4x5, 5x7,8x10 or 12x20 Whatis the best LF format

Hi all

 

I have 2 4x5 inch cameras and I`m not sure if I should go larger or

not.I have only a 4x5 enlarger and not the place for a bigger one so I

only could made contacts with larger ones.

Till now I was thinking the ideal format in LF is 4x5!

What is your ideal format and why?

 

Thanks for your input!

5x4 - simply because, like you, I only have room for a 5x4

enlarger. Having said that, I would dearly like to try ULF !! (7x17).

It all depends on what you value most and can afford. Factors include weight, cost, image quality, size, availability of equipment and film, and the ability to visualize the final result.

 

All things being equal (and they rarely are) a larger camera will give better quality, and will allow you to better visualize the final result. At the same time, the camera and all its related euipment will cost more, weigh more, and will be more difficult to move around with easily. The film will cost more, and will be harder to find.

 

You have to decide where to draw the line. I notice that a lot of furniture and food photography for magazines seems to be done in 8x10. After all, you just can't match the quality. But I don't shoot food or furniture, so my needs are different.

 

Personally, I find that 4x5 gives the best balance of all the factors. I scan the negatives and make inkjet and digital platinum prints at 12x15 inches. For my own personal subjective taste, the quality is so high, it's not worth it to go any larger. I could never easily afford or carry around a 12x15 camera, if there were such a thing, and I doubt that my 40 years darkroom experience could match what I am able to do so easily in Photoshop. To me, the ideal combination consists of 19th, 20th, and 21st century methods, and 4x5 is the "sweet spot".<div></div>

Armin

 

If you really want to enlarge your negatives there is not much reason to go larger than 4x5. But to me the ultimate image is one that is contact printed. The process is direct, cheap and is capable of stunning results. For me the main reason to use a larger camera is to get those lovely contact prints (Azo or pt/pd, whow!). I live in a very small apartment in a very large city and maybe that has something to do with my love of 5x7, the smallest size commonly contact printed. Choose your own favorite size. Contact printing is not a compromise. Enlarging is the compromise.

Last month I was having a look at the Richard Avedon's "Americans..." (I'm sorry I can't remember now the name of the collection exhibited, about portraits of western american workers and people).

 

Despite of other considerations, I was wondered about the technical quality of the images, their sharpness and details, enlargered to 100X150 cms. moreless; I believe that they were made with a 8X10" camera and Tri-x film (the code notchs are three corners). The biggest format you can enlarge is the best format for me. First find a 8X10" enlarger. Then, look for bigger camera... (and for the film needed...)

5x4 gets my vote mainly due to not wanting to carry around any more stuff.

BTW Ken Lee, there is such a thing as a 12X15 Camera, because I am a new proud owner of one recently acquired.

William -

 

Sounds wonderful. I had no idea. I'd love to see a photo taken with it some time !

I was essentially in the same stituation 5 years ago - I had a 4x5, an enlarger for it, and wondered about 8x10. I got one and some used lenses for it and contact printed. I liked it, but I'm still mostly using 4x5. One factor is portability, the other is that I like my prints a little larger than 8x10 - most of them are 11-14 - 12x16" (thats a European paper size). I occasionally wonder about ULF, but have not gone down that road. I kept the 8x10 and still use it but not very often. I do like it if I want some special effect like printing on POP and I am glad I kept it. But my favorite neg size is 4x5.

Armin, I think its a matter of "Horses for Courses." A Draft Horse 1sn't going to win the Derby, but a Thorobred isn't going to pull a Beer Wagon very far, either. IMHO, 4x5 is the most versitile with all the film and lenses that are produced for it, and modern technology has made the results competitive with what larger formats can produce, but for contacts the little 4x5 is limited to the very intimate---the Grand Landscape is a total loss(my opinion, here!) For B&W contacts the 11x14 shines bright, both for portraits and landscape---great size that work well in most rooms, and the 5x7 is similar but smalller and more portable, but forget about doing color, available film options are limited(no way color, if they even still made the stuff it would be too costly to process unless you're an oil Shiek), as would be new lenses (for 11x14)in new shutters,holders(in 11x14) are outrageously expensive, and if you want to enlarge the 11x14, well, theres a problem! Used enlargers are almost non-existant and getting a new one would be like buying and keeping a 747 in your garage. All this makes the 5x7 an attractive alternative to the 11x14. The other ULFs are in a class by themselves. The work I've seen is driven by pure passion but it is the photographer's vision that makes the image, the ULF super sizes it! On the other hand, a matted 12x20 is simply too big and overwhelms most rooms (corporate boardrooms excepted) color is a no-go(except maybe bromoil?) A 12x20 head and shoulders portrait seems(to me)a bit egotistical. This leaves the 8x10---A good size neg for contact printing, cheap Elwood enlargers available for blow-ups, a lot of stuff like holders and lenses are left over from when the 8x10 was the choice of commercial outfits are available for pennies on the dollar, a variety of affordable B&W film is available, as is color(but much more costly to shoot and process) and if you must have new glass, Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikkor and Fuji all produce superb lenses in new shutters, but the earlier lenses can sure give the new ones a run for thier money and are available at a reasonable cost---unless its a cult classic like a 19" f7.7 Dagor, which would probably only be of interest to a ULF shooter anyway. I guess it all depends on what you want to do with it that matters. ---------------------Good Luck!

What the heck is a digital platinum print? Those inks must be pretty expensive!

--Aaron

Have 3x4 and two 4x5 in cameras. Enlargers here are either too small 6x6cm or two big 24x36"... A used 4x5 enlarger is on the wish list here. Also getting big Bertha here use negatives smaller than 8.5x11"is a goal too.<BR><BR> <A HREF="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-306.jpg" target = "_blank">

<IMG SRC="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/thumbs/tripods-306-thumb.jpg" BORDER=0></A>

With all the different ways to make an enlarged negative these days IMO I don't think I would get much bang from going to an 8x10. Sounds to me like what ever you can afford and carry the easiest would be the way to go.<p>

Will

Aaron -

 

<p>As you know, platinum prints are always made via contact printing. A "digital platinum print" uses a negative that has been created digitally on acetate, using a high-res printer. I didn't come up with the name, and I am still in the process of learning the techniques.

 

<p>People have been able to replicate the colors of platinum prints using inkjet printers, but the images will not last longer than a few decades. As far as I can tell, this method promises to combine the best of both analog and digital, resulting in an image that has truly archival permanence, large format fidelity, digital image correction, and the lovely tonality that many people admire in platinum/palladium prints.

 

<p>For more informaton, see Dan Burkholder's <a href="http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/main_pages/page1_main.htm">Making Digital Negatives For Conatct Printing</a>

I enjoy using my 8x10 more than my 4x5 but the trade off is the weight of the 8x10 outfit. I wouldn't worry about traditional enlargements from 8x10. Contact prints are very nice and when I get the urge to enlarge I do it digitally (Linoscan 1400 scanner, Epson 1160 printer with MIS inks). Since the negative is so large, you can scan at only 600 ppi for a 16x20 enlargement printed at 300 dpi or 1200 dpi for a 32x40 enlargement printed at 300 dpi if your printer is big enough. The quality from my digital prints is outstanding, at least the equal of traditional darkroom enlargements (but not contact prints) most of the time with a 20th of the space and a relatively small cost ($900 for the scanner, about $300 for the printer).

It seems when given the choice between 4x5 and 5x7, I usually pick 5x7.Not much difference in camera size and nicer proportions. But now the 12x20 is the one most used for me. It's a real challenge and a lot of fun to say the least. It's like learning all over again. Lots of things to go wrong but when you hit the mark it hits big. That said....4x5 is really a great format but then again so is roll film in its various forms. Does it really matter? Just as long as you get what you want to say on paper. The big thing about 12x20 is not really the technical quality which you can equal or beat with a smaller format, but the process itself, including the huge GG, giant camera, and 20"neg which speaks in its own special way.Not to forget the nicely proportioned 12x20 neg too.

<b>Ok; I'll ask a dumb question; how did the size 12x20" evolve?</b><BR><BR>In graphic arts; we use 12x18 as a standard negative; other sizes we use are 8.5x11...other sizes are 8x10,10x12,11x14,12x18,14x17,16x20,20x24,22x28,24x30,30x40 in sheets..<BR><BR>Ok I see that the 20x24 is twice the size of the 12x20 mentioned; this is probably just a fluke. For blow backs on film we used rolls of film or paper 24,36, and 42 inches wide..<BR><bR>I guess the 12x20 is because of the cameras back; have never used one yet..<BR><BR>What is the origin of this format size?

Hi all

 

Thanks for your input I will stay with 4x5 because film gets better and better lenses also and i get also older!

The 8x10 virus is blown away!

LF it may not be, but I vote for 6x17cm.

 

You can tile to give 17x17cm or bigger, scanned at 4000 ppi with a standard MF scanner

The 6x17 is definitely worth a vote on a LF forum. How many LF photographers have been drooling for months in anticipation of the much-delayed arrival of Keith Canham's new back? I'll bet it fits perfectly on my metal Canham 5x7.