8x10 vs 11x14

I have been using medium format and a 4x5 wooden field camera for

some years. Mostly black & white portraits and landscape. I have

always wanted to go larger and I think I am ready to make the move

soon. I am trying to decide between 8x10 vs 11x14. Tough decision as

always. Too many issues to ask seperately so I guess I would like to

hear from users' overall feelings. Is 11X14 worth the many hassles

over 8x10? (more expensive, larger weight, smaller selection of

lenses, more expensive and harder to get accessories, more difficult

film handling and so on.) Of course the reward is clear: a larger

negative just like from 35mm to MF, from MF to 4x5. But the greatest

advantage for me would be to be able to contact print. I would do

straight prints as well as platinum/palladium prints and some other

alt. contact printing. I find 8x10 for print size slightly too small

many times although simetimes perfectly applicable. The big question

for me is whether 11x14 would be too overwhelming in terms of size

and weight in the field. The higher price I may just be able to bear

once in a lifetime.

 

I guess I am asking the opinions of those who have made the move to

11x14 from 8x10. How much more difficult is it to work with it? In

the field? In the darkroom processing the film? Just generally

experiences and opinions about how much more difficult and how much

more rewarding is it to work in 11x14 in general. Was it worth the

extra hassle or you often go back to 8x10?

 

I know the only way to find out would be to try it myself but this

ain't a small decision for me and I have no opportunity to try these

formats out. I would be greatly helped out by comments from fellow

photographers who have gone through this experience before.

 

Thanks a lot.

"I find 8x10 for print size slightly too small many times"

<P>

If you can afford 11x14, get it. If I was to do it over again I would skip 8x10 and go to 11x14 or 7x17 from the start. If you don�t think you can afford the lenses or film, though, forget it.

I agree with J.O. If you are buying new think in the order of 7 to 8 K to get an outfit. I beleive film holders are a bit cheaper than for a 7x17 or 12x20, but you are still going to pay at least $120 each. Film is no problem there are many sources, but your cost per sheet goes up a lot. OTOH once you see that big neg, there is no going back....You might consider a 11x14 with an 8x10 back, then you get the best of both worlds.

 

Of course you can go to e bay and wait until the cows come home for a 11x14 to show up, plus the lenses, plus the holders.

 

Another route would be buying used, but still not cheap. I would guess 3 to 4 K for an outfit depending on camera and shape of the equipment.

Zuck -

 

I am in the process of moving to a larger format camera, so I have my own view on this topic. I see two strong arguments for 8x10 rather than 11x14:

 

- Film availability is much better than any other format larger than 4x5. This might be less of an issue if only b/w is considered.

 

- For future digital needs (we are talking today as well as years ahead), finding a scanner that can handle 8x10 negs or transparencies will (in my opinion) be a lot easier / cheaper than finding an 11x14 scanner. Even if your personal needs right now are in the contact print domain, God only knows how your photographs will be scanned in the future. In my opinion, it does seem likely that more future scanners will support 8x10 film scanning than 11x14.

 

Then again, I have not yet used larger format than 4x5.

 

Ake

Hi Zuck. It sounds to me as though you already know in your heart that 11x14 is what you yearn for. If you find 8x10 prints too small, and you want to contact print, then 11x14 is the next common format, and to echo Jorge, with an 11x14 camera and an 8x10 reduction back you get the versatility of both formats plus 5x7,10x12,7x11 or any other format that will fit within the 11(or 14)x14 format with the addition of reduction backs and film holders. Only you know wether these advantages outweigh the added effort required for the larger format, but in my mind, large format and convenience have no place in the same discussion. Good luck.-jdf

If you're only going to contact print there are lots of great old uncoated Dagors

out there that will work REALLY well for you. I have a couple of (longer)

Dagors that I use for the 20x24 and they are fine. Aside from the weight

issues, the biggest differences with the larger formats are related to image

magnification. A head and shoulders portrait is a reduction(1:4 or 1:5) on 4x5,

on 11x14 it approaches 1:1, now you have more camera extension, you run

up against bellows factor a lot sooner...stuff is different. Ask lots of questions,

learn all you can, then decide. 8x10 is really nice, but so are the bigger(and

bigger) formats. Good luck, Tracy

If you ever see a good 11x14 platinum print there wont be any question. Why not get a Phillips 11x14. It's very light as far as ULF goes.

It sounds like 11x14" is where you're really headed, so it might make sense for you, but be warned:

 

Filmholders are considerably more expensive and heavier than for 8x10". $120 is rock bottom for a very used 11x14" filmholder in my experience. Figure around $275 minimum for each new one.

 

The camera is more complicated to transport. You've got a bigger groundglass not to break. It won't fit in normal cases for 8x10"

 

There will be no skimping on the tripod or head.

 

Film choices are few unless you are able to do large special orders, and even then they are few. Your main choice right now is HP-5 and maybe Portra 400NC and maybe Provia 100F. Go to bhphoto.com to see what they're offering and price it out. Color will be costly, if you're considering it.

 

DOF is that much shorter as you move up, so if you want to do studio portraits, you'll need LOTS of light. I had a Norman P800D, which was good enough for 35mm and MF and marginally good enough for 8x10" only because I like short DOF, and just added a P2000D and am wondering if I shouldn't have bought another P2000D.

 

Azo doesn't come in 11x14", so you'll have to cut down or print on larger sheets, if you want to print on Azo.

 

Enlarging is much more of an option with 8x10" than with 11x14".

 

8x10" is a nice intermediate format, so that you'll have some lenses that can be used on smaller formats and some that will work for larger formats as you expand. This is what I did. I started with 8x10", and when I saw a good deal on an 11x14" camera, I grabbed it and had four lenses that I could use on the new camera. I did the same with 4x5", and I had three lenses that worked well on that one. Once you've made the investment in the lenses, it starts to make sense to add camera bodies to your system to get the most out of the lenses.

 

An 11x14" with an 8x10" reduction back might be a good solution. Alternately, you might start with a used 8x10" camera that will hold its value, see how you like it for a year, and then decide whether you want to make the next step, and either sell the 8x10" or add an 11x14".

FYI: Efke 25 and 100 will be available soon [i.e. within afew weeks] in 11x14 from JandC Photo.

Go with the 11x14, for the reasons stated by others.

WM MITCHELL

I would like to redirect the question. It looks to me like the depth of field issue is a big one for the 11 x 14. Are there many lenses available with apertures smaller than f64? It looks to me like one would be required to use f64 or smaller all the time to achieve good sharpness (depth of field) and even then at relatively long camera to subject distances. Does the typical 11 x 14 user (if there is a typical) have more than one lense or do most work with a normal lense? A "normal" lense would be 18" (appx 450mm)?

To answer Phillip's questions:

 

I shoot mostly 12X20; the aperture you use will depend on the type of subject, your facility with camera movements, and your having a lens(es) to cover those movements (one nice thing about rear tilt and swing is that they do not require additional coverage). I shoot mostly portraits, and typically shoot at f22. I've never felt the need to go smaller than f64 for any subject.

 

I use a number of lenses, from 210 (SSXL), to 355 (G Claron), 450 (Nikkor M), 600 (Fuji-c, the pick of the litter) and 750 (Red Dot Artar). Probably 60% are with the Fuji, though distortion is less at close distances with WA lenses than you would think with ULF cameras.

 

Zuck: My guess is, the way you are thinking you will wind up getting an 11X14 eventually anyway. There seems to be big growth in ULF these days, and certainly the timber of discussions about the practicality of ULF has become MUCH more positive here on this forum in the last 2-3 years as more people jump in and try it. I've certainly been VERY pleased with my ULF experience, and would highly recommend you try Pt/Pd printing with larger negs, if you haven't already.

 

Regards,

Nathan

Greetings,

 

The only reason for going larger than 8x10 is contact prints; contact prints using Azo or alternative processes. IMHO the level of difficulty increases exponentially as one increases format size and if you're using 11x14 you wont be traveling far from a vehicle. I've carried my 8x10 several miles on my back, but the furthest I've taken the 11x14 is a few hundred yards.

 

You may get an 11x14 that's light enough to haul around, but add the weight of the holders, which are very heavy, lenses, tripod, etc. and now you're talking about a considerable load.

 

As others have said DOF can be problematic and you will typicaly be shooting at f45 and smaller. I typically shoot at f90 and f128, but with the glass I'm using I haven't found difraction to be a problem; f128 with my lens is still a fairly large opening.

 

Loading and developing 11x14 is pretty simple, but I would not want to load holders in a "tent." Having a darkroom is the way to go. Lots of people develop 11x14 one sheet at a time in rotary print drums, but that method is much too slow for me, so I use trays. Once you develop the proper technique it's pretty easy. IMHO it's easier to develop larger sheets in a tray than smaller sheets. Smaller sheets can get lost in the dark, but it's quite hard to lose 11x14's.

 

The real attraction to do 11x14's are the alt process prints and once you see them you wont go back to 8x10! All of my shooting is outdoors and I never do portraits, so I can't comment on the sutibality in your situation. If you don't mind the expense and slowed pace of using 11x14, I highly recommend it over 8x10. Good luck!

 

Regards, Pete

I shoot with the following formats regularly:

 

1) 35 mm

2) 4x5

3) 8x10

 

I've used friend's 8x20 and 11x14

 

I have found that when I switched to 8x10, my usage of 4x5 went significantly down -- there is something great about contact printing.

 

Figure that 11x14 is roughly 5x more expensive than 8x10 -- cameras themselves are not easy to find used -- I picked up an old beater Deardorff NFS for $ 600 which is perfectly usable and I have a much nicer Zone VI which I picked up for about $1200. I don't feel bad about throwing my 'dorff in a backpack, and if there is a little rain, mud etc. then it is no big deal.

 

My suggestion: pick up an inexpensive 8x10 camera and set of film holders, start investing your $$$ in lenses with 11x14 coverage and see how it goes -- if you decide to move on to 11x14 you will only be out at most $1000 -- probably nothing because old deardorrfs are easily sold on ebay for the right price as are film holders. Your learning curve using 8x10 film, coating 8x10 platinum paper etc etc will be less than 11x14 and alot less expensive.