4x5 vs 5x7

For the first time in over a year -- I've moved house twice, once

temporarily, once (I hope) permanently -- I've just made some 5x7 POP

prints. Once again, I find myself wondering why this is the forgotten

format. 4x5 really needs to be enlarged, and 8x10 is big, heavy, ugly

(because of the stubby format) and expensive. But a 5x7 (or 13x18cm

or half-plate) gives a beautiful contact print. Am I alone in my

puzzlement? I didn't want to post this as a 5x7 question for fear of

preaching to the choir.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

I agree completely, Roger.

 

5x7 is just the right size and much closer to the Golden Mean.

 

I think it was kept alive by the formal portrait people. In my day, a B&W 5x7 hand-colored contact print in a cardboard folder was what we gave our friends at highschool graduation.

 

Last passport shot my wife got was hand-held out-of-focus polaroid under fluorescent lights at 60-minute photo, taken by a part-time teenage girl with no shoelaces. Had to go back three times before she got one the government would accept. I could hear Karsh turning in his grave.

 

Fortunately, it's still just barely available. Who needs to be popular?

4x5 is two Golden rectangles together.

 

2.5 x 4 is equivalent to 5 x 8 which is 0.625 - actually, closer to the Golden Mean than 5 x 7, and composed of Fibonaaci numbers as well.

hi roger -

 

5x7 is my favorite format too:)

i worked for a portrait photographer when i got out of college in the 80s. she was

trained in the 20s+30s and was one of the last portraitists in rhode island before she

retired a few years back. she worked in 5x7. i did all her lab-work, and

*sometimes* would LOVE to do what i wasn't supposed to do - contact 5x7 negatives

on larger than 5x7 paper. i couldn't help myself <g>.

 

-john

Although I disagree that 8x10 is ugly, I too appreciate the aspect ratio of the 5x7 format,and it's versatility regarding enlargement or contact printing. I'm in the process of building a 12x16 camera for which I'm also building a 9"x15" rollfilm back for 9.5" aerial rollfilm, which is in the proportions of the golden mean. I'm enjoying contact printing very much, and never enlarge to a degree that would push the limits of a 4x5 negative, even if I cropped it to a higher aspect ratio. 12x16 is the largest paper I currently stock, and more often than not, I cut it down to contact print my 8x10 negatives. A 5x7 negative contact prints beautifully, and would enlarge to 12x16 almost directly, so it definitely has a place in my repetoire, even though I don't currently have the ability to enlarge a negative larger than 4x5, which I suspect is one of the reasons that 4x5 is more popular than 5x7, along with the disparity of equipment made and film available for the two formats.

<center><img src="http://www.kenleegallery.com/wfall.jpg"></center>

<p>This 4x5 image has a farily evident golden ratio. Personally, I find the exact golden ratio alone, a bit narrow. In actual practice, classical architects often combined golden rectangles as building blocks...Like the Arc de Triomphe:

<p><center><img src="http://www.holyroodtranslations.com/images/arc.jpg"></center>

It sounds like you already know what you want - 5x7. You should use the format that works for you.

 

As to puzzlement, yes I'm puzzled by format myself. I've never understood why we don't have available a nice format like 100x162mm (about 3.9x6.4 inches) which is your golden mean. It would have a similar size to 4x5 but with somewhat more area, and have a more pleasing rectangular proportion like 5x7. Yet, it would still be portable.

 

If you wanted something bigger for contract printing, why not 150x243 (about 5.9x9.57 inches)? This would "take the place" of 8x10, but be more portable maybe.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know: We've *always* done it this way. What does logic have to do with anything? And I'm *not* holding my breath ;-)

Why photographers think there is anything special about a rectanglular shape which was used 2500 years ago to design buildings is a mystery to me. I guess that it looks okay for landscape format, but for vertical shots it's far too tall and skinny to be attractive. 5x7s are too large and heavy to hand hold, and if you're going to use a tripod then might as well go to a nice, light, modern 8x10. The 5x7 negatives are too small to contact print effectively for wall display, and too large for most enlargers and scanners. The old "full plate" size of 6.5x8.5 is much nicer, but it's REALLY dead! And you can't use Polaroids to proof them.

Went out today with a 5x7 and a 4x5 reducing back. Will contact the 5x7's and enlarge the 4x5's.

Roger...years ago I read a Shutterbug magazine article you wrote on the joys of 5x7. Since then I've kept my eye open for one. My idea is to use it to shoot environmental portraits of Native Americans at Pow Wows.<P>This post -- and it's replies -- reconfirms that the 5x7 must surely be the golden fleece of large formats...I'd better get on with my quest.

Are you the Roger Hicks of published notoriety?

 

If so, why are you asking us this? - are you fishing for philosophic angles or casual survey? You have written emphatically on this before, but then again you push for all sorts of non-mainstreamities.

 

If not, you might check out the other Roger Hicks. Number of books, columns for a number of British and American mags, mostly not-too-deep technique, but enjoyably written, and usually well done.

I use an Anba 5x7 and it is a great format....at 3.5 lbs. I also own a really old 5x8 camera and that is even better because of the more beautiful proportions. If I had a choice between the two I would pick the 5x8, but it really is a pain to cut film and the neg wont go into my Durst 5x7 enlarger entirely, as well it is a really old camera. But the contacts are really proportionally cool.They are just right! The only reason I would use a 4x5 is to have a Linhof and the precision that that camera imparts. But there is no more trouble really to do 5x7 than 4x5 ....so why not, in B&W at least, use the 5x7? Oh...Roger, do you and Francis still use your Alpa MF cameras? Or has the thrill worn off? I am intriged by the new 48mm 5.6 Helvetar lens Alpa has developed for the outfit. I even think at times that this might be a great camera for the future when I dont want to carry the LF stuff around all the time.

Roger,

 

I think the 5x7 is a delightful format(I've got three working 5x7s, all very old and two are quite handholdable) but I have to disagree that the 8x10 is ugly. I shoot both formats as well as some 4x5 if needed. The aspect ratio of the 8x10, like the 4x5 is I think more intimate. The 5x7, while smaller than the 8x10, is more like the 11x14 in its panorama like feel. IMHO even in the vertical portrait format, the 5x7 has like the 11x14, a much different feel to it that is sometimes(IMHO) more pleasing. For versatillity, my Agfa back has sliders that allow for two 3-1/2x5, two 2-1/2x7, or four 3-1/2x2-1/2 imaes on a single sheet of 5x7--plus I've got the 4x5 back as well!And with my modest collection of glass plate holders, if cut film should ever be unavailable, I'm still in the game! On the other hand, I really enjoy working with the acres of ground glass the 8x10 affords me and the eye-popping detail in those big negatives. 90% of my LF work is 8x10---I love it.

 

Sadly, I think the reason why 5x7 isn't as widely used is the limited offerings(compared to the 4x5) of film and accessories like the quick load and ready load holders which 4x5 landscape shooters (especially back packers) are all ga-ga over.

 

Still, Freestyle, Photo Warehouse and J and C are only too happy to offer us great deals on 5x7 B+W film. Most of those old flat bed 4x5 cameras that go for a song on ebay will accept 5x7 backs and decent used film holders can still be found for a fraction of the cost of the new ones. 5x7 makes a sensible low cost entry into the never-never land of contacts, alternative processes, and panoramas.

 

If this is a poll of some sort, you can count me as a 5x7 supporter!

Another vote for 5x7, but it looks like all industry experts agree that this format is already dead.

 

Maybe someone with a little more industry insights than me could explain why that is the case? Is it because 5x7 has been used primarily by studio pros who already made the switch to digital?

<i>Why photographers think there is anything special about a rectanglular shape which was used 2500 years ago to design buildings is a mystery to me.</i>

<p>In a nutshell, because it's the ratio that Nature uses for design. Because we ourselves are built according to this ratio, we find it the most pleasing. Modern designers use it all the time, consciously or otherwise.

 

<p>Although this author goes a little overboard, you might find <a href="http://goldennumber.net/art.htm" target = "_blank">this article</a> interesting.

Ken, Beautiful photo

Roger, I think you've basically got a good argument, but I'm going to play devils advocate just because it's Monday. 5x7 prints really aren't big enough for my wall. Since 4x5 enlargers are common and 5x7 enlargers aren't, use 4x5. If you don't like the aspect ratio, just whack a bit off one edge. You don't lose enough area to matter. Same thing with 8x10, and you still get a big enough contact print to impress people. From a film area/quality standpoint, 5x7 isn't enough larger than 4x5 to matter much. 8x10 has it beat by a good margin. 4x5 is easily available, and 8x10 is nowhere near dead. 5x7 OTOH, may not be dead, but it's always a special order item. Bottom line is, I couldn't recommend 5x7 to a new LF photographer, but if one has the time, money, and inclination, it's another interesting tool in the box.

Hi Roger,

I'm definitely in the choir. Just last night I was going through my 5x7 and 8x10 chromes and thinking how much more pleasing the 5x7 format was. If you form a bracket in front of your eyes with your hands, thumbs horizontal with tips touching and fingers vertical, you have about the view of a 5x7. Then if you overlap your thumbs until you bring the bracket down to 8x10 proportions, you see just how constipated that view is compared to the 5x7. Not to mention the increased portability of the 5x7.

Chauncey

I have both 4X5 and 5X7 cameras. I love 5X7 for portrait work, but the lack of certain emulsions makes me use 4X5 more often than not. Lately I find myself shooting a lot of 120 roll film in a 6X9 holder - the aspect ratio is close to that of the 5X7 format and there are gobs of different films available.

In response to 5x7 being a special order kind of thing, at least here in California thats not really an accurate portrait of "just" the 5x7, since almost everything thats LF is a special order kind of thing. While 5x7 film isn't stocked by most stores,neither is 8x10 and 4x5 is pretty rare. It is always available from Freestyle and Photowarehouse. Color might be a different matter, but 5x7 B+W film is readily available out here, West of the Wild West.

 

I've noticed whenever 5x7 is discussed, Americans always seem to think it is far more popular in Europe than here, while the Europeans I've noticed have a tendency to think the format is more popular in America. It would be interesting to know what the following is in South America, Asia, Africa, and Austrailia. Somebody somewhere must be buying the stuff to keep Ilford produceing it. By the way Roger, have you tried cutting 5" aerial Plus-X roll film for use in your 5x7? Neat stuff and cheap! If this is what its like using a "dead" format, I'm not sure using a "live" format could be all that much better.--------Cheers!

And why do I keep cutting sheets of 4"x5" film down to 3"x3"? ... because it happens to suit both my purpose and my equipment. You're definitely in the minority with your preference for 5x7, Roger, but that doesn't matter - it's a strong minority as the posters here attest. <p>I read your article on the 5x7 in Black and White Photography a few months ago and I think you proved your point, but on the other hand critical mass theory would suggest that 5x7 doesn't have a glorious future ahead. It might be nice if Kodak were to produce a 5x7 digital back ... but do you think it will happen?

Ken, great use of the GM (golden mean). The strongest point of contrast, the corner of the dam cutting into the fog, creates two GM rectangles that come together at this point. One is to the upper right the other to the lower left. The vertical height of your image is cut at the GM by the thick band of fog, the horizontal by the second vertical strong element, the vertical branch on the limb. A second GM is created at the point the branch meets the limb. It divides the vertical space between the waterfall and the top of the photo. These GMs accentuates the branch and makes it a terminator that keeps moving you from the top of the photo back to the center. There's a subtle GM division of the horizontal created by the strongest vertical band in the waterfall that comes up to meet the branch of the tree. It also sets on the left edge of the oval created by the tree branches that keeps your eyes moving around this photo. In the same area, a tree branch cuts the water line at the GM. The stone is centered on the GM of the horizontal distance from the tree branch to the right that cuts the water line and the edge of the photo. Wow!

 

I'm a painter and have the luxury of doing this degree of composition on a canvas by laying out divisions before I start painting, but have never been able to achieve it in a photo. This is a wonderful image; definitely a strong argument for 4x5.

 

Back to the subject of the thread. 5x7 is my first choice. I tend to use short lenses, and don't need the extra vertical in the 4x5. In fact I frequently divide my film with a split dark slide to 6x12 images. I agree with the comment that the change in portraiture to digital changed the need for 5x7 film. I believe the 4x5 market is seeing the same crunch from the add photography moving to digital, just not as bad yet. It's probably being held at bay by the fact that 4x5 enlargers are inexpensive and the art and hobby markets are still using it to a strong degree. As printers and digital backs improve, we will see more and more problems with all formats. We as individuals can say we'll never change and film is best, but will we be able to say it in big enough numbers to convince film and paper suppliers to keep producing? Keep in mind, the decision makers of the near future will have grown up never having used film. No mater what format we feel is best, outside forces will be making a lot of decisions for us.

Allan,

 

If you're concerned that the Decision Makers are going to nail the lid onto Film's coffin look at J and C and Photo Warehouse. The availability for cut film for such limited markets as 12x20, 8x20, 7x17 etc... has really never been better and the prices for these rare formats are realistic, unlike those of The Great Yellow Father in Rochester. As long as there is a demand, there will be enterprising Decision Makers to fill our orders. If film for jurrassic 12x20 and 7x17 dinosaurs is both available and affordable, why should a plucky little ice age survivor like the 5x7 be considered an endangered species?

 

Years ago(pre-EU) a wine maker in Sion told me how his business works: "You drink more wine and we'll make more wine." I have a feeling that the folks making film in the former communist block countries have read the same business textbooks that were used in Switzerland.

I can't see how anyone can say that 5x7" can't be hand held? My Technika III 13x18 must be one of the heaviest 5x7's around - and it was designed for handheld shooting!<div></div>

John,

 

Good insight. Thanks for the tip on J&C and Photo Warehouse. I was just starting to look for ULF.

 

I lived through another computer vs by hand changeover about 10 years ago. The computer wasn't up to the task and everyone doing the work expected to be doing it by hand for a few more years, but the materials suppliers got scared and bailed. In about 2 years the old way of doing it ended. Put a lot of designers on the street, including myself. I've been gun shy ever sense. This sheet film thing has a lot of the same feel. So it's probably 25% reality 75% me.

 

It's important that we keep LF/ULF alive with younger photographers, even if we have to buy the film and hold their hands a bit getting them started. There's nothing like a couple of huge negatives floating around in young circles to catch the attention of the photographer that says "I have to do that". What if every photography teacher had a sample of 4x5 5x7 8x10 and 11x14 neg to show students in class. There's only one place they can get them. We have to keep the numbers curve going up. I let a lot of the people who ask "what are you doing" get under the dark cloth and see for themselves.

 

Ole, I agree with you 100%. My first 11x14 is weighing in under 7 lbs so far. It might pick up another pound or two by the time I'm done. It'll be for tripod or hand held. Hobo construction with a fixed 300mm.