4x5 compared to 8x10 in absolute image quality

roodpe · Aug 28, 2009

8x10 gives a different look than 4x5 because you are using lenses double the focal length for the same aspect ratio. The depth of field is shallower. This effect is what the car/food/portrait guys used to their advantage.

c6h6o3 · Aug 28, 2009

Get the best of both worlds with a 5x7 and a 4x5 reducing back. Less size, less weight, lower camera cost, lower film cost than 8x10 but will allow you to make contact prints suitable for presentation. With the reducing back you'll be able to make 4x5 negatives for enlargement as well.

Since I began using the 5x7 format my 8x10 has been collecting dust.

John Kasaian · Aug 28, 2009

I think 8x10 shines when it comes to image quality, but at a price.
A bad 8x10 contact equals a bad 35mm enlargement, but all things being equal I think a good 8x10 contact has a feel to it a 4x5 enlargement dosen't have, and certainly an 8x10 contact is generally more pleasing than a 4x5 contact(though there are exceptions!) I think where an 8x10 bests 4x5 is when both are enlarged. Ramp up a good 8x10 negative to 20x24 or larger and all the details pop out with much greater clarity than with a 4x5 (considering that a 4x5 enlargement is still pretty gosh darn impressive!) If you get a chance look at an original Christopher Burkett.
Both 8x10 and 4x5 enlargements easily beat the current generation of digital 'jumbos" in my opinion, when compared to the images displayed at Eddie Bauer, Cold Stone Creamery and Williams-Sonoma.
The $64 question is...is the bulk and wieght (and expense) of 8x10 (and larger) worth the bulk and wieght (and expense) since it is physically limiting, especially when you leave the studio.

johnnywalker · Aug 28, 2009

aluncrockford said:
, The tonal range is wider ,the information is superior and you have to know what you are doing to produce the highest quality product ,

Why would the tonal range be "wider" if you're using the same film?

The last part of your sentence is true for any format.

Vaughn · Aug 28, 2009

johnnywalker said:
Why would the tonal range be "wider" if you're using the same film?

Perhaps it is a matter of terminology. The tonal range, as you observed, would not be "wider", but instead, a smoother transition between tones. This is the characteristic that I believe gives prints from larger negs a different "feel" than those from smaller negs.

Consider a "head shot" done with a range of formats (assume same film/developing). Pick one area on the face, say the bottom of the nose, right above the upper lip. As one goes up in format size, that area of the face is recorded onto the film in more and more grain particles. The more grain particles making up the image allows a smoother transition of tones between the nose and upper lip.

The larger the format, the more information and the smoother the tonality. Sharpness is nice, and as others have pointed out, increasing the viewing distance reduces the importance of sharpness -- but I believe the effect of smooth tonality is not reduced by increasing the view distance.

Of course what is of main importance is the image -- how the photographer wishes his/her audience to perceive the image will determine what format, film, print process, etc the photographer chooses to use. As well as using the right tool to record the image in the first place.

Vaughn

PS...to answer John's 64 dollar question (I thought it was $64,000), -- YES! Otherwise, I would just be taking a walk in the woods, since I would not have the right tool to harvest the images that I want.

Bruce Watson · Aug 28, 2009

BetterSense said:
I'm wondering what the point is of 8x10, other than the ability to contact print and the ability to view a larger groundglass.

I think you've got it.

Compared to 5x4, 10x8 has the following pros and cons in my book.

Pros:

1) More film area, thus less enlargement for the same size print. A 125 x 100 cm print is roughly 10x for 5x4, and 5x for 10x8, so the print will be less grainy. It may not be any sharper however because of the smaller aperture required for 10x8 to get the same DOF.

The larger film area can make for better tonality of smaller elements like a distant tree trunk. In 5x4 it might be rendered as just a uniform line, while in 10x8 it might be rendered as a thicker line with shading to show the roundness.

2) Nice size for contact prints, so doesn't require enlarging.
3) GG size may be a "pro" or a "con" depending on the user.

Cons:

1) Heavier, a big concern if you backpack.
2) More expensive (film, processing, film holders, etc.).
3) For a comparable lens/aperture, considerably less DOF.
4) For a comparable lens/DOF, a considerably smaller aperture and thus diffraction limited sharpness.
5) More problems with film flatness which again can effect image sharpness.
6) Requires more space in the darkroom for enlarging. 10x8 enlargers are... huge. And tall.

I've analyzed the hell out of this for years trying to justify moving up from 5x4. And the analysis always tells me to stick with 5x4. So I have. For me, for what I do, 5x4 is the "sweet spot" of photography.

mhanc · Aug 28, 2009

i have been having the same conversation with myself - all academic at this point.

8x10 contact prints are truly sublime and i am attracted to the straightforward, tactile process of making them. 8x10 enlargements are also striking. the only 2 photographs i have, not being my own, are an 8x10 negative enlarged to 24x30 and an 8x10 contact print on azo. the qualities of these prints that can be attributed to the 8x10 format just take one's breath away.

recently, and bear with me here, i have started watching old movies on the Turner Movie Channel (no commercials). at first just to have a look at the b+w cinematography. watch "High Noon" sometime - now that's eye-candy! the stories seemed a bit dated but after a few i really started to enjoy them. the scenes were long and deliberate, not 110 minutes of continuous jump cuts. i began to notice all the nuances, dialogue and acting performances in these films. soon the stories didn't seem so outdated but instead textured and captivating. why? maybe without today's technology which speeds up and compresses everything the filmmaker could be more deliberate and audiences were accustomed to holding a thought for longer than it takes to read a text message. the point is, i think 8x10 photography has a lot in common with how these movies were made.

anyway, it is these technical and qualitative aspects that really make me want to take up the 8x10 format and, perhaps, i have just talked myself off the fence. i do worry about the availability of 8x10 sheet film which is already quite limited. the expense of everything 8x10 is also a consideration, not to mention in the undertaking it would be to set up to enlarge 8x10. but these are details to be worked through rather than reasons not to do it. also, as noted here, it is sometimes just about the fun. (in case it is not obvious, i don't make my living from photography.) sometimes, just contemplating a subject/scene and making the exposure is the point. the print and sharing it are bonuses.

i know much of this is common to 4x5. film availability, cost and enlarging are not comparatively great concerns but contact printing is taken away. how one comes out between the two is personal and subjective - it just helps to write it down.

Martin Aislabie · Aug 28, 2009

Vaughn said:

Perhaps it is a matter of terminology. The tonal range, as you observed, would not be "wider", but instead, a smoother transition between tones. This is the characteristic that I believe gives prints from larger negs a different "feel" than those from smaller negs.

Vaughn
QUOTE]

Click to expand...

Vaughn said:
The smoothness of the tones when stepping up to 5x4 gives the print a different feel.

I assume there is a further smoothing of the tones when going up to 10x8.

What I am not so sure about is show practical stepping up to 10x8 is when you move outside the studio.

For landscapes unless the you can shoot close to an easily accessible point very few of us can haul a 10x8 and all its associated clutter vey far

Was it one of the Westons who said "there is nothing worth photographing that is more than 800 yards from a car" (or something similar)

Martin

Guillaume Zuili · Aug 28, 2009

For me I don't see any difference between 4x5 and MF. The only advantage on 4x5 is the movement if you need it. On big enlargement you could see a little difference maybe...
If the difference is marginal then it's better to go for the real thing which is 8x10 (and above).
Tonal range is amazing as what as been said before. That combined with shallow DOF and lens unique to the format, makes the difference.
But I don't see the point to enlarge an 8x10 to 16x20 or 20x24.
In a way it would mute the qualities of an 8x10 negative but if enlarged x10, mural size, then you reach his sweet spot.
It's just me.

Allen Friday · Aug 28, 2009

I prefer 8x10 over 4x5 mainly because I contact print. To me that is the main advantage of 8x10, it gives me the option to contact print or to enlarge. Same with 5x7. I have seen and done some wonderful 4x5 contact prints, but they are just too small for my taste.

One minor reason I prefer the larger film is because it is easier to handle in the darkroom. The non-exposed film edge is very small on the 4x5. It is difficult for me (I have large hands) to clip the 4x5 in the corner for drying without getting a mark in the corner of the film. I also tend to get finger/glove prints on the 4x5, even though I try to handle it only by the edges. With 8x10, I rarely have a problem.

As to quality when enlarging, I recently did a series of 16x20 and 20x24 inch prints for an area bank. I made the prints from 4x5 and 8x10 negatives. I can tell a difference, especially in the 20x24 inch prints. But, no one else has noticed it, and I doubt many non-photographers would be able to see the difference. I tend to ignore the whole "normal viewing distance" thing and shoot for a print that looks good even up close regardless of the print size.

I also think I get better compositions with the 8x10 because of the increased size of the ground glass. The difference is small when shooting landscapes because I have plenty of time to compose the image and stare at the ground glass. But in the studio when working with models, I work faster. It is easier to see minor gradations of lighting with the 8x10, which leads to a stronger print.

Both 4x5 and 8x10 are great formats. I wouldn't want to give up one at the exclusion of the other. But, I tend to use and I prefer the 8x10 to the 4x5 when both are practicable.

Vaughn · Aug 28, 2009

Martin Aislabie said:
For landscapes unless the you can shoot close to an easily accessible point very few of us can haul a 10x8 and all its associated clutter very far
Martin

I would only note that instead of "can" haul a 10x8, it is "wants to". For most people it would be difficult, but not impossible. There are those with bad backs or knees that might be able to use a cart, etc. But when the need and desire exists, a way also exists.

Vaughn

PS...I wonder if EW said that after being hauled up into the mosquito-infested high country of the Sierras by AA?!

Mahler_one · Aug 28, 2009

BetterSense said:
I'm wondering what the point is of 8x10, other than the ability to contact print and the ability to view a larger groundglass.

It seems to me that in even poster-sized enlargements, 4x5 should be good quality, but I personally have no experience with monster enlargements.

Is actual image quality a valid reason to use 8x10 or is it used mainly to facilitate contact printing and other reasons?

The long and short of it....contact printing, and one need not have, or use, an
enlarger as the light source. Think Weston...:}

Dave Wooten · Aug 28, 2009

Ian Grant said:
As Steve knows the British 10x8 & 5x4 formats are vastly superior to the American sized 8x10 and 4x5 versions

Ian

Ian, where can one obtain one of those vastly superior British 10 x 8 here in the states?

Sirius Glass · Aug 28, 2009

Vaughn said:
I would only note that instead of "can" haul a 10x8, it is "wants to". For most people it would be difficult, but not impossible. There are those with bad backs or knees that might be able to use a cart, etc. But when the need and desire exists, a way also exists.

Vaughn

PS...I wonder if EW said that after being hauled up into the mosquito-infested high country of the Sierras by AA?!

I am concentrating on MF with 35mm on the side. I have thought about LF but I am not ready to take the plunge. However, if I do, I have an off-road vehicle ready to go. [I use it to get there so I can photograph for both 35mm and MF already].

Steve

Muihlinn · Aug 28, 2009

Too much words of doomsday about future availability of 8x10 film for a group devoted to traditional photography. Perhaps we will be belly up at the time that this will happen, even if it will happen past tomorrow. Nothing last forever and most probable cause of change in the foreseeable future is our taste

In other words, this kind of discussion is sterile from an objective point of view, in those 4 pages I'm still to see a single reason - either pro or con - which isn't taste (or budget) dependent.

bill spears · Aug 28, 2009

Martins point about working outside with the large formats is always a dilemma for me. Putting the technical/print qualities to one side for a moment, the best landscape images very often (but not always) come from unpredictable, unfavourable (sometimes wet and windy weather when the light is changing literally by the second. Some will say they can work extremely quick with a large format camera but it's impossible to fire off, say 4 or 5 frames in the space of 10 secs like you can with with med format and thereby catching those 'magical light' moments.
I see an awful lot of technically perfect landscapes shot on large cameras but quite often they're not very interesting to say the least.
Some of my recent best landscape work wouldn't have happened if I'd tried to shoot them on a large camera simply because there wouldn't have been time.
I'm not knocking big cameras and as I said earlier I love my 5x4, it's just that when I look out the window and get the buzz to go take pictures it's always a major difficulty choosing which format to take !

ic-racer · Aug 28, 2009

My 8x10 field setup does not weight much more than my 4x5 setup. The major difference is I only carry two 8x10 filmholders, vs five for 4x5. I keep the rest of the film in the car. I do everything from Minox to 8x10, so when I'm out with the 8x10 camera, I'm looking for specific topics or ideas.

EASmithV · Aug 28, 2009

ic-racer said:
I just got done printing some 11x14" enlargements from 4x5" and 8x10" negatives. Same film type, Fujinon 150mm and Fujinon 300mm lenses. Same subject matter (distant landscape) same aperture size (6 to 7mm).

Under close scrutiny of the 11x14" prints, the ones from 8x10" negatives are all clearly superior. As you increase the viewing distance, you do reach a point where you cannot tell them apart. So you have to consider how close your viewer is going to be. I always have my nose in the print, so I prefer the 8x10s

I love my Fujinon-W 300mm! Which one do you have, the f5.6?

BradS · Aug 28, 2009

Dave Wooten said:
Ian, where can one obtain one of those vastly superior British 10 x 8 here in the states?

They just cannot be obtained here. I don't think it even possible to import a 10X8 into the US. They seem to change states immediately upon entering the country...they flip from 10x8 straight away to 8x10. It doesn't help to try to sneek 'em in from Canada either!

MattKing · Aug 28, 2009

BradS said:
They just cannot be obtained here. I don't think it even possible to import a 10X8 into the US. They seem to change states immediately upon entering the country...they flip from 10x8 straight away to 8x10. It doesn't help to try to sneek 'em in from Canada either!

But at least if they come through Canada, they are accompanied by a polite apology for the change .

Matt

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 28, 2009

ic-racer said:
My 8x10 field setup does not weight much more than my 4x5 setup.

About the same for me. My ultralight 8x10" Gowland PocketView weighs about the same as my 4x5" Linhof Tech V. I can get the 8x10" kit down to 18 lbs. including tripod with lightweight wide to normal lenses and no long lenses that would require an extra rail and heavier tripod. I've also got 8x10" Mido filmholders now, which cut down on weight and bulk.

Vaughn · Aug 28, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
I am concentrating on MF with 35mm on the side. I have though about LF but I am not ready to take the plunge. However, if I do, I have an off-road vehicle ready to go. [I use it to get there so I can photograph for both 35mm and MF already].

Steve

All ya need to do is to weld a pod on the front bumper, then you can sit on the hood and photograph -- especially nice on those colder days when the engine heat will keep you backside warm!

EASmithV -- the Fuji W 300/5.6 is my main lens, too, though I would not consider it as a part of a light-weight 8x10 kit! I need the extra stop or so of light (compared to the 300/9) for ease of viewing/focusing in my usual low-light situations.

Vaughn

c6h6o3 · Aug 28, 2009

John Kasaian said:
The $64 question is...is the bulk and wieght (and expense) of 8x10 (and larger) worth the bulk and wieght (and expense) since it is physically limiting, especially when you leave the studio.

To me it isn't. Ten years ago I had a different opinion. In my final days I'll probably use a Minox.

ic-racer · Aug 28, 2009

David A. Goldfarb said:
About the same for me. My ultralight 8x10" Gowland PocketView weighs about the same as my 4x5" Linhof Tech V. I can get the 8x10" kit down to 18 lbs. including tripod with lightweight wide to normal lenses and no long lenses that would require an extra rail and heavier tripod. I've also got 8x10" Mido filmholders now, which cut down on weight and bulk.

WAY, WAY off topic, but I started a thread over on the LF forum about getting a new 8x10. The Gowland is in my price range, but I kind of discounted it because my impression it is not any sturdier than my Century, and more difficult to fold up. I'm 'all ears' and I invite you to post over there on what you like about the Gowland and how easy it is to set up etc.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52779

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 28, 2009

ic-racer said:
WAY, WAY off topic, but I started a thread over on the LF forum about getting a new 8x10. The Gowland is in my price range, but I kind of discounted it because my impression it is not any sturdier than my Century, and more difficult to fold up. I'm 'all ears' and I invite you to post over there on what you like about the Gowland and how easy it is to set up etc.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52779

If you search over there and probably over here (try advanced search on my name as the poster and "gowland" as the keyword), you can find some old posts I've made about the Gowland PocketViews, but I've added a new post to your thread.

4x5 compared to 8x10 in absolute image quality

roodpe

c6h6o3

John Kasaian

johnnywalker

Vaughn

Bruce Watson

mhanc

Martin Aislabie

Guillaume Zuili

Allen Friday

Vaughn

Mahler_one

Dave Wooten

Sirius Glass

Muihlinn

bill spears

ic-racer

EASmithV

BradS

MattKing

Moderator

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Vaughn

c6h6o3

ic-racer

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

4x5 compared to 8x10 in absolute image quality

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency