wall. I have 4x5 contacts framed and hung, but 5x7 is noticeably better and still able to fit in smaller spaces, or for making a collage of frames on a wall.

But others did not mention the camera! A friend of mine once said the best 4x5 may well be a 5x7, and used a wooden Canham. A 5x7 can shoot 4x5 without being a size hog like a 8x10. I bought myself an Ebony 5x7 with 4x5 reducing back a few years ago, and it can handle my lenses from 55mm to 600mm without changing bellows. It isn't as nice as a 4x5 for short lenses, but it can be done. So I can shoot 4x5 and 5x7 with lenses from 55mm to 600mm, and if I want panos, I put a Canham 6x17 back on it. I can hike with it, but I'd rather have a 4x5 for hiking. And I can't carry all three formats and lenses for them, it just gets too heavy. But I can carry any one and quite possibly two formats if I'm not going too far in rugged territory. It's the most versatile view camera I've ever owned, and the Canham is specified very nearly the same. You could put something together Arca, but not I think, in a 9x10x5-1/2" space that includes both backs.

Cheers, Steve

[Vaughn]

Agreed, Steve. My first 5x7 was a Indian knock-off of a Deardorff Special -- bought as a 4x5 (w/ revolving back) but later I bought a Deardorff 5x7 back for it also.

[Andrew Plume]

The main reason people don't like 5x7 is they haven't tried it. The secondary reason is that to many people beieve, "Bigger is better" and they don't want to buy a 5x7 enlarger. My pre-1939 Deardorf has been my favorite camera since the 1960's.

that's an interesting point Jim, I initially felt that 10 x 8 just had to be the way to go (because of the size) but now, I'm pretty happy with 5 x 7

andrew

[Andrew Plume]

I love my Canham Metal 5x7 it's only a little larger and heavier than a 4x5 field Camera yet has almost twice the amount of film area. Downside for me is the lack of film choice especially IR.

likewise Ed, although I have the wooden 5 x 7 KBC

regards

andrew

[Andrew Plume]

Paul Strand didn't think 5x7 contacts were non-ideal, except he cropped off a bit of the long dimension.

Whole plate might be better, but I find 5x7 contacts are OK. They "read" well in the hand and, unless one has very large spaces to fill, are good framed on the wall too. After much trial and error testing, I settled on 9-3/4 x 12-1/2 inch mounts and had some custom frames made in that size. Works well for either the full negative or "Strand-cropped" versions.

exactly Sal, PS was really fond of the 5 x 6 format, so much that his 5 x 7 Graflex was 'adjusted' to take that size into account

andrew