4x5" film, using labs or develop yourself?

[RobertJ]

That's certainly not true.  4x5 clearly has an advantage over 6x7.

Read Tim Parkin's Big Camera Comparison. http://onlandscape.timparkin.co.uk/2011/12/22/big-camera-comparison/

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

That's certainly not true.  4x5 clearly has an advantage over 6x7.

Read Tim Parkin's Big Camera Comparison. http://onlandscape.timparkin.co.uk/2011/12/22/big-camera-comparison/

I didn't want to imply it has no advantage.
I just wanted to relate the advantage to the significant amount of additional hassle you'll get.
And when wanting to stand this additional hassle for better IQ, 8x10 might be an option.

[John Rodriguez]

I didn't want to imply it has no advantage.
I just wanted to relate the advantage to the significant amount of additional hassle you'll get.
And when wanting to stand this additional hassle for better IQ, 8x10 might be an option.

I don't see much additional hassle with sheet film versus roll film with a view camera, especially considering you get 95x120mm versus 60x70mm of film real estate (significant to me). 

Development - Better with sheets, you can vary development to suit the intended photography.  You'd have to carry a LOT of roll backs to accomplish that.

Scanning - Yes, it's cheaper to drum scan 6x7, but that's a cost of resolution.  If you're flatbed scanning at home the only difference is the number of images you scan at a time.

Storage - ?  It's pretty easy to store 4x5, I use index card boxes.

The only extra hassle I see is loading and carrying film holders, but it's worth it for me.  Now, a long trip in the backcountry traveling light?  A 6x9 back loaded with Portra 400, camera and two lenses becomes attractive.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

[...]  Now, a long trip in the backcountry traveling light?  A 6x9 back loaded with Portra 400, camera and two lenses becomes attractive.

Actually thats one of my future plans. 

[John Rodriguez]

I've got a setup just for that purpose 

[mmurph]

I used to develop all of my own B&W film. I used to buy bulk chemicals and mix my own developers, etc.

When I switched to shooting all C-41 film in 1998 (and converting to B&W from color - incredible control in LR to do that now)  I started to send all of my film to the lab.  There just is not teh creativity involved with color film developing as there is with B&W.

I also went to all digital output with film capture in 1998.  I chose Portra 160 NC for scanning because of the dynamic range it captured. You can always "throw away" information to get higher saturation/contrast. You can't go in the opposite direction as easily.

When I got my Canon 1DsII in 2004, I stopped using my 645 and 6x7 film cameras. It wasn't exactly planned, it was just what happened.  That was the tipping point for me in terms of quality & work flow & cost.  My 6x7 pro film with lab developing was $1 per frame.

I continued to ship my 4x5 film to E-6 Lab in Atlanta (they also do C-41.)

With the newest generation of 35mm FF cameras coming, I have sold all of my 4x5 film equipment.  Again, it is the tipping point of quality vs. cost vs. what I can get by stitching, etc. 

That is not to say there is equal quality, or no reason to shoot 4x5 or MFDB anymore.  It is just that the marginal value and incremental cost at $5 per sheet tipped the value to the latest generation of cameras for me.

Michael