4x5 or 8x10 (enlargements or contact prints): experience?

I understand the title might sound like just another rehash of the numerous "Will I get better image quality by moving up to a larger format?" threads, however, despite my efforts on reading existing ones, I didn't find them very helpful when it came to enlargements compared to contact prints.

To cut a long story short, I used to have a great 4x5 monorail camera, which I sold after some time, because I found I didn't use it enough. To me it was the definition of the word "camera", precise, rigid, with ample movements, but without a large format enlarger, it always seemed the extra hassle (compared to MF) wasn't worth it because of the relatively small contact prints it gave me.

A few months passed and of course I now regret selling the camera. As I'm typing this post, I have 3x enlargements from 6x6 negatives next to me and I've got to admit, I have a very hard time finding much loss of quality in them (Delta 100). On the other hand a voice inside keeps reminding me how I felt when I saw my first 8x10 contact print, a vintage Walker Evans, although there is another voice which believes there is a good reason why e.g. Brett Weston often used an SL66 later in his life instead of his usual LF cameras, and that was a long time ago, before common films were as fine grained as they're today.

My question could be summerized this way: Will I gain a lot by moving up to 8x10 and contact print or should I go back to 4x5, make moderate enlargements and be happy? I understand the 8x10 camera is a lot more expensive to keep running (Fomapan can help here), but it is the weight and bulkiness which make me particularly worried. I believe the cost of a good second hand 4x5 monorail and enlarger would be close to that of an 8x10 camera alone. If I'd go the 4x5 route, I wouldn't plan to enlarge it past 9.5x12 or 12x16.

I love the monorail camera's instrument concept a lot, but I'm afraid an 8x10 Sinar, 5 or 6 holders, a lens and a tripod (medium-duty not fully extended) would be overly heavy for the backpacking hikes I'm planning to take. The close to 12 kilo 4x5 setup I used to own was close to the max weight that I felt acceptable to carry, however, with most of the monorails I checked out, the 8x10 version was max. 2 kilos heavier than the 4x5 variant and if I'll get such a huge neg to work with, it (and the larger film holders) might not feel all that heavy. I also understand that clever packing of these cameras can make them more portable.

I'm interested in the experience APUG contributors have on this subject, regarding the extra quality, weight and size of the larger format, as I'm sure this is decision most LF photographers go through at one time or another.

Well, there is nothing that compares to a contact print except another contact print. That's all I do with my 8x10.

4x5 at your enlargements will be excellent, but it won't be a contact print.

Many of us shoot 5X7, after having considered the very matters (and then some) that you mention. Not so much best of both worlds, I've found it to be the best of all worlds, the caveat being that it would not be in the running if contact printing is paramount.

I've been using 5x4 since 1976 although it wasn't until 1986 that I began using one for personal work, it's a great format and most of my prints are on 16x12 paper ut I'm happy with the quality of a 24x20 or larger.

For about 8 years I've also been shooting with 10x8 cameras, I much prefer enlargements to contact prints purely because contact printing dictates the print size. Yes there is an increse in quality but it's not as significant as the jump from 35mm to 120, or 120 to 5x4.

However 10x8 cameras aren't as portable and 5x4 allows me greater flexibility and significantly lower film costs so it's a balance, plus I shoot some hand-held work with a 5x4.

Ian

Don't forget the extra heavy tripod to go with the 8x10 camera, the extra big focusing cloth, the extra big backpack to carry it all. I'd suggest a good 4x5 field camera such as a used Wisner, Zone VI, or similar. They show up for sale with some regularity.

I find myself less and less enthusiastic about dragging heavy gear around in the field. I'll pack my 4x5 kit for a mile or so, my antique whole-plate camera much less than that. I was recently overjoyed to get my Hasselblad back from the repairman. It's my go-to system for a lot of what I do anymore.

If you are after contact print quality, however, there's only one way to go. Maybe investigate a Shen Hao or Chamonix ultra lightweight field camera.

Peter Gomena

I think you have to use whatever camera is going to allow you to make your best work. What is your vision? Look back through your work and see what really connects with you, what you are most proud of creating. You'll find a thread, and it may be square medium format or your previous 4x5, or something else, but you'll know where you need to be.

Personally, I love the idea of 4x5, and I own one, but I get next to nothing done with it. Maybe one day. I carry my Bronica everywhere, and it's been what's really worked for me for many, many years.

Like others have mentioned, it really comes down to what you are looking to do. With 8x10, you will get great contact prints, but will the size/weight/portability be a limiting factor in what and how you shoot? I tried to love 4x5 and even 8x10 quite a few times but I always found it to cramp my style, so to speak. I'd rather trade some quality at printing time for the ability to actually get the shot when I see one.

Neither 4x5 enlargements nor 8x10 contact prints

Why not go for the "goldilocks" format? Substantially less weight and volume to deal with compared to 8x10, but contact prints significantly larger than 5x7:

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/6585.html

As a bonus, making 6-1/2 x 8-1/2-inch contact prints on 8x10 paper leaves a 3/4-inch margin all around that provides ease of handling.

8x10 prints aren't large enough for me, so I don't contact print. I find 8x10s get lost on a wall, where as an 11x14 or 16x20 can be enjoyed from most positions in a room. If I could afford an 11x14 or 12x20 and the film to feed it then that's what I would use (unless I needed to hike it in). So enlarged 4x5 is my current choice. I may move up to 5x7 when I get the 5x7 enlarger which I bought to handle 6x17 negs, but I doubt I'd see much difference at my relatively small print sizes.

If you are happy with 8x10 images, and rarely feel to need to crop a frame, then an 8x10 camera and a simple contact frame may be for you. That's how I based my decision.

I read your very helpful comments, went for a walk and now that I came back it is clear to me that it makes more sense for me to choose 4x5 instead of 8x10. No matter how I look at it, all the significant benefits of 4x5 win over the single advantage (for me) of 8x10, contact printing.

4x5 will still give me great advantages over MF, namely lots of available lenses and movements, not just quality.

I appreciate your help, it saved me both a good amount of money and I stopped worrying, too.

Aron said:

I read your very helpful comments, went for a walk and now that I came back it is clear to me that it makes more sense for me to choose 4x5 instead of 8x10. No matter how I look at it, all the significant benefits of 4x5 win over the single advantage (for me) of 8x10, contact printing.

4x5 will still give me great advantages over MF, namely lots of available lenses and movements, not just quality.

I appreciate your help, it saved me both a good amount of money and I stopped worrying, too.

Click to expand...

If you get a 4x5 Deardorff Special, you'll have the option of 5x7, as it's a 5x7 camera with a 4x5 back. Great camera for hiking either way.

E. von Hoegh said:

If you get a 4x5 Deardorff Special, you'll have the option of 5x7, as it's a 5x7 camera with a 4x5 back. Great camera for hiking either way.

Click to expand...

I considered field cameras, but right now I think a monorail is better value for me. Thanks for the suggestion, maybe later, when my tired back will want something lighter, I'll consider it.

Developer's brought to 20 degrees, it's time to start printing.

I have both, if I had to choose one it would be the 4x5, it just more flexible system to use.

Aron said:

I considered field cameras, but right now I think a monorail is better value for me. Thanks for the suggestion, maybe later, when my tired back will want something lighter, I'll consider it.

Developer's brought to 20 degrees, it's time to start printing.

Click to expand...

My first 5x4 camera was a monorail, I switched to a Wista 45DX field camera in 1986 and haven't looked back it has all the movements I need and is far more practical.

I still have a monorail although not the first one which was very heavy/cumbersome but it only gets used if I'veleft my Wista abroad, it's fra less practical outside a studio despite being a great camera and the truth is the Wista's more than enough movements for studio work.

Cost wie there's been some great field cameras for sale on APUG for very little money $200-$500 over the past year or so, and all great value for their sale prices

Ian

5x7 all the way.

I found 5x4 a touch small. 10x8 was a little big (film handling, film holders included). 5x7 is just right. It feels more like 5x4 in use and offers a usefully larger negative for enlargements and is now IMO just big enough for an intimate contact print.

Now I have to persuade Mike Walker to make a 5x7 Harman Titan pinhole...

Thanks everyone for your help, by now I've got a clear idea, what to expect from the different systems. I'll try them out, before purchasing.

Ian Grant said:

I've been using 5x4 since 1976 although it wasn't until 1986 that I began using one for personal work, it's a great format and most of my prints are on 16x12 paper ut I'm happy with the quality of a 24x20 or larger.

For about 8 years I've also been shooting with 10x8 cameras, I much prefer enlargements to contact prints purely because contact printing dictates the print size. Yes there is an increse in quality but it's not as significant as the jump from 35mm to 120, or 120 to 5x4.

However 10x8 cameras aren't as portable and 5x4 allows me greater flexibility and significantly lower film costs so it's a balance, plus I shoot some hand-held work with a 5x4.

Ian

Click to expand...

Other than the time frames, this is my experience as well. I do love the look and quality of 8x10 contact prints, but I like the flexibility of 4x5 shooting -- I can hand print those negs.
I shoot a lot more medium format, and as you say the enlargments from those are terrific (when properly shot and processed) but if it's a matter of these two formats...that's my experience.