When my friend first looked at the landscape through the frosted glass of an 8x10" camera, he exclaimed: "Why take pictures?! You can just watch and enjoy the beauty!"
I use 4 x 5 more than I do 5 x 7 or 8 x 10, but it is possible, with a little careful shopping, to acquire the equipment (incl. developing) for all three. Sometimes it's the subject or the effect you're seeking that makes the choice for you. In other words, I don't see these formats as alternatives; they're complementary. Inspiring video, Tony, as always. Thanks.
Very thoughtful and informative video. One point I might add is that anyone thinking 8x10 is simply twice as hard as 4x5 should really think, again! It's an exponential equation! 🤪
With my Chamonix 4x5 F2, I used their reflex viewer and love it. First for composition and initial focus. Easy to remove to use the loupe for fine focus.
@@tonysantophotography I also use a reflex viewer on my sinar f2 {4x5" } and esp. for the 65mm lens, this gives extra weight, as on the monorail (clipped to the aux standard), it provides counterweight for the fact to get 65 mm away you have to have the standards on one side of the rail clamp (the rubber sleeve gets in the way), so acts as a counterbalance, as well as a good way to view the ground glass.
Thank you Tony. This is an excellent video. I own, and greatly enjoy, a 4x5 Chamonix. For me the extra cost/weight/headaches of 8x10 would not be worth it despite the very real image quality advantages. Nevertheless I am jealous... For someone who REALLY wants to reduce weight/cost consider a 4x5 pinhole camera! A wildly different experience, lots of fun, but of course, very limiting. However the limitations sometimes lead to creative thinking which is transferable to more traditional photography. It's all fun else find something else to do!
I thought about 5x7 too, but film options are very limited. An interesting format (it has a similar proportion like A paper sizes) and size, but I actually like the 4:5 aspect ration a lot, or would rather like to have 3:4 (I would have to switch to the old 9 x 12 cm format for that, but then it's even harder to get film holders and sheet film).
Really good evaluation of cost vs total value... Although I like my Deardorf 8x10 and my 4x5's ; I have settled on the 5x7 which in black and white gives me the best "bang for the buck' or resolution per total cost; also can use the 8x10 and some 4x5 lenses. The compromise is always limited selection of film... a little color film which I do not use anyway. Also my 6x17 Fuji keeps me in the general 5x7 look anyway. You know it is getting tough when you start really re-considering Foma and Seagul and prepare for long healing brush sessions in lightroom. .
Great to see my own, personal experiences described precisely by a totally unknown friend on You Tube. Thank you very much! I've also ended up with the golden mean 5X7 format that takes the best of both worlds. Compact size and weight, yet all LF-movements in 4X5 and solid size on the negative with nice contact-copies or minimal magnification in the standard darkroom as we know it from 8x10. 5x7 is also very easy to scan for digitization for hybrid workflows. I have also discovered Foma and experienced amazing results with the 100 Classic in Rodinal/R09, 1:50 dilution in 9 min. Cheap and top technical quality! High artistic value! Haven't used anything else in five years with high production and big sales to discerning customers.
@@stephenwiseman3780 I used to enlarge on a huge USAF 8x10 enlarger or a beseler 5x7 but had to move and now I just rotary process with jobo drums (PMK Pyro) on a rotary base and scan with Epson V800 scanner. This allows for retouching dust and spots on film (not a quick process for large format film)... I just have the prints processed and mounted (foamboard) by a 3rd party. The hybrid manner reduces cost for paper /chemistry etc and definitely speeds up the process. To me it is the best compromise between pure print quality and time/cost.
Don't know if you read these comments, but here goes. Age 76. Been photographing since or about 1960. I am very comfortable with film. Since that is all we had back then anyway. I still use film now. I was using a Nikon F6, and a Hasselblad 503cw and found a bellows and Hasselblad 135mm bellows lens on ebay. The results are spectacular. So after about 5 or 6 years I sold off all my H equipment and went to a Canham 4x5 field camera, which I have just gotten. The problem is the focus. I open the shutter to let the light in so I can focus on the rear screen. The problem is I am not getting a focus of landscape images at all, even when I use my loop. I can focus up close (3 feet or so), but further away no. I am quite used to using bellows and even applying front swing, but right now this camera is not operational because I cannot move the front or rear standard enough to bring X into focus. Using a Schnider 150mm lens. Even with the shutter open I tried bringing the F/stops down to f/8 thinking that it might sharpen the image. A little but not enough to take the photo. What the heck am I doing wrong?????
Mike, sounds like the ground glass may be misaligned with where the film holder sits. But without actually seeing the camera, I can't be certain. Another unlikely possibility is that the 150mm lens is defective. Do you have another lens available to rule this possibility out? Hopefully that will help troubleshoot your problems. Thanks for watching!
Macro is very easy with big formats, if you don't have much bellows draw you just use short lenses. 35mm lenses and enlarging lenses are awesome for big formats like 8x10
For me, a 5x7 monorail with 4x5 reducing back for when colour or long view/macro/huge movements is a must. Choosen three years ago, no regrets. But, all depends on what you want to achieve... Good luck and enjoy!
tony, at 21:26, this issue was somewhat fixed by Linhof, using a vacuum back, a bulb and hose was connected to the holder, which sucked the film to the septum, presumably to fix this issue. in mf Mamiya rb67's had this 'curling' due to the nature of roll film, staying in the one place for a period of time, and even their own manual suggests shooting quick, and winding the film off within an hour or two, to stop this becoming a problem, even though, my recent roll in a 6x4.5 hasselblad H1 had no show of this missed focus, and I shot the 17 frames over 3 weeks.
I decided to go for the 4x5 format on a lot of reasons you mentioned that are more positive for the 4x5 format. I think one reason is also important and that is the extra trouble when you want to scan your negative with a camera. A 4x5 image i can scan with completely only 3 shots with my camera in combination with a good macro lens.With Capture One it is easy to stitch it to an full image.
Tony, another advantage of 4x5 is that the dof is thicker than that on 8x10, so focussing is easier, as any bump of movements gives less effect, so is less touchy so for people with less dexterity, due to arthritis, etc. this would also be a factor, and the fact the camera is smaller, there is less chance of a light leak due to flex of the frame during dark slide removal, as some say.
one other point with portability Tony, is that 4x5 also can take 120 film backs, so you end up with less gear, and the 120 rolls take up less space than the box of film and holders, and the "film bag" is smaller, and easier to 'check' at the airport.
Even more things to keep in mind people might forget: Developing 8x10 needs some pretty special tanks/drums if you are going to do it yourself without trays. In general any darkroom type work you want to do will need bigger fancier gear as mentioned. The physical size of the film also matter for scanning, I'd imagine many of the cheaper flatbeds will be hard pressed to fit 8x10. It seems to be an almost universal rule that the bigger you go the harder it gets, I should call kodak to tell them to just start making 35mm film with the quality of an 8x10 sheet.
The last line of your comment reminded me of something Jerry Uelsmann once opined: He wanted Kodak to be working on a 35mm file that would swell to 4x5 when processed. 🤣
t video and many thanks! When you say 8 X 10 is must more cost, for me it may not be. I would be happy with 8 X 10 contact prints which hugely dimplifies the darkroom equipment basically to a light bulb and paper/neg holder, a metronome and a few trays for neg developing and printing. Ansel Adams preferred sheet oil in tray processing and looking at a video on Edward Weston's darkroom, to me, says wow look how simple this set up is. I'm in a part of the world (Newfoundland) that doesn't even have a proper camera shop in the entire province and finding an affordable but decent 4 X 5 enlarger and getting it shipped her is as much as the enlarger IF I could find a seller that would ship which so far I haven't. No, I'm not interested in the Intrepid "enlarger" which looks like auto much of a compromise. So, wouldn't the cost of an 8 X 10 set up possibly be less than a 4 X5 set up taking having to find and purchase a 4 V 5 enlarger with a colour or Cold Light head? I only take B&W images and again would be happy with 8 X 10 contact prints. No enlarger to align, lamps and other electronics to deal with, etc...I do realize the difference in film cost but I'd be taking less images with 8 X 10. The other cost consideration is the tripod. Some say you need a 2,000 wooden Reis tripod. Will this is probably not true (please comment or give recommendations) an 8 x 10 tripod would need to be larger, more expensive and heavier than a 4 X 5 tripod (especially if went with an intrepid or ONDU Eiken being released soon? I would go 8 X 10 IF I can find a tripod that works and isn't $500 or more and I felt I could manage it at age 67 with some arthritis issues. I think the only way to know if I can handle it is by trying it but that could be a bit of a risk. I most I would carry any camera or hike without a camera now is about 30 Minutes from the vehicle. I've even though of adding a platform on my SUV as AA did. I realize you are into extremely large prints which I'd love to see. Are there any others out there with 8 X 10's just doing contact prints today? Many Thanks, Stephen
Stephen, You make some very important points that I hadn't considered. If all you want to do is contact print black and white images, then 8x10 is great for that. I have two other videos that I think may help with some of your other questions. Here is a video that may help answer your tripod question: ua-cam.com/video/259xbSYHTvE/v-deo.htmlsi=UkuT3PaBrJJQLunI You can see an example of one of my prints here: ua-cam.com/video/paFGACRD4Hg/v-deo.htmlsi=JniJGy95ijZEvKIc. Thanks for watching!
Very good video, you covered nearly everything I can think of! I would only add that scanning could be a major difference, that also contributes to the cost aspect. With 4x5, "camera" scanning is a viable option (for most use cases, even for moderately large printing) if a high-resolution digital camera is already at hand (like an older Olympus m43 with 80 MP pixel-shift hi-res mode, which gives around 60 MP "real" resolution), and when using a decent video-light with very even light distribution as a light source (I found light tables to be too uneven for 4x5). Not so easy with 8x10 - there I would always opt for a flat-bed scanner (or resort to contact printing as the go-to printing option ;-)).
I use a reflex viewer because my eyes are not as good as they once were and because at my age I find it difficult to get on my knees for low angles, getting up from my knees problem too.
you also didn't mention in the video the shutter size, as 4x5 normally uses copal 0 or 1, and 8x10 is copal 3 which is less available, and to mount a lens, both the shutter and lens board need this same size, so the more available, the cheaper the options are, in consideration of the total spend in the supplies required to shoot LF film.
8x10 is too costly for me and I prefer to put money into lenses for my 4x5 stenopeika camera. This is where I need a guide about antique, vintage, brass lenses for portraits. And if it worth it to downgrade quality.
When my friend first looked at the landscape through the frosted glass of an 8x10" camera, he exclaimed: "Why take pictures?! You can just watch and enjoy the beauty!"
LOL! 😂 The world does seem more interesting on the ground glass. Thanks for watching!😎
I use 4 x 5 more than I do 5 x 7 or 8 x 10, but it is possible, with a little careful shopping, to acquire the equipment (incl. developing) for all three. Sometimes it's the subject or the effect you're seeking that makes the choice for you. In other words, I don't see these formats as alternatives; they're complementary. Inspiring video, Tony, as always. Thanks.
Excellent points Bernard! I appreciate your ongoing support!
Very thoughtful and informative video. One point I might add is that anyone thinking 8x10 is simply twice as hard as 4x5 should really think, again! It's an exponential equation! 🤪
😂 LOL! I appreciate you taking the time to watch.
Great video! I was hoping you could talk about 4x10, I think prints from that format would be interesting but I've never tried it.😄
Agreed! 4x10 would be a great pano option. I appreciate your taking the time to comment! Thanks for your support! 😀
With my Chamonix 4x5 F2, I used their reflex viewer and love it. First for composition and initial focus. Easy to remove to use the loupe for fine focus.
That's great to know. Thank you for taking the time to share!😎
@@tonysantophotography I also use a reflex viewer on my sinar f2 {4x5" } and esp. for the 65mm lens, this gives extra weight, as on the monorail (clipped to the aux standard), it provides counterweight for the fact to get 65 mm away you have to have the standards on one side of the rail clamp (the rubber sleeve gets in the way), so acts as a counterbalance, as well as a good way to view the ground glass.
Thank you Tony. This is an excellent video. I own, and greatly enjoy, a 4x5 Chamonix. For me the extra cost/weight/headaches of 8x10 would not be worth it despite the very real image quality advantages. Nevertheless I am jealous...
For someone who REALLY wants to reduce weight/cost consider a 4x5 pinhole camera! A wildly different experience, lots of fun, but of course, very limiting. However the limitations sometimes lead to creative thinking which is transferable to more traditional photography. It's all fun else find something else to do!
Thank you Jeffrey! I appreciate you sharing with us and for your support!😎
I landed on 5x7 after starting with 4x5. A good option IMO.
I thought about 5x7 too, but film options are very limited. An interesting format (it has a similar proportion like A paper sizes) and size, but I actually like the 4:5 aspect ration a lot, or would rather like to have 3:4 (I would have to switch to the old 9 x 12 cm format for that, but then it's even harder to get film holders and sheet film).
That's an excellent option as well. I've never had the opportunity to shoot 5x7. I appreciate your support! 😎
B&H has 19 5x7 options which covers my favorite films: Portra 160, Ilford HP5+ 400, FP4+ 125, Delta 100, TMax 400 and TriX 320 TXP.
Really good evaluation of cost vs total value... Although I like my Deardorf 8x10 and my 4x5's ; I have settled on the 5x7 which in black and white gives me the best "bang for the buck' or resolution per total cost; also can use the 8x10 and some 4x5 lenses. The compromise is always limited selection of film... a little color film which I do not use anyway. Also my 6x17 Fuji keeps me in the general 5x7 look anyway. You know it is getting tough when you start really re-considering Foma and Seagul and prepare for long healing brush sessions in lightroom. .
Thanks Randy! I’ve often wondered what 5x7 would be like. Film prices are definitely out of control. 😂
Great to see my own, personal experiences described precisely by a totally unknown friend on You Tube. Thank you very much! I've also ended up with the golden mean 5X7 format that takes the best of both worlds. Compact size and weight, yet all LF-movements in 4X5 and solid size on the negative with nice contact-copies or minimal magnification in the standard darkroom as we know it from 8x10. 5x7 is also very easy to scan for digitization for hybrid workflows. I have also discovered Foma and experienced amazing results with the 100 Classic in Rodinal/R09, 1:50 dilution in 9 min. Cheap and top technical quality! High artistic value! Haven't used anything else in five years with high production and big sales to discerning customers.
Do you contact print or enlarge on a huge enlarger?
@@stephenwiseman3780 I have done contact printing but I prefer a hybrid workflow. I drum scan my images, then print using an optical printer.
@@stephenwiseman3780 I used to enlarge on a huge USAF 8x10 enlarger or a beseler 5x7 but had to move and now I just rotary process with jobo drums (PMK Pyro) on a rotary base and scan with Epson V800 scanner. This allows for retouching dust and spots on film (not a quick process for large format film)... I just have the prints processed and mounted (foamboard) by a 3rd party. The hybrid manner reduces cost for paper /chemistry etc and definitely speeds up the process. To me it is the best compromise between pure print quality and time/cost.
Don't know if you read these comments, but here goes. Age 76. Been photographing since or about 1960. I am very comfortable with film. Since that is all we had back then anyway. I still use film now. I was using a Nikon F6, and a Hasselblad 503cw and found a bellows and Hasselblad 135mm bellows lens on ebay. The results are spectacular. So after about 5 or 6 years I sold off all my H equipment and went to a Canham 4x5 field camera, which I have just gotten. The problem is the focus. I open the shutter to let the light in so I can focus on the rear screen. The problem is I am not getting a focus of landscape images at all, even when I use my loop. I can focus up close (3 feet or so), but further away no. I am quite used to using bellows and even applying front swing, but right now this camera is not operational because I cannot move the front or rear standard enough to bring X into focus. Using a Schnider 150mm lens. Even with the shutter open I tried bringing the F/stops down to f/8 thinking that it might sharpen the image. A little but not enough to take the photo. What the heck am I doing wrong?????
Mike, sounds like the ground glass may be misaligned with where the film holder sits. But without actually seeing the camera, I can't be certain. Another unlikely possibility is that the 150mm lens is defective. Do you have another lens available to rule this possibility out? Hopefully that will help troubleshoot your problems. Thanks for watching!
Macro is very easy with big formats, if you don't have much bellows draw you just use short lenses. 35mm lenses and enlarging lenses are awesome for big formats like 8x10
That's a great tip! Thanks for sharing with all of us. I appreciate your support.😎
For me, a 5x7 monorail with 4x5 reducing back for when colour or long view/macro/huge movements is a must. Choosen three years ago, no regrets. But, all depends on what you want to achieve... Good luck and enjoy!
Thanks for sharing! It seems like a lot of folks are finding 5x7 to be a happy medium. 😀 I appreciate your support!
tony, at 21:26, this issue was somewhat fixed by Linhof, using a vacuum back, a bulb and hose was connected to the holder, which sucked the film to the septum, presumably to fix this issue. in mf Mamiya rb67's had this 'curling' due to the nature of roll film, staying in the one place for a period of time, and even their own manual suggests shooting quick, and winding the film off within an hour or two, to stop this becoming a problem, even though, my recent roll in a 6x4.5 hasselblad H1 had no show of this missed focus, and I shot the 17 frames over 3 weeks.
Thanks Andy. I appreciate you taking the time to share with all of us!😃
I decided to go for the 4x5 format on a lot of reasons you mentioned that are more positive for the 4x5 format. I think one reason is also important and that is the extra trouble when you want to scan your negative with a camera. A 4x5 image i can scan with completely only 3 shots with my camera in combination with a good macro lens.With Capture One it is easy to stitch it to an full image.
Excellent point! I appreciate you taking the time to watch. 😎
Tony, another advantage of 4x5 is that the dof is thicker than that on 8x10, so focussing is easier, as any bump of movements gives less effect, so is less touchy so for people with less dexterity, due to arthritis, etc. this would also be a factor, and the fact the camera is smaller, there is less chance of a light leak due to flex of the frame during dark slide removal, as some say.
Excellent points Andy. I appreciate your support! 😎
Great video as always, Tony! Keep em comin
Thanks Landon! I appreciate your support!😎
one other point with portability Tony, is that 4x5 also can take 120 film backs, so you end up with less gear, and the 120 rolls take up less space than the box of film and holders, and the "film bag" is smaller, and easier to 'check' at the airport.
Good point Andy! I appreciate you taking the time to contribute.😎
Even more things to keep in mind people might forget:
Developing 8x10 needs some pretty special tanks/drums if you are going to do it yourself without trays. In general any darkroom type work you want to do will need bigger fancier gear as mentioned. The physical size of the film also matter for scanning, I'd imagine many of the cheaper flatbeds will be hard pressed to fit 8x10.
It seems to be an almost universal rule that the bigger you go the harder it gets, I should call kodak to tell them to just start making 35mm film with the quality of an 8x10 sheet.
Those are excellent points! Sounds like a good project for Kodak! 😂
The last line of your comment reminded me of something Jerry Uelsmann once opined: He wanted Kodak to be working on a 35mm file that would swell to 4x5 when processed. 🤣
t video and many thanks! When you say 8 X 10 is must more cost, for me it may not be. I would be happy with 8 X 10 contact prints which hugely dimplifies the darkroom equipment basically to a light bulb and paper/neg holder, a metronome and a few trays for neg developing and printing. Ansel Adams preferred sheet oil in tray processing and looking at a video on Edward Weston's darkroom, to me, says wow look how simple this set up is. I'm in a part of the world (Newfoundland) that doesn't even have a proper camera shop in the entire province and finding an affordable but decent 4 X 5 enlarger and getting it shipped her is as much as the enlarger IF I could find a seller that would ship which so far I haven't. No, I'm not interested in the Intrepid "enlarger" which looks like auto much of a compromise. So, wouldn't the cost of an 8 X 10 set up possibly be less than a 4 X5 set up taking having to find and purchase a 4 V 5 enlarger with a colour or Cold Light head? I only take B&W images and again would be happy with 8 X 10 contact prints. No enlarger to align, lamps and other electronics to deal with, etc...I do realize the difference in film cost but I'd be taking less images with 8 X 10. The other cost consideration is the tripod. Some say you need a 2,000 wooden Reis tripod. Will this is probably not true (please comment or give recommendations) an 8 x 10 tripod would need to be larger, more expensive and heavier than a 4 X 5 tripod (especially if went with an intrepid or ONDU Eiken being released soon? I would go 8 X 10 IF I can find a tripod that works and isn't $500 or more and I felt I could manage it at age 67 with some arthritis issues. I think the only way to know if I can handle it is by trying it but that could be a bit of a risk. I most I would carry any camera or hike without a camera now is about 30 Minutes from the vehicle. I've even though of adding a platform on my SUV as AA did.
I realize you are into extremely large prints which I'd love to see. Are there any others out there with 8 X 10's just doing contact prints today?
Many Thanks,
Stephen
Stephen, You make some very important points that I hadn't considered. If all you want to do is contact print black and white images, then 8x10 is great for that. I have two other videos that I think may help with some of your other questions. Here is a video that may help answer your tripod question: ua-cam.com/video/259xbSYHTvE/v-deo.htmlsi=UkuT3PaBrJJQLunI You can see an example of one of my prints here: ua-cam.com/video/paFGACRD4Hg/v-deo.htmlsi=JniJGy95ijZEvKIc. Thanks for watching!
Very good video, you covered nearly everything I can think of! I would only add that scanning could be a major difference, that also contributes to the cost aspect. With 4x5, "camera" scanning is a viable option (for most use cases, even for moderately large printing) if a high-resolution digital camera is already at hand (like an older Olympus m43 with 80 MP pixel-shift hi-res mode, which gives around 60 MP "real" resolution), and when using a decent video-light with very even light distribution as a light source (I found light tables to be too uneven for 4x5). Not so easy with 8x10 - there I would always opt for a flat-bed scanner (or resort to contact printing as the go-to printing option ;-)).
Excellent points Christian! I appreciate your support! 😎
sorry about the typos!
No worries! I appreciate you taking the time to write. 😎
No question: 5x7 !
That's an excellent option too! I've never had the opportunity to shoot that format but it looks like fun too! Thanks for watching!😎
I use a reflex viewer because my eyes are not as good as they once were and because at my age I find it difficult to get on my knees for low angles, getting up from my knees problem too.
Thank you for sharing Matt! I appreciate your support!😎
I enjoy shooting both but 4x5 is more economical for me.
Cool! Thanks for watching! 😎
you also didn't mention in the video the shutter size, as 4x5 normally uses copal 0 or 1, and 8x10 is copal 3 which is less available, and to mount a lens, both the shutter and lens board need this same size, so the more available, the cheaper the options are, in consideration of the total spend in the supplies required to shoot LF film.
Ahhhhhh yes. I didn't think about the Copal sizes. Excellent point! Thanks for bringing that valid point up. I appreciate your support.😎
only reason i want to shoot 8x10 is polaroid 8x10 film 😋
That would be pretty cool! Thanks for watching!
8x10 lenses usually do not offer as much movements as 4x5. And as you mentioned, way more expensive.
Excellent points! I appreciate you taking the time to watch. 😎
@@tonysantophotography thanks for making the videos. Enjoy them very much.
8x10 is too costly for me and I prefer to put money into lenses for my 4x5 stenopeika camera. This is where I need a guide about antique, vintage, brass lenses for portraits. And if it worth it to downgrade quality.
The old lenses are intriguing and unique. Unfortunately, I don't own any to try out. Thanks fro watching!
64x17
4x5 is better for me because my darkroom is able to handle 4x5 easier than 8x10.
Awesome! Thanks for taking the time to watch! I appreciate your support.😎
4 x 5 and 5 x 7 here. 8 x 10 is just too big and heavy for a lot of uses.
I can appreciate that. Thanks for watching!