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.
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.
