Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: fredjeang on February 07, 2010, 07:59:21 am
-
Hi,
Recently, I've been asking here for some advices and I would like first to thank you all for the usefull posts I've been received so far.
I've decided finaly to make the step to large format and start to learn this particular photography approach.
But starting from zero, I wonder if not going directly to 5x7 or 8x10 and forget about 4x5.
Well, looking at the cost aspect, 8x10 seems a step more expensive, but not so much 5x7 from 4x5.
It is particulary difficult to choose because there is a lot of possibilities in the second-hand market here in 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10.
At the end, more I search, more I get confused
If you had to restart from zero now, what would you consider better?
My feeling leads me to 5x7 (There are some Toyo View 57) but I would like to hear from your experience.
Thank you.
Fred.
-
Fred,
If you plan to print full frame, as in making contact prints or using the black borders inherent in the negative, then think about which format is more suitable to your imagery.
Obviously 4x5 is identical to 8x10, but 5x7 feels much longer (or less square). If you lean towards images that are more panoramic, then the 5x7 which also gives you the ability to use a 6x17 roll film holder.
Good Luck!
And ya know, every time I walk past my unused drum scanner I think about buying a 4x10 : )
-CB
-
I'd agree with what Chris said and add that 1) a 5x7 camera is usually not that much larger than a 4x5 physically, and usually can accept a 4x5 reducing back, so you get kind of a 2-fer right out of the gate; 2) most modern lenses that will cover 4x5 also cover 5x7; 3) 8x10 is a whole world different in re size, weight and available lenses.
-
Are you shooting color or b/w?
Shooting color with 8x10 can be pretty expensive; I believe that a box of 50 sheets of 8x10 film is around $350 whereas a box of 4x5 is about $100.
If shooting b/w and you plan on processing your own prints, are you making silver prints or platinum/palladium prints? It is easier to find an enlarger that will accept 4x5 then it is to find one that accepts 8x10. Not to mention 8x10 enlargers are huge. So if silver is the name of the game I would choose 4x5. Also, if you want the most movements you can get, then you need a rail camera and an 8x10 rail camera is a beast.
But then again, if you are going the alternative route, platinum prints from an 8x10 are amazing. Also the larger negative size enables you to have more controls when printing with dodging and burning, and selectively toning the negative to increase density. Not to mention that making a larger negative from a smaller one so you can get a bigger print is a real pain. And if you do not have a dark room or easy access to one, contact printing can be a great option being that the safe light is normal incandescent light.
-
Well,
From a pure personal taste, Platinum would be my choice.
I plan to use 90% black & white.
About DOF, about 60% shallow but need for some purpose to work with large DOF.
I plan to develop and scan myself, then use a lab for enlargements.
In Madrid you have access to 8x10
I would like to increase step by step paper size when incresed my skill, to reach an average size of 3,00m for gallery works.
80% of the work is gonna be outside in most windy conditions (I'm concern about that)
Yes, this is a process I first want to do for me, like a more contemplative and slower approach,
I love these cameras. Also, another reason is that I'm not convinced so far (and I love a lot of things in digital)
with Noise replacing grain, I know it might sounds snob but I see it when enlarging big.
Also, I've noticed that since digital appeared, I shoot more "anything" because it's free. I spend much more time watching (and erasing) my pictures than
taking them and my percentage of keepers is much less that when I was working with 35mm film. By the way, all the friends I have talked to, noticed the same thing.
I will still use digital and upgrade of course, but in a way I want with LF to come back to the source, and do big prints.
Fred.
-
For many of the reasons stated by Jack and Chris etc. above, I love the 5x7 format. The only drawback is the increasingly limited film selection available in 5x7 compared to 4x5 and 8x10. If your shooting B&W this is less of a problem.
You might want to ask this question on the Large Format Forum where I am a moderator. It has a very large and active membership all over the world.
LFF (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php) or LFF (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/search.php?do=getdaily&days=10)
-
For many of the reasons stated by Jack and Chris etc. above, I love the 5x7 format. The only drawback is the increasingly limited film selection available in 5x7 compared to 4x5 and 8x10. If your shooting B&W this is less of a problem.
You might want to ask this question on the Large Format Forum where I am a moderator. It has a very large and active membership all over the world.
LFF (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php) or LFF (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/search.php?searchid=3575085)
Thank you Kirk.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
Hey Fred,
I've been mulling over the same thing as you recently. I have both a 4x5(sinar F2) and 8x10(old burke and James).
both have their uses. I shoot easily 10x more 4x5 than 8x10, just due to portability issues, and most of the time, 4x5 meets my res. needs perfectly fine.
I started with 4x5, but personally, I wish it had been with 8x10. Looking at an 8x10 ground glass is an experience that is like no other, well, maybe 11x14 .
since you're shooting 90% B&W, the efke films are great! And very cost effective too! Like, $32 U.S. for a 50sht box from Freestyle. I shoot the 25 speed stuff, since its EXTREMELY fine-grained, and has that 'old-school' feel to it.
I'm at home with my folks while at school, so the 2nd bathroom doubles as my "darkroom". I haven't been able to get up and running yet with printing(contact printing only), but so far, developing film has been no problem whatsoever.
5x7 is a great format, I've only shot it once, but it was a very nice format, and I can see why some people use it as their primary format.
8x10, to me; is the end-all of formats. It is *just* portable enough, without being HUGE, but 4x5/5x7 kicks its butt in the portability game.
don't let people tell you off that 4x5 or 5x7 is too small to contact print, bollocks. Just cause some people think that a decent print is a big print, they're full of shite IMO. Big pictures are great in some cases, but you run out of storage space REALLY QUICK! 8x10 is big enough to let you see SUPER FINE DETAILS(think individual hairs in a portrait), but sometimes a 4x5 or 5x7 contact print is more 'intimate' than a big-ass print. Brings the viewer in closer too.
look at this website, its CONTACT PRINTING ONLY, it'll knock your socks off!
www.michaelandpaula.com
they work in silver-chloride, not silver bromide(traditional papers), and their darkroom consists of trays, chemicals(read ALL of the website, they talk about their process), and a lightbulb(no enlarger).
In the end, I've found that LF is a great starting point for ALL photographers, it helps you to look at something, and pre-visualize what you want, and how you need to get there(like with Zone System if you decide to use it)
lots of "stuff" to digest, but the results are worth it!
IIWY, I'd start with 4x5 or 5x7, to get your feet wet with LF. lenses are more plentiful for these formats, and remember that depending on how fast you shoot, you might be going through LOTS of film when first getting started.
just my $.02
if you have any questions, please PM me, if you want to that is
-Dan
-
Hey Fred,
I've been mulling over the same thing as you recently. I have both a 4x5(sinar F2) and 8x10(old burke and James).
both have their uses. I shoot easily 10x more 4x5 than 8x10, just due to portability issues, and most of the time, 4x5 meets my res. needs perfectly fine.
I started with 4x5, but personally, I wish it had been with 8x10. Looking at an 8x10 ground glass is an experience that is like no other, well, maybe 11x14 .
since you're shooting 90% B&W, the efke films are great! And very cost effective too! Like, $32 U.S. for a 50sht box from Freestyle. I shoot the 25 speed stuff, since its EXTREMELY fine-grained, and has that 'old-school' feel to it.
I'm at home with my folks while at school, so the 2nd bathroom doubles as my "darkroom". I haven't been able to get up and running yet with printing(contact printing only), but so far, developing film has been no problem whatsoever.
5x7 is a great format, I've only shot it once, but it was a very nice format, and I can see why some people use it as their primary format.
8x10, to me; is the end-all of formats. It is *just* portable enough, without being HUGE, but 4x5/5x7 kicks its butt in the portability game.
don't let people tell you off that 4x5 or 5x7 is too small to contact print, bollocks. Just cause some people think that a decent print is a big print, they're full of shite IMO. Big pictures are great in some cases, but you run out of storage space REALLY QUICK! 8x10 is big enough to let you see SUPER FINE DETAILS(think individual hairs in a portrait), but sometimes a 4x5 or 5x7 contact print is more 'intimate' than a big-ass print. Brings the viewer in closer too.
look at this website, its CONTACT PRINTING ONLY, it'll knock your socks off!
www.michaelandpaula.com
they work in silver-chloride, not silver bromide(traditional papers), and their darkroom consists of trays, chemicals(read ALL of the website, they talk about their process), and a lightbulb(no enlarger).
In the end, I've found that LF is a great starting point for ALL photographers, it helps you to look at something, and pre-visualize what you want, and how you need to get there(like with Zone System if you decide to use it)
lots of "stuff" to digest, but the results are worth it!
IIWY, I'd start with 4x5 or 5x7, to get your feet wet with LF. lenses are more plentiful for these formats, and remember that depending on how fast you shoot, you might be going through LOTS of film when first getting started.
just my $.02
if you have any questions, please PM me, if you want to that is
-Dan
Thank you so much for this extensive and precise reply Dan,
I have been looking in www.michaelandpaula.com. It is just mind-blowing!!! Keep in favorites and watch it later when the night as fallen and silence caught the city.
Efke 25 is 32 for 4x5 but 125 for 8x10! big step because price does not follow the same 2 x proportion.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
Efke 25 is 32 for 4x5 but 125 for 8x10! big step because price does not follow the same 2 x proportion.
8x10 is actually 4x the size of 4x5. So 4x32= $124. In the ballpark IMHO.
Anyway, I shoot both 4x5 and 8x10. I love the portability of the 4x5. When traveling or hiking long distances, you can't beat the 4x5. I've always wanted to get into 5x7, but I just haven't gone there yet. Probably because I shoot color and haven't wanted to spend the money yet.
-
8x10 is actually 4x the size of 4x5. So 4x32= $124. In the ballpark IMHO.
Shame on me! it is 4x of course... Price was correct.
Fred.
-
... If your prints are 16x20 or smaller you can mimic the 8x10 inch effect not too bad even with a 5D Mark II (35L@1.4, 50L@1.2, 85L@1.2). The bigger your prints the bigger the difference. But only if you compare with 8x10. 4x5 and 5x7 are easy to mimic with digital at any print size....
Very interested in hearing about the mimicing parts in more detail.
-
I shoot 5x7 and colour is a problem, not just finding the film but I only have found one lab in the UK that can process 5x7, if they close down I will be a bit stuck unless I do it myself.
Ilford film I get easily in 5x7. Also many 5x4 lenses stopped down will work on 5x7 some don't need stopping down, so more to choose from. I like 5x7,I have a beat up old made in India with added 5x7 Norma back, very limited on movements but weighs very little and quite small when folded. Lens boards I make out of 6mm MDF. I also have a Plaubel monorail.
If I ever find a quality professional guillotine on ebay I will buy 10x8 colour and cut to size.
Kevin.
-
5x7 color is a problem, but 4x5 isn't, at least yet. Which is why I suggested a 5x7 camera with 4x5 reducing back Also, you can cut 8x10 and get 2 5x7 sheets.
-
I put an example together: One Image is Sinar 8x10, Apo-Ronar 360@9, T-Max 400, Creo flatbed scanner DT-File @1440dpi. The other is Canon EOS 5D MkII, 50L@1.2, color->B&W in LR2. No sharpening in scan and Canon. You also find two 100 % samples, where you see the difference in detail. In real world prints you start to see the difference, if you print larger than 16x20 inch.
Can you see which one is 8x10 and which one is 5D - I'm not talking of the details? To make it not so easy I scanned a uniform grey 8x10 negative and made an overlay with the 5D file.
Best,
Johannes
Hi Johannes,
A blind test
To me the 8x10 Sinar is the second one (96K file).
Am I right?
If you point that the differences are started to be seen from 20inch, my goal of printing is much bigger (more than 100 inch) , so I think I have no other choice than LF.
Cheers
Fred.
-
You are right it is the 2nd. Whether you need 8x10 depends on the viewing distance. But, size isn't everything.
Best,
Johannes
I have to confess that I was unable to judge the differences from a resolution point of view; what leaded me to the second is that you said T-MAX 400, and I used to work a lot with that film many years ago when I started photography and digital did not exist yet. So the second one reminded me more of the T-Max touch.
Yes Johannes, size is not everything...from time to time
I would also like to work in contact prints, just the oposite, I like to find the center from the extremes if I can say it that way.
Thanks for your instructive post.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
...Can you see which one is 8x10 and which one is 5D - ....
No.
Curious, have you ever compared an 8x10 contact print to an 8x10ish print from a DSLR? If so, what differences did you note?
-
I put an example together: One Image is Sinar 8x10, Apo-Ronar 360@9, T-Max 400, Creo flatbed scanner DT-File @1440dpi. The other is Canon EOS 5D MkII, 50L@1.2, color->B&W in LR2. No sharpening in scan and Canon. You also find two 100 % samples, where you see the difference in detail. In real world prints you start to see the difference, if you print larger than 16x20 inch.
Can you see which one is 8x10 and which one is 5D - I'm not talking of the details? To make it not so easy I scanned a uniform grey 8x10 negative and made an overlay with the 5D file.
Best,
Johannes
I'm confused why the 8x10 portrait would create a better print at larger than 16x20 than the 5D2, considering that you'll just end up with one big, blurry, detail-less print from the 8x10 scan, while the 5D2 will enlarge much nicer, even up to 40x50, with more detail. Am I right, or am I just confused here?
Can you show a crop from the 8x10 that actually shows sharp detail and will smoke the 5D2 in larger sizes?
-
I'm confused why the 8x10 portrait would create a better print at larger than 16x20 than the 5D2, considering that you'll just end up with one big, blurry, detail-less print from the 8x10 scan, while the 5D2 will enlarge much nicer, even up to 40x50, with more detail. Am I right, or am I just confused here?
Can you show a crop from the 8x10 that actually shows sharp detail and will smoke the 5D2 in larger sizes?
Well, it is an interesting question for the LF masters. All I can tell you, is that:
1) I often go in art galleries where you can see huge enlargement (painting sizes 80, 100 ich and +), and I always ask the medium: NEVER it is digital (or so far in my case), all is LF. For a good reason I guess.
2) From a certain size, I can see the difference between grain and noise. In the first case it is vibration, in the second case it is polution.
In really big prints you see the problem.
There are some people who are very sensitives to that difference, others do not care.
But from the art market, buyers and collectors who are ready to buy a 10000 dollars work of art, are pretty concerned about this.
That is my humble opignon.
Fred.
-
Well, it is an interesting question for the LF masters. All I can tell you, is that:
1) I often go in art galleries where you can see huge enlargement (painting sizes 80, 100 ich and +), and I always ask the medium: NEVER it is digital (or so far in my case), all is LF. For a good reason I guess.
Never underestimate the sales potential from mentioning how hard something is... whether or not it is better in the final result is not the main differentiator.
-
Never underestimate the sales potential from mentioning how hard something is... whether or not it is better in the final result is not the main differentiator.
I agree 100% !
Fred.
-
Never underestimate the sales potential from mentioning how hard something is... whether or not it is better in the final result is not the main differentiator.
Can you say "giclee"?
Or "archival pigment print" at the very least! Everyone knows "ink jets" are for rubes! Heck, even a "dye" print would be better than that.
Gallery owners and patrons show and see what they think is best.
Persnally, around 2003 I grabbed a test digital image at a certain MP size off of a web site. Added the approprite "grain like" noise in PS, and viola - the noise created what people interpreted as many more MP of good old film-like detail!
Please note that I still shoot 4x5 film, as well as the best digital I can afford at any given time. I am not arguing pro or con. Just saying there is perceved value (snob appeal) in different directions.
Go look at tests with cheap wine in fine bottles ..... sort of like the "adjacency effect" in color theory. From "Fresh Air":
Mr. LEHRER: I think probably - this is probably a year ago - I wrote about a series of experiments involving wine. And I've since learned about this wonderful subculture on the Internet of wine aficionados. And this experiment concerned a experiment done by a scientist at the University of Bordeaux, and it was done on wine experts, people who were going to school to learn about wine. And he showed that basically you can trick these wine experts into believing all sorts of silly stuff, that you could give them a white wine that was dyed red, and they would describe this white wine in terms of, you know, they'd talk about its crushed red fruit and how it smelled like blackberries and full of tannins.
And you could give them a cheap wine, but if you served it in an expensive bottle, it would be called refined and elegant. And these basic findings wouldn't be surprising to a psychologist. We're doing this kind of stuff all the time. The brain is constantly warping its sensations to reflect our expectations. That in a sense we, you know, we see what we want to see and taste what we want to taste and disregard the rest. And yet somehow when you talk about it in terms of wine, people become very sensitive.
-
Where the image is sharp, there is way more detail in the 8x10. I posted 4 images. 2 showed the whole image and 2 details (600x600 for 8x10 and 182x182 for 5D). The detail images show the same part of the image at 100%. The scan of the 8x10 shows much more information in that region than the 5DMkII. And I scanned only at 1440 dpi.
Perhaps my arguments are confusing. I tried to explain that 8x10 gives more control over depth of field and a smoother transition from sharp to unsharp than every other format. With the Canon I'm limited to f1.2 or 1.4 to get a similar effect. To be clear. I use 8x10 because I like the process. I made this comparison out of curiosity. I print very small (between 8x10 and 16x20) and I think I don't need 8x10. Since 2004 all my WORK is Canon full frame and I like the convenience of it. Working sometimes with 8x10 is fun and gives me inspiration for my other work.
Best,
Johannes
Ah, sorry, I misread your previous post with the crops. I thought that you were trying to trick us a bit, and that the 600x600 crop was the 5D2, not the 8x10. I had them mixed up. Yup, the 8x10 definitely has more detail than the 5D2!