4x5 or 8x10?

Okay - yall are going to groan at this questions, but i ask your

forgiveness in advance:)

 

I'm looking at getting into large format photography in the

equipment-buying sense, and I'm try to start a year or so budget

to beging my collection. Currently, I've been mainly shooting a

Linhoff Technica(oh poor me) 4x5, and as wonderful as that is,

i've been wondering about 8x10. I don't have a 4x5 enlarger, nor

do I have space to put one or the cash for both a new enlarger

and camera...and anything digital would be just silly.

So, I've been considering going the 8x10 route and contact

printing. So, here's the big questions:

Aside for the cost issues(both for the equipment and the film),

what are the big differences in the two formats? I'm shooting LF

for landscapes, and portraits...and am considering doing a

series of exetreme long-exposure night shots in some places in

my city.

I know that contact printing means I had better get the neg

dead-on, and that is actually an appealling challenge - the major

goal of my shooting LF is to improve my technical skills as well,

as 35mm developing and photoshop can make you darn lazy

within limits.

 

But, am i right in thinking that a 8x10 camera, although larger,

and bulkier, would give a tad more flexibility? Or should i give it

up and stick w/ my Leica and EOS and contiune to sigh longingly

at the thought of an 8x10 transparency?

I am not a 8x10 user (still playing in the 4x5 kids yard) but I asked myself the same question a couple of years ago. The answer and difference has been confirmed many times by a friend who went the 8x10 route and is simple: 4.

 

I mean you take the format size, film and process cost, equipment weight, setup time, pleasure in the process, light table wow effect or feeling of being nut and hopeless of the 4x5 format work, and multiply by a factor of 4 for 8x10. Only exception is Depth of Field and perhaps number of shots, where you have to divide. Sorry to put it so simple, others will have more subtle answers ;-)

i've often wondered this myself. however, i quickly realize how silly it would be to drag around an 8 x 10 camera. are all your shots that close to the car that the weight of 8 x 10 doesn't become a problem? i think the price of an 8 x 10 camera and a couple sharp lenses would be in the same ballpark as a 4x5 enlarger.

Go with the 8x10. Weston did Adams did meyerowitz does. Then do contact prints! If you are doing this amature then you should go 8x10 to keep the skill alive.

8x10 is the answer. I started shooting 4x5 about two years ago and it did not feel right. I moved up to 8x10 and gained a much better feel for LF photography. After shooting with an 8x10 my 4x5 work got much better. It is just a feeling think. Everything is 4x the size with 8x10 and I have a much better feel for what I am shooting. an 8x10 desn't really feel much heaver(12lbs). If you are contact printing then 4x5 is a waste of time.....

 

Kodak Master View lover.....

I think contact printing is overrated.

 

I know that sounds heretical, but I really don't know that many people

can tell the difference between a contact print and an enlargement to

the same size print from the next smaller format (e.g., 8x10 contact

vs. 5x7 enlarged to 8x10). Howard Bond says he can't--it's why he

stopped shooting 11x14--and though my printing skills don't hold a

candle to Howard's, having worked with all of these formats I can't

say I do either.

 

Granted, at larger enlargements you can often/usually tell the

difference between 8x10 and 4x5; but in your own situation (8x10

camera vs. 4x5 enlarger) you'll only be able to make those larger

prints if you go the 4x5 route. Plus you'll better be able to dodge,

burn, crop, selectively alter contrast, etc. if you enlarge than if

you contact print (not to mention the ability to make 11x14s or 16x20s

or weird sizes in between, many of which appeal to some people more

than do all 7.5x9.5 contact prints).

 

On the other hand, I think many people do "see" better with the larger

groundglass (or at least more enjoyably; I certainly do), and of

course nothing compares to the 8x10 transparency, as you note. These

aesthetic pleasures may outweigh practical considerations; color 8x10

work gets expensive real fast if you're not selling the results, and

as the first respondent noted above, everything is noticeably more

expensive and cumbersome with the larger format (you didn't mention

buying lenses, which would put the move over to 8x10 at a bit of a

disadvantage compared to buying a 4x5 enlarger).

 

With all due respect to the above poster, I'm not sure how much Weston

or Adams (who used many smaller formats as well) or Meyerowitz can

provide a format example that all photographers should try to follow;

so many other great photographers never touched 8x10 and they seem to

have done all right. It may come down to how far afield your landscape

work takes you, how good your physical conditioning is, how much

you're willing to spend on film and processing, how much you want to

work in color vs. b&w, what your end goal is (b&w prints? viewing

transparencies on a light table?), and of course the

personal-chemistry-with-the-format thing; most people know pretty

quickly on first use if a format is going to work for them.

 

It may pay to rent for a weekend before buying. Good luck either way!

I was much in the same position as you when I bought my own LF camera, and after trying 4x5", I felt that 8x10" had a much more intuitive appeal. I like working with the larger image on the groundglass. I like contact prints--both for their visual quality and for the aesthetic of working 1:1 from groundglass to print. In my small New York apartment (then smaller than my current place!), a 4x5" enlarger would be cumbersome and space consumptive, though perhaps now I could swing it. I use an ultralight Gowland monorail, so no complaints about carrying it around all day, and it all fits in a knapsack.

 

Now I certainly have no room for an 8x10" enlarger, though I can rent darkroom space for the occasional big print. If I want bigger prints, I'd rather get a bigger camera.

 

Another consideration: you say you are working with transparencies. In color, digital has more attraction than it does for b&w. Unless you are comitted to Ilfochrome or Type-R contact prints, maybe you might want to invest in one of the best new 4x5" film scanners, which will likely give you better results than a flatbed scanner capable of scanning 8x10" transparencies.

I use both 4x5 and 8x10 and I agree with Micah that contact printing is overrated, at least for someone who is an excellent printer. However, in your case you say you won't be buying an enlarger so the question isn't contact print vs. enlargement, it's contact print 4x5 or contact print 8x10. IMHO, that's a no brainer - while I've seen some lovely 4x5 contact prints (Paula Chamlee comes to mind), in general you'll be much happier with 8x10 contact prints I believe. I tried contact printing 5x7 for a while and even that size tended to be a little small much of the time. Aside from cost, the main issues are, I think, film availability, weight, and general overall cumbersomeness. But for the type work you're talking about, I would think cost (of film) is a very big issue. Don't you find it kind of difficult to be sure of the exposure time with that kind of work? Don't you often bracket quite a bit? I don't do a lot of night time work but when I have I've always bracketed at least four or five different exposures. It isn't so much a lack of technique as it is the general imprecision of reciprocity compensation and sometimes uncertainty of focus. If bracketing is the the technique you use, you're going to go broke pretty quickly with 8x10 film. Still, I find 8x10 much more enjoyable than 4x5, it's just so difficult for me to walk very far carrying my 8x10 equipment.

I started with a technica too! Then to 5x7, now 8x10. I fell in love with contact prints, and the other formats I thought usually yielded too small a print. From my experiance, it doesn't matter how good the printer is, or how good thier equipment is, no enlarged print can hold the sharpness and tonality that a contact can.

If you plan on contacting, you don't really need to buy the most expensive lenses. Weston didn't. (I'd go with G-Clarons)

There are a lot of optioins in contrast, size...when enlarging, but if you use azo you'll never question the decision to contact. Take a look at micheal smith's and paula chamlee's website.

It's a whole different world. I shoot 4x5, but last year I went out with my friend Sean Yates and his 8x10, and discovered that there's as much difference between these two as between 35mm and 4x5. If I tried to whoot 8x10 there would be fewer and fewer pictures until there would be none. Have you considered just buying a 4x5 enlarger?

I currently use a 5x7 Deardorff with 4x5 back, and sort of switch back and forth between those two. I have rented an 8x10 DD several times. Here are the main differences I found:

 

1) weight and bulk is an issue.

 

Most of my lenses are fairly light work on both cameras. However, they are not as heavy as the 300 f5.6 mounted in Copal 3 that comes with the 8x10 when I rent it. If you want a lens like that, it makes a big difference relative to a g-claron or other mid-sized lens.

 

For travelling, I can fit film, lenses and camera into a backback and carry on to planes. I probably couldn't do that with 8x10 (but haven't tried). One would probably have to check the camera or lenses and carry on film.

 

The main issue for me was that the film is heavy. 8x10 holders weigh a lot and are big. I can easily carry 20-50 Quickloads, but 5 8x10 holders and boxes of film plus a big tent adds up. That matters only if you want to take a lot of pictures.

 

2) With 4x5, I can use polaroid to doublecheck focus, exposure, etc, though this is a minor point.

 

3) I love 8x10 because the ground glass is so big -- composing an image is very different. With some distance under the focusing hood, you can see the whole 4x5 image, which I cannot do with 8x10, so you have to move around with the hot spot and put together the image in your head. This is more abstract, and I find this leads me to concentrate more with 8x10, but this is probably my own failing with 4x5.

 

4) Unless one is making huge prints like Avedon or Misrach, quality is probably not that big of an issue. However, an 8x10 chrome is really beautiful!

 

If I spent more time photographing, I would definitely buy an 8x10 based on my experiences.

Robert- Your question is a good one. Most of us struggle with

that urge to go BIG at some time in our career. I've shot 4x5 for

years, and suddenly, recently, I had a chance to get into 8x10

relatively cheaply. No enlarger, just camera and lenses. I do

contact print and I like it. My BIG ol' Burke and James is heavy,

but I got it with 4x5 and 5x7 reducing backs. So all 3 formats in 1.

But I don't think selling my much lighter 4x5 is a good idea. I

think everything we do in photography entails a compromise.

Film speeds v.s. graininess, camera size v.s. weight, lens quality

v.s. cost, EVERYTHING in this pursuit tends to be that way. I

think the best advice has been written: rent for a weekend or two

and then decide. My one piece of advice: If you go with 8x10, get

a light one. That is what will open up more shooting

opportunities. Good Luck

If you ever want to scan for digital printing (this is the route I go), 4x5 can easily be done by a $400 scanner. I don't know if there is a good cheap scanner that can scan 8x10 transparencies.

Keep in mind you'll need a heavy duty tripod (emphasis on 'heavy') for 8x10. I had pretty nice Bogen gear for my 4x5, but had to get something much sturdier when I went 8x10 (still Bogen though). Actually, the tripod and head cost more than my camera did. And it weighs more than the camera, but once you feel the force of a 300mm 4.5 lens racked out a foot or two, you'll undertand the need.

If you absolutely cannot find room for a 4x5 enlarger, then go to 8x10. However, if it is more a money issue, I would continue shooting 4x5 for awhile. you can save some cash for a used enlarger and good lens and in the meantime you can contact the 4x5s and have all the negs for enlarging at a later date. Yes, 8x10 contacts are wonderful, but so are 16x20 enlargements of 4x5 negs.

 

You don't mention how long you have been a LF shooter, but if it has been for a year or less I would keep with 4x5 untill you really understand how to use the camera and all the creative possibilities.

4x5 is much more portable than 8x10 and you will find that there are many subjects that are more easily accesible to the smaller camera.

 

The route I took in LF was to buy a used 4x5 camera, D2 enlarger and a new enlarging lens. Then as I gained appreciation for LF I bought a used 8x10 and a 300mm G Claron lens that could be used as both a camera lens and an enlarging lens for 8x10 negs. Then bought a better used 8x10 and converted the older one into an enlarger for my 8x10 negs.

Hope this gives you some ideas.

IMHO, Go with the 8x10! You know you want to! At the cost of a little more planning in the way of logistics you'll be rewarded with big beautiful negatives: a contact printers dream! Borrow or rent an 8x10 kit and play with it for a while if you feel the need to proove this to yourself. Be aware that aside from your light meter and cable release, and maybe filters(big maybe!) not much of your 4x5 equiptment will translate into 8x10(usually things like your tripod, focusing cloth, definately DCFHs, etc...) Another downside to 8x10 is before too long, you'll start drooling over 12x20 and Cirkuts! Good Light!

this is a vote for 8x10. i jumped into lf-photography with an 8x10 deardorff some years ago. but as i cannot take it always with me as i would like to (and also because of costs), i thought i will buy an additional 4x5 to be more mobile (and to save money). so i bought a 2nd hand, but very nice gandolfi variant level 2 (with even a 5x7 upgrade back). camera and handling are absolutely okay, but after half a year trial now i know i will never become warm to a 4x5! and i am sure, it is not the (existing or not) benefit in quality of the larger size of the 8x10. for me it is the handling of the larger size. i love handling the big camera with its amazing big ground glass, the big film holders, the big film and i love contact printing in its direct and easy way of getting prints. so i will sell my gandolfi within the next few weeks.

 

rgds

Since I switched to 8x10, my 4x5 feels like a minature camera. Now, I use 4x5 for testing only. Contact printing in platinum is another option 8x10 allows.

I went from 4x5 to 8x10 two years ago. The only drawbacks: 1. you do not want to touch your 4x5 camera anymore, 2. you do not want to use an enlarger anymore.

The only additional flexibilty you get from 8x10 is the ability to use contact printing processes for an acceptably large final print size.

 

Everything else is at least marginally more difficult. I don't find the level of effort to be much higher with 8x10, but I would if I used long lenses. Certain things -- lenses, filmholders, and especially Polaroid -- get significantly more cumbersome than 4x5. My 6" normal for 4x5 is very small, fast, and quick to focus. My 14" G-Claron is big, heavy, and quite slow to focus when doing a close up at f/18 wide open.

 

You've got a 4x5. I'd say just use it for now and if you need to print, go digital. What photographic goal are you going to realize with 8x10 that you need it for? I moved up because I was unsatisfied with the look of my enlargements from 4x5, but greatly enjoyed my contact prints. You sound like you want to move up without attempting to enlarge your 4x5 originals, a decision which could be expensive and time-wasting if you discover that your subjects lend themselves to 16x24 prints but not 8x10s.

 

Another issue: I sometimes feel that I'd have been better served by moving up to 11x14 or 7x17. "Format shrink" -- your acceptance of a previously huge negative as normal-sized, and your consequent need for something a bit bigger -- happens quicker than you think and can make your move to 8x10 an (unnecessary) intermediate step.

J.O.,

 

I know, isn't it funny how puny those little 4x5 negatives start to look after awhile? And don't get me started on my Pentax 6x7 spy-camera!

 

Robert, you haven't quite given enough information. Are you really sure you can't possibly get a 4x5 enlarger? Are you really sure digital is not an option? And do you mostly shoot color?

 

I think my 4x5 pictures are actually better than my 8x10s because I can make more exposures per shot and am more willing to lug the camera around. But the truth is I enjoy shooting the 8x10 a lot more, and I enjoy making the prints more, too. So the 4x5 gets less and less use, and the medium format or the 8x10 tend to be the ones I use. But, I take pictures either for my job, which are not pictures I would ever hang on a wall, or for fun (the job pictures are all medium format). I'm not talented enough to make a name or a living as an artist. If I were I would probably use the 4x5 more, unless I was doing alternative processes.

 

You can get a 4x5 enlarger for not too much money, and you can also get a mildly serviceable 8x10 camera for not too much money. Or, you can rent one for a weekend if you live in a metropolitan area. (You might also be able to borrow one from a member of the forum if you tell us where you live.)

 

Ultimately, if you want to make prints to hang on your wall and you absolutely cannot own or rent a 4x5 enlarger and you don't want to do digital, then the 8x10 is the way to go. I'll tell you this: there really is nothing like looking through an f5.6 (or 4.5) lens on an 8x10 ground glass.

 

Good luck with your decision.

Wow - thanks for all the responses!

 

From what I'm hearing, I am leaning towards the 8x10 - this is

going to be my selfish camera, when i want to go out and shoot

for myself only, and the level of satisfaction that people are

seeming to get from these monsters is what I like:) While I could

scan 4x5....i'm trying to avoid the digital scene in this case. I love

my coolscan, and photoshop, and my mac mistress, but LF is

my designated digital free zone(except for the meter:)

 

I'm planing on sticking to mainly B/W for the foreseable future -

it's just the _possibilitty_ of getting into transparencies that's so

bloody attractive. And, of course, if I simply MUST scan the

images, I have access to a medical X-ray scanner. Overkill? not i!

 

Thank you for all the respsonses- i imagine, as i get more into

this process, that i may have a few more silly/obvious questions.

I'll try not to wear down yall's paitience too far!

 

Thanks again!

Since I bought my 5x7 I dont shoot 4x5 much, if at all. I like the 5x7 proportions better and the neg size too.Small but nice contact prints. I do prefer to enlarge the 5x7 negs though. I think though that if I didn't want to own an enlarger I would get either a panaromic 6x10 from Wisner or an big 11x14.If an 8x10, maybe ....the ultralight from Phillips but the 8x10 size is kind of too squareish for me and small in the contact print. But there is a really a special and beautiful look to an 11x14 platinum print that must be seen to be believed. Having said that I do own a 12x20 but only use it once in a while because of weight issues. But it is really a gas to use.The GG looks like a TV screen! I have been thinking about the Wisner 6x10 as my mini 12x20....great proportions! Robert....get the camera you really want!

Sorry I came late to this thread but it looks like I have a lot of company in having given some thought to stepping up from 4x5 to 8x10. A few thoughts not touched on by other posters:

 

1. Image quality: It's been a while since I did the calculations but my recollection is the following. If one is interested in 3-dimensional subjects, as most of us are, then achieving the same resolution in a given sized print of the subject from front to back is independent of format size, at least from the standpoint of circle-of-confusion and diffraction limitations. The greater depth of field for a normal lens of shorter focal length is offset by the magnification needed to achieve the same print size. Another factor is that the smaller aperture required by the longer normal lens to achieve the same depth of field gives rise to a larger diffraction degradation which is offset by the greater image magnification required by the smaller format. In the end, the depth-of-field/diffraction issues are a wash. The real gain with the larger format is in reduced grain and this affects definition and possibly tonal quality. One might argue, however, that these benefits may not be apparent in prints smaller than, say, 16x20.

 

2. Ideal print size: It has been my observation that some images look better large and some look better small. This of course may be influenced by artistic intent and I am hard pressed to predict precisely how large a print is "needed" by a particular image. Nonetheless, this conviction has grown with experience. I believe that it has to do with the density of aesthetic content in the image. I saw the late-works Edward Weston exhibition at the Chicago Art Institute last fall. For me Weston's achievements come as close as any to expressing what got me into large format in the first place. Yet when I saw some of his most widely known work of cypress trees at Point Lobos, I longed to see them in 16x20 at least. The complexity of aesthetic matter was simply too great to be appreciated in such

small prints. On the other hand, some of his simple and elegant vegetable images seem appropriate to 8x10. My point here is that even if you get an 8x10 camera there will be times when you will wish to

enlarge the image.

 

3. Better "seeing" in 8x10: I strongly believe that there is something to this. But you may want to consider the following work-around. My first 4x5 camera was a Sinar f and I had the binocular viewing hood accessory equipped with a flip-up 2x magnifier attached to the camera back by a wide-angle bellows. Using the 2x magnifier made it seem like I was viewing an 8x10 image. After getting back into 4x5 after a long hiatus, I missed that system so much that I got the Sinar parts on Ebay and adapted it to my current camera, a Linhof Technikardan. Of course, you won't be able to use a loupe for super-critical focussing, but The illusion of 8x10 is surprisingly good.

 

Having said all this, my heart still inexplicably yearns for an 8x10 and judging from the other posts there are intangibles at work here both pre- and post-ownership that won't be denied. My advice is to get it while you are still young enough to manage the physical burdens. I may have waited too late in my life!

Few of my images print ideally at exactly 7.5x9x5; this restriction is too great for me, so I don't contact print. In general, if it's worth printing, for me it's worth printing bigger than that.

 

I find the cost of 8x10 film prohibitive. It would interfere with the decision of when and how much to bracket, for instance. Also, I have been known to screw-up on a fairly regular basis; I don't mind eating the occasional ruined 4x5, but I would see dollar signs every time I ruined an 8x10.

 

The convenience of ready/quickloads is considerable, and unavailable in 8x10.

 

Is it essential to do your own processing? If not, consider using a pro lab to do your enlarging. I doubt you will detect any difference in quality between an enlarged 4x5 and an 8x10 contact. Contact for the joy of contacting, or to use alternative processes.

 

Remember the short DOF that comes with 8x10.

 

Giant ground glass is the one thing that is absolutely only available with a giant camera. If that's what you want, giant glass, then buy it.

 

CXC