photo_color

Re Gandolfi vs Deardorf. I tried a used Deardorf for a few days and although it seemed rugged and easy to use, it wasn't that rigid- probably due to a long life of use in the field. I had a new Gandolfi Traditional some years ago, and although I don't have it any more (having stupidly sold it), it was totally rigid, and relatively light (lighter than the Deardorf). If memory serves me, it was double extension, and the Deardorf is triple. There is a photo of it in one of Roger Hicks books. Also you can find a photo at the Gandolfi or Badger Graphics websites.

 

I just saw on PBS TV an art program which included a segment on Hiroshi Sugimoto, who uses 8x10 cameras. One scene showed him using a Deardorf - one that looked basically new!. It just got me to thinking that perhaps when new the Deardorfs were (or are, as I heard they are being made again) very rigid. Not a very brilliant thought on my part, but that Dorf sure looked beautiful, in the same league but different than that beautiful new Gandolif Traditional Precision I had years ago.

 

As a practical matter, if the Gandolfi from the 1950s has that new bellows, and is fairly rigid, the price seems really really good. A new Gandolfi Traditional now costs a fortune, in US $.

Today I took some tests shots with a friend's just acquired 7MP digicam at highest resolution (Canon SD500), and the same shots with an Olympus Stylus 35mm P&S on Astia 100F. Viewing the slides with anything more powerful than a 4x loupe (like 7x - 20x), there is much more detail in the slide apparent than the digital file (jpg full res for the camera as shown on a computer monitor). I guess most people familiar with digital will say... 'duh!:-), but to see it for myself makes it really register. Now, I don't know how much better a Canon 20D would do than the digicam, but my plans to buy a digicam have just gone on indefinite hold.

 

I contacted the suggested scanning company digmypics.com, and they recommended 2000 dpi scans, unless the trannies were pro quality on pro film, where 4000dpi might be ok, due to grain and grundge showing up on lesser quality film shots. They thought 3000 dpi would be better compromise for where a person has a variety of films in their collection. I don't know what type of equipment they use.

Now I have to decide if I want the scans saved to TIFF or JPG..

Wow - what great informative thought-provoking responses. Thank you, everyone!!

 

I'm coming back to 35mm/medium-format or/and digital from large format. I'm an amateur, interested in the usual variety of things, but an emphasis on landscape and people-included travel shots. The type of quality I'd ideally like is not affordable for me in digital yet(or perhaps in my lifetime..), but with large format I just couldn't respond fast enough to my changes in subject framing/changes in light, and I got fed up with carting all the film holders (8x10) or even contending with quickloads for 4x5. Most of what I plan on doing, if digital esp., could end up on HD DVDs some day in the near future, but I do want to be able to print a few selected items at maybe 13x19 to 20x30, with 'very high quality'- nose to the print. I used to have a Mamiya 7 and Fuji 6x9 rangefinder (I actually prefer the 6x9 aspect ratio). I could take some type of digital camera on trips for the DVD end purpose, and an MF film camera for the few shots that I might want to blow up. But I was hoping that with all this 'buzz' about digital, I could accomplish both w/o going to MF with 22MP back (which I cannot afford, and seems cumbersone anyway).

I know this subject has been touched on before, but as more people

get experience perhaps it may be more sure of just how things

compare. I've read, such as on the Luminous Landscape of how the

full-sensor 16mp (?) Canon camera not only outdoes 645, but

apparently 6x7 as well, at least up to certain print sizes (maybe

13x19 ?).

 

The Canon 20D has half the megapixles and a smaller sensor than the

top of the line Canon, so I would expect at most it would do the

same as 645 film quality, at least to prints 13x19. Although,

perhaps it won't really do as well as a 13x19 analog/optical print

made from 35mm Reala, or Provia 100F? But not having tried a

comparison myself, and not knowing what 'equivalent' or 'better

than' means for others (given others backgrounds and preferences for

lack of grain, subtle tonalities, bold colors, sharpness, etc.), I

really don't have a good idea of what I would see, if I could do a

real comparison (which would be very costly in terms of time and

money for me to go rent or buy both a 645 film camera and the Canon

20D, and have comparison high quality prints made).

 

So, has anyone had actual experience with film 645, or 6x7, and the

Canon 20D ? What are your findings in the comparison ?

 

Thank you!

Dan

Thanks to everyone for their answers. I'm going to check out the suggested website. So, for the current quality of HDTV being about 2mp, I guess for future shooting I could get away with just a 2-4mp camera (but high quality in terms of lack of noise etc.) ??

I have about 400 35mm color slides, and I'd like to have them

scanned commercially, or do it personally (depending on quality and

cost), and saved to DVD, so that eventually I'll copy them to the

new High Def DVDs coming out in the future, for the end purpose of

showing my pictures on High Def Televisions, or projecting them with

digital projectors, and getting rid of my slide projector.

 

I'm concerned about maintaining enough quality so that all the

quality that digital projectors or HD TVs can show, in say the next

10-20 years, will be captured.

 

Does anyone know of specific commercial labs that will do this?

Does anyone have an idea if it would cost a fortune and perhaps I

should buy a high quality scanner and do them myself?

 

Thank you.

Dan

I owned/tried-out a variety of Arca Swiss heads over the years (B1,

B2, B1g). After a dry spell (using a 3-way) I decided to go back to

the Arca (for both small and large format cameras), and a tried two

B1s, one B1G, and a B2, one from Adorama and the others from B&H,

in November - early December 2004.

 

I returned all of them because, although the main ball was smooth,

neither panning control really locked tight. I.e. although I locked

the panning knob tight, I could easily turn the camera/head combo in

panning motion. While this is not that important for 35mm perhaps,

it is for large format (as when inserting a film holder I don't want

the camera to move). I did not have this problem with the several

Arca heads I used years before.

 

I heard that about 3 years ago or so, Arca was having a big problem

with quality control (more than, or other than, just the panning

lock), but that they improved in the last couple of years. Has

anyone else had similar problems to mine recently ? Maybe I was just

very unlucky, or maybe those two companies are getting seconds?

 

Thank you.

I would like to thank everyone for their very thought provoking answers.

 

I did not think about the fact that one person mentioned that current DVDs are non-HD and therefore won't display the pics in HD. I guess that will change with the introduction of HD DVDs in 2006. But, even then, it appears from the answers so far, that although the results will look very good, the full resolution (4mp and above - 2272x1704 and more) of the pics won't be shown. While it's true that if you sit far enough away from a screen, then pixels won't show, but also, sitting even further, not all the available resolution will show,although it may not matter that much, depending on the situation. I guess it's something I'll just have to actually try out someday.

 

I have seen a demo of the Sony's Blu-Ray, on a digital prototype medium for the movie Lawrence of Arabia. The demo compared it to the regular DVD, using a very expensive digital projector in a darkened room on a large screen. Very impressive - the new technology blows away the regular DVD by far,that it doesn't seem like the same movie. So, HD DVDs for motion pictures, and perhaps even to a greater extent for still picture display should be great!

 

I have used medium format projectors (6x7 - both the Mamiya Cabin and an expensive German model), and yes, the results are far superior to 35mm. But, it requires far more work to mount the glass slides, and show them essentially one by one. So for me, the trouble was not worth staying with medium format (But, now I also use 8x10, in addition to 35mm, but that's another story )

 

The basic question I'm dealing with is that, it appears that even what some call the 'toy 35mm film' format would give superior results in projection (using a high quality projector/lens - like Leitz, or a Kodak with a really good lens, properly aligned to a matte white screen, not the run of the mill Kodak with poor lens and carelessly used with a poor screen) to that of any foreseeable (in the next 15 years) projection of digital pictures. So, if 35mm is a toy, then digital of less quality than a 11mp DSLR is what ? :-)However, maybe the digital presentation would provide very pleasing pictures, esp. if done on bright HD medium that doesn't need a darkened room, etc. Convenience I guess will always win out in the end as long as the quality is decent.

 

I've always preferred viewing slides to viewing prints, although I like prints too. I just don't want to give up the viewing of slides or a reasonable substitute. Most people prefer prints, and don't seem to care about such things as viewing the image in another medium such as projection, and virtually all of the information about imaging (magazines, etc.) seems to be related to producing prints. So, therefore, again, I do appreciate everyone's responses!!

I was thinking of scanning my 35mm slides at high resolution,

putting them onto DVDs, and then, eventually showing them on large

screen HDTVs. Also, thinking of buying a digital camera, and showing

the results on the same TVs (i.e. when the prices come down I can

buy say a 60" plasma or whatever technology offers the best

picture). Over time these large screen HDTVs will become more

prevalent, and I could do away with a slide projector.

 

However, I've run into a snag, at least theoretically. The HDTVs

seem to be limited to about 1366x768 pixles (50-60" plasmas). Even

if the resolution increases with other technologies, even a 'lowly'

4mp camera can deliver 2272x1704. So, am I missing something? I

won't be able so see the full resolution of pic taken with a 4mp

camera on the current crop of 60" plasma HDTVs? The full resolution

of the pic would only come into play enlarging sections of the

pictures on a computer monitor, or making large prints ?? If so, I'm

going to stay with my 35mm slide project a lot longer than I thought.

Thank you.

Yes, do please esp. ignore the comment about burning, as I got carried away, and what I said applies mainly to human eyes at the eyepiece of a telescope. As to the other comments, yes please ignore them too, because you apparently know more than amateur and professionals who specialize in photographing the sun. Good luck in your pursuit.

Dan

I don't intend to cloud up your sunny aspirations, but knowing some folks who do shoot pics of the sun, if your intention is to take one of the best photos of the sun done by an 'amateur', then you may want to rethink the large format idea. Getting really high resolution pics requires specialized equipment - and it has already been done before, by many 'amateur' astronomers. You will need a telescope or a very espensive telephoto for 35mm or medium format - just as costly as the APs, Televues, and Takahashi's, or various brands of other types of high resolution scopes - like Questar Maksutovs or scopes specifically made for viewing and photographing the sun (like those made by Coronado).

 

You need a flat film plane, so forget large format period, because the roll-film backs for large format aren't very flat, not to mention sheet film unless you use a special film holder (vacuum or other). There are, or were large format cameras (4x5 I think) specifically for 'astro' use, and may hold sheet film flatter than usual or may take glass plates.

 

Also you'll need a filter in front of your lens - either a 'white' light type, or a special one for viewing more than just sunpots. Also, if the image is really at a large scale, it's likely to be just dim enough (due to the large magnification) to require tracking the sun for the sharpest image. That means a special mounting for the scope/camera-lens.

 

You are talking thousands of bucks for any set-up that will get you near getting the sharpest photo taken by an amateur. However if you want the sharpest photo taken by an amateur large format photographer, then just have some fun with the pinhole idea, or renting a long focal length lens. You need to be careful not to burn the lens (if any of the elements are cemented watch out big time), the film, the groundglass, or your eye, if unfiltered before the lens. I would approach your project with a great deal of care.

Dan

Fedex vs UPS vs USPS.

Some posters on this message thread have said you send film via Fedex, but no one has mentioned UPS. Is Fedex better than UPS in some way - doesn't x-ray film, provides more reliable service, or ...? I've been using USPS Priority Mail, but I've been thinking of using UPS for better tracking and more peace of mind. I just haven't used Fedex, so I'd like to know how it compares to UPS for sending exposed film.

 

Thanks.

Dan

I hope the new 100S has color balance similar to RVP 50 and contrast the same or maybe a bit lower. I tried Velvia 100F several times, from 35mm to 4x5 (I'm now using 8x10 however), and I can't stand it overall.

 

I'm not that happy with Provia 100F, but prefer it to Velvia 100F - which I find to give harsh results in high contrast situations (worse than RVP 50, strangely enough). In contrastier light or where I don't want the ultimate color saturation I prefer to use Provia rather than the RVP 50. I've tried Astia 100F, which I like, EXCEPT for most landscapes, which is what I do mainly. Well I hope 100S has better color balance than Provia 100F - towards nature of RVP 50. I could live with a bit less saturation than RVP. But if 100S is the same saturation as RVP, but without the disadvantages in color balance and contrast qualities of Veliva 100F it could prove to be a very interesting product!

I've tried the Silvestri and I didn't like the metal tilting contraption moving round my groundglass, and didn't really have much use for it, but then I wasn't using lenses wider than 240 for 8x10 or 110mm for 4x5. Most people who try this loupe seem to like it however, esp for 4x5. It may be the best compromise (see below).

 

I use a 7x Calumet loupe, which provides more than enough magnification, has a plastic housing where it meets the groundglass,is sharp, and is very light. The price is good too, at around $50 or so I think. However it has a narrow field of view. When I want a larger field of view I use a square 4x Peak, which I think cost me $40-50.

 

I agree with most others who feel that 8x is too much magnification. I use the 7x with a plain groundlass, however I've also used it with a fresnel, and while it did provide the needed magnification for very fine focusing, the fresnel pattern was annoying.

 

I do not find the 4x is the best magnification for fine focusing, as it's too hard to see the exact focus sometimes. The optimim is from around 5x to 6x, but I haven't found a loupe in the range that I like. This is getting really picky of course, as for most shot even a 4x or the 7x will get the got done (each with it's own disadvantages and advantages). The Silvestri at 6x w/o the tilting contraption is a viable option, but I just don't like a metal barrel hitting the groundglass. Yes, if you don't move it around, or if botht the loupe barrel and the groundglass are clean of sand, dust, etc. it's probably ok, but I'm not always that careful.

The surveyor's tripod may be the cheapest route and be the most stable of all, but you may find them to bit a bit heavy and cumbersome to move around alot. As someone else said, mounting a head on them is not always that easy.

 

I've found that the Gitzo tripods (metal would be the least expensive rather than their carbon fibers..) are very durable, and fairly easy to transport and use. A 4-series or of course the 5-series would be fine for an 8x10. Doing w/o a center column will save weight and expense. A new 3 leg-section 5-series w/o column (the 1500) will set you back around $300-$400, less used.

 

Then there is the head to worry about. If you have a flat-bed type camera (as opposed to a monorail), then something like the Gitzo G1570M would be great. Bogen heads like the 3047 will hold the camera steady, but the camera plate it small and you have to be careful attaching the plate and camera to the head. That head is also much heavier than the Gitzo, but it is less expensive.

I've seen several postings on this forum equivalent to one which

another member of this board posted on another thread:

"Put a 22MP digital back on a medium format camera and the results

will surpass 5x4 film and rival 10x8"

 

This MAY be true, or it may not be, or may be true in certain

circumstances. But I'm skeptical. For those that believe it to be

true, please respond with evidence that will convince me, and others.

 

Such as 1), I shot the same scene, at almost the same time (if

outdoors) on 4x5 Kodak 160NC, and on 645 22MP digital. I had the 4x5

color neg printed to 20x24" via custom analog enlargling on Type N

paper, and I had the 22MP shot printed to the same size via the

latest greatest process and paper that shows up digital capture to

best advantage. I inspected both prints for sharpness, lack of

grain/lack of artifacts, color rendition, smoothness of gradation,

contrast etc. The print from the 22MP digital capture is better than

the analog 4x5 print because .....

 

2) Explain how only 22MP digital capture will yield 20x24" and larger

prints than a 4x5 color neg made on any of the 160ASA color neg

films, or 100ASA tranparency films (Provia100F, Astia 100F, Veliva

100F, Kodak E100G...) that has been scanned with a high quality drum

scan. Even allowing for grain in the film, where did all those pixels

go from the scan. Should a scan yield at least 100MP, or something on

that order?

 

 

3) Also, where's the math and similar analog comparison to 6x7

negs/transparencies? Again with larger size prints. And, if it turns

out that digital is better up to a certain size and then analog

better than digital at larger sizes, please explain how that is

possible.

Ok, there's the challenge - where's the beef ?

Quote from a message from Ellis above: "A friend of mind who is an extremely high end, internationally known commercial & editorial portrait photographer just did some tests and he said it is "almost but not as good" as his standard film format . His standard film format is 8" x 10".."

 

I wonder what the referenced photographer's standards are, and I wonder what the true mathematics of digital vs analog are. If a high quality 22mp back can make images 'almost' as good as 8x10, then what does that say about scanning 6x6, 6x7, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 film? What happened to all those pixels from scanning film? Just how much does grain in film degrade the resulting digital output compared to digital capture? If someone wants to make an exhibition quality 20"x24" or larger print, I guess they just need a 22mp medium format back then? Or is digital better up to a certain print size, and then magically at a larger size film is better? I know of tests documented on the Luminous Lanscape site that say the top of the line Canon 35mm digital camera (at around 11mp?) is 'better than 6x7' at least to print sizes up to 19" on the long size. So what does that mean - that 6x7 film becomes better at larger print sizes? How? I'm not used to something that's inferior at small sizes but better at larger sizes (well, there may be a pun there, but I'll leave that to the ladies in the audience). Maybe the 8x10 and 4x5 photographers out there might as well sell their equipment and get the Fuji 680 (which has movements) and get a digital back. The savings in film will pay for the cost of the digital back in time, and it would be much more convenient that lugging LF equipment into the field, and even futzing with film holders in the studio.

** I would really like to see a scientific comparison between large format (say 4x5) and the 22mp backs, producing prints of 20"x24", and even larger. And I would like to see a detailed explanation of what the mathematics are that explain how a 22mp back can produce images that rival 8x10 film, at various print sizes. I did see something written by Jack Dykinga, I believe (I forgot what magazine or book - maybe View Camera magazine), and it indicated that 4x5 film would be superior to a 22mp back (in so many words) -- if I'm wrong, someone please correct me!

If anyone here has had experiences with both lens, or maybe with a

300mm version of one and a 450mm version of another (M series Nikkor,

C series Fuji) I'd appreciate some advice.

 

I thinking of getting one of the 2 lenses for color work with a 4x5

camera, mainly lanscape subjects medium distance to infinity.

 

Sharpness differences are probably very small, but there are other

factors I'm interested in, for example, perhaps one lens has a

smoother look than the other - perhaps one has slightly less contrast

than the other, which translates to 'smoothness' for me.

 

Another factor would be color balance - maybe one is 'warmer' than

the other. Then there's smoothness of out-of-focus areas - bokeh.

Then perhaps one lens has truer marked apertures and shutter speeds

(I once compared a relatively new Nikkor lens to a similar Fuji and

the Fuji underexposed and had more light falloff compared to the

Nikon, but I don't remember what the focal lengths were and it was a

long time ago). It could have been due to just variations between

even lenses of the same make and model perhaps, or maybe Fuji's specs

tend to be optimistic.

 

One last item is the mechanical quality of the lens/shutter/aperture

scales- which will last longer with some abuse, or which is easier to

use. I remember that the Nikkor M has aperture and shutter scales

more the 'regular' plasmat versions of lenses including Rodenstock

and Schneider lenses, whereas the Fuji C series seems to have cheaper

stamping or engraving of the scales and such (I could be wrong on

this however).

 

Thank you.

If you are in the USA, then if I were you I would contact Fuji USA. Do a google search or maybe you have the warranty papers with the camera which would list their location. They are in the east, probably New Jersey.

 

I called them some time ago, to see about repairing a shutter, and I didn't get a good feeling about support (price, availability of parts), however it could have been due to the person I was talking to. For example, 'servcing the shutter' after the counter hits 500 equated in that person's mind to replacing the whole shutter at several hundred dollars. I always though they'd inspect and clean, and replacment would be only if needed.

 

Anyway, other resources to check are authorized Fuji repair places (again, camera warranty papers, or Internet search), and major dealers that sold the cameras new - Badger Graphic Sales, B&H, Adorama, etc.

Thanks to all of you who have submitted responses!

I hadn't thought about taking high speed film with me (3200). I'll check to see what's available in 120 and may give that a try, along with explaining I will be pushing my film, etc. if that's needed. I'll try keeping the 120 film in the foils packs and asking for a hand inspection, and see how that goes.

What is the best way to take unexposed 5-roll pro-packs of 120 film

through airport security

- (a) just ask for hand inspection and leave the film in the pro-

packs (cardboard box containing 5 rolls of film each in their sealed

foil packs)

- (b) ask for hand inspection but have the rolls of film in plastic

ziplock bags, each roll in its own sealed foil packs

- © ask for hand inspection but have each roll of film without it's

foil pack, i.e just the plain film on the spool, and have a bunch of

them in a clear ziplock baggie

- (d) other ...?

 

A complicating factor would be travel outside the US where hand

inspection may not be granted - ideas? Usually, whether domestic or

international, I would take about 20-40 rolls on a trip.

 

Thank you.

If you're going to print via analog then don't use slide film - you'll get much better results from print film (better contrast -that is lack of shawdow detail going to black as in making prints from slides w/o expensive masks or other techniques). This will usually be cheaper than making highest quality digital prints from scanned film.

 

If you're going to print digitally, especially drum scan and lightjet, then you might prefer the results from using slide film - more sharpness,and perhaps higher color saturation w/o manipulation (if desired).

 

Use slide film if you also want to project your slides onto a screen in a darkened room. Many people find this much more impressive than even the best prints, and therefore you could project the film, and yet make prints from the same slide. Wherease with print film, you'd have to have a transparency made and you wouldn't get the same quality as an original slide.

 

If you are shooting medium format, you can get 6x6 and 6x7 projectors, and, as another poster on this forum mentioned, the results will be far superior to 35mm slide projection. Viewing medium format transparencies at 40" or larger on a screen in a darkened room is a really fantastic experience.

While I have not tried the Fuji 250/6.7, I have tried the Rodenstock 240mm (Caltar same or very similar thing), and the Fuji 240/9 A.

I've shot color transparencies, and here's my opinion. If you are doing contacts, and don't need large amounts of front movements (like 2" of rise), or you are doing close ups and want enlargements (or contacts)then the Fuji 240A would be great. However, if not, I'd recommend the Caltar - better than the Fuji at infinity (even at F22, 32, 45), more even illumination at inifinity, easier focusing. I've had experience with other Fuji lenses (as well as Nikkor and Schneider), and I find that the specs given by Fuji generally are, shall I say, not as conservative as the other makers, so when it comes to comparing coverage specs from the various makes, you may not be comparing truly accurate specs (or at least not the same assumptions are made by the manufacturers). That being said, some lenses have particular qualities that may make one preferable over the other, even one that has inferior specs and only single coated. Sometimes you may prefer a softer look (like less contrast), and if the Fuji W 250 has that over the Caltar or Fuji 240A you may prefer it (I don't know that is has that, but I'm just given a hypothetical example). An older lens may have more wear on the shutter, so that may be a factor as well. You might think about getting both the Caltar and the Fuji 250, doing your own tests, and selling what you don't want.

Over the years I've tried Ries, Gitzo, and Bogen tripods with everything from 4x5 to 8x10 (and even med format Pentax 67). For use with a larger camera (8x10 or larger) out in the field, I recommend forgetting the Bogen (they'll get the job done, but they'll be heavier than the other two for the same stability, and the longevity may not be as great), and considering the Ries A100 and corresponding head, the Gitzo 1548 carbon fiber (if you can live with 4 leg sections, which I found I couldn't), or the Gitzo 1500 metal. I have no experience with the Stabil tripods others have mentioned but they seem very worthwhile to investigate.

The downside I found with the Ries was keeping the camera bed from moving when inserting a film holder, or moving the camera around. There's not enough friction between the camera bed and the top of the Ries head. Some people glue sticky material like leather or rubber to the top of the Ries head. Also, if you need to shoot low to the ground, forget the Ries - the legs will not hold very well. The Ries is the most user friendly tripod in setting up on uneven ground and nice on the hands in cold weather.

 

The Gitzo 1500 is bullet proof, has steel spikes/rubber tips , weighs slightly less than 10 lbs, can use low to the ground, folds up easily and more compactly than the Ries, and probably will require less maintenance than the Ries over time. You can use the Gitzo 1570M head, which weighs 3 lbs and has the option of using 2 screws to hold the camera (if your camera has two screw holes in the bed spaced around 5" or less apart), and has a high quality cork type material on it's top that helps hold the camera from moving even if only one screw is used.

 

An alternative head set-up, if your camera has two screw holes for mounting a head, is to get a Wimberley P-50 plate (an Arca style plate around 6" long, with multiple fasteners), mount it to your camera, and then use an Arca Swiss B2 three-way head, or put an aftermarket Arca style clamp (like from Really Right Stuff, Wimberley, etc.) on another head. Using this type of quick release is so fast and secure it's almost unreal. Also you can slide the camera a couple of inches or so fore and aft to provide better blanance of the camera if needed.

 

There's nothing like using the 'pods for yourself and seeing what works for you. There are usually trade offs and it's hard to know what is going to work under various conditions you'll encounter ahead of actually using the various tripods in those conditions.

I've shot 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 over the last few years, and have gone back to shooting only 8x10. I actually prefer the aspect ratio of 5x7, but for several reasons (well, maybe personal quirky feelings, more than 'reasons') I've chosen 8x10.

 

When viewing 8x10 contact prints vs 5x7, I preferred looking at the larger size print. Pure and simple, larger was more impressive. I certainly would have preferred a 7x10 contact. I am even thinking of putting strip of wood inside my 8x10 to make it a 7x10.

 

8x10 is much harder to load up and transport to remote locations, mainly because of carrying more than 4 holders. For shooting B&W 5x7 would be cheaper than 8x10, and holders smaller, so if contacts (or even enlarging) then not only do you have a preferable format in 5x7, but an easier to transport system, and save money as well. However, for shooting color, which I am now doing exclusively, there isn't a large difference in the total price of film plus developing, large enough to make up for the huge difference in impact looking at a 5x7 tranparency vs an 8x10 (where that tranparency is your final object). For shooting color neg, then printing contacts would give the same type of feeling (to me).

 

Choice of color 5x7, unless you want to cut down 8x10 (no thanks) is, I think, Kodak 160NC for color neg, and for reversal - Provia, EPR, and EPY, which are good films. But if you go 4x5, you can get quickloads and readyloads, no hassles with loading film holders, dust, can take a lot of film on a trip easily, etc. When I tried 5x7 I thought I'd feel a huge difference from 4x5 in the size impact of transparencies and proof prints but I didn't.

 

So the biggest reason I like 8x10 best is that purely looking at the huge image on the groundglass and the huge 8x10 tranparency, and sometimes a proof print, just blow me away - and I don't get that jazzed feeling from 4x5 or 5x7. To me it's worth it to put up with the limited number of film holders I can carry at any one time, and the reduced number of shots, and missed shots. For most people, it is not worth it, and they will shoot 4x5 and 5x7.

 

I guess no matter what the practicalities, what the economics, it boils down to trying things for yourself, and see what feels best.