It's kind of amazing to me that large format photographers can be so cliquish. We all share more similarities than differences even if we do come to different equipment preferences. In my neck of the woods the chances of finding a 7x17er, let alone two is slim so I have no such community to offend. I don't have access to an 8x10 enlarger either though so I cant go that route. Also I like platinum printing. That said, IMO a 4x10" camera is really a little gem if your willing to cut film or wait for the Ilford order period. They are much lighter and pack better than 8x10. If I did have a large enlarger I'd probably have one for backpacking into the wilderness. I'd agree on 8x10 being about the most flexible camera out there above 4x5.
Id have to agree here too. 7x17" for a final print is not large at all, but I don't see that as a disadvantage per say. I was talking with someone once and there happened to be two framed matted contact prints near by - an 8x20" landscape and a 7x17" plant study in pt/pd. It was described that the 7x17" was the largest size you could hold at arms length and admire at one go. And it was true. With the mat it was just the perfect size for an intimate study (11x14 if you like squarish more). The 8x20" by contrast was just a bit too big for that. At the same time it wasn't at all large enough to have the mural effect either. Combined with the lens restrictions, camera rarities, weight, etc... I just could never see myself going for an 8x20". A 14x17" maybe - there are a lot of cool things you can do with that camera (e.g. contact print portraits), but not an 8x20. No if I were trying for the mural effect, I'd go for enlarged 8x10 for sure IMO. But for everything else it's not always clear to me what the best camera would be.
Bookmarks