5x7

[Curt]

How many of you actually have a commitment toward 5x7, meaning it is the most used format and film you use? What would you like to see in film that is not available now that has been available in the past or never was available? Do you think Ilford is or will be making a commitment to the 5x7 format?

All comments are welcome.

Regards,
Curt

 

[argus]

0. I like the aspect ratio over 4x5"
1. I use 13x18cm, the European counterweight of 5x7". It's not my main film size as I use 4x5" a lot more (for enlarging). 5x7 is great for making contacts in alternative processes.
2. I hope Ilford continues to make film in the format. Maybe some slower film would be nice.
3. film speed? Only use FP4+ in that size.

G

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

5x7 and 8x10 are my main sheet films. The films I currently use are Efke 25, Efke 100 and TMAX 400.

 

[mark]

A majority of my images are 5x7. No I do not think Ilford will make the commitment. And it will not matter to me unless they provide delta 100. I use PL100, and CLassic 200.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I'm happy with the films I've got. A budget C-41 film wouldn't upset me but for B&W I'm happy.

 

[BradS]

I'm new to 5x7 and still shoot maybe, ten times more 4x5 than 5x7. I am quite content with little more than Kodak 320TXP, Ilford FP4 and Fuji Provia 100F. I like Delta 100, and have Tmax 100 on my list to try again someday but, those would be secondary.

 

[Loose Gravel]

It is my favored and most used large format. If I travel light, then I take the 45. 810 is just for show and a couple portraits a year. When tripods or speed prevent large format I use 6x7 roll.

I like 57 for the aspect, the ability to make a nice contact, and that it is twice the neg of a 45 and not much more hassle.

 

[reggie]

It is my favorite format, although I still shoot 8x10. I'm not too worried about film choices. I can always cut down larger sizes. I have some spare 7x17 that I can get 3 5x7 sheets from. An 8x10 will get me 2 5x7 sheets. So, even if some makers stop cutting it in that size, I should be ok.

The main reasons I like it are the apsect ratio and the fact that you get almost twice the film surface of 4x5 for just a slightly larger camera. In fact, the Canham 4x5 is really a 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back on it. It is also plenty small enough to put it on the tripod, put it on your shoulder and walk around with a backpack full of film holders and a few lenses. I have the Wisner Convertible Plasmat 5x7 set so I get a whole lot of focal lengths from a small bix that fits in a pouch of my backpack.

5x7 is a nice contact print size and my Zone VI will enlarge the negatives easily.

For me, this format has everything going for it.

My only issue is the pain of keeping myself from buying a Linhof Technika 5x7 technical camera. I have no use whatsoever for another 5x7, but I so love that camera.

-R

 

[Curt]

Is it busy on the Pier tonight? I used to live on Anapamu street a long time ago.

Curt

 

[Curt]

Reggie, I bought a new 5x7 Canham bellows with 26" of draw on eBay from Europe at a great price and I am in the process of designing and building my own version of a 5x7 field camera. I have a Seneca and two Kodak 2D's and for the format a 5x8 Turner Reich triple convertible lens. I can use my collection of lenses on the 5x7. Most of my 4x lenses cover and the larger lenses fit also of course. The Artars are going to be nice on it as will the Kodak Commercial lens. It's amazing how the film holders aren't that much heavier than the 4x5 and much lighter than 8x10. Enlarge and Contact. I can enlarge with my Beseler 45, I have an 8x10 head and a 180mm and a 360mm Schneider Componon lens. At 2x projection the quality is perfection and using my Azo paper by half sheet 8x10 extends it out twice as far. I had to cut down some film to 2x3 and found that it works very well and I have had no problems with scratches or mechanical damages. I too would be willing to do cut downs to 5x7 if that's where it goes.

Curt

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Curt,

What do you mean by Ilford making a commitment?

If enough people buy it, they make it.

Commercially, there's not much choice about this sort of commitment.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Curt]

No Roger, if they make it, people buy it. They make a commitment by producing a product. There are dozens of products that Kodak made but discontinued, they didn't have the commitment even though people would be buying. Is there anyone who would buy Super XX and Azo paper from Kodak if Kodak had a commitment to provide it?

A product has to be available first, then people buy it. I don't see people buying 220 film or Pan F sheet film from Ilford. If you are correct then "If enough people buy it, they make it. That's not even logical.

Regards,
Curt

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Curt,

Sorry, you're right, that wasn't logical. What I meant was 'if people buy it, they will continue to make it' -- of existing products, obviously. Thus Ilford dropped 220 (and 70mm) because they weren't selling enough of it. Pan F (any format) has been marginal for years.

Super-XX was killed because it was the last cadmium-containing film in the Kodak inventory, not because of poor sales, but Azo (as I understand it) was an economic decision: they just weren't selling enough. The man who was responsible for signing the order killing Super-XX requested that no-one publish his name because he was afraid of death threats.

But Ektachrome 64, a truly awful film, remains in production because people insist on buying it. There are (or were last time I checked) some at Kodak who are embarrassed to be associated with such a terrible film.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Curt]

Thank you Roger,
Those are some of the answers that many have been looking for. I believe that people will understand the demise of a product when sound thinking was involved. The marketing must be clean and viewed unmanipulated by special interest groups to have the necessary transparency. Legitimate requests must be asked for and reasons for or against must be made clear and accurate. No company can give all things to all people but if the process is clear then there is less buildup of confusion and discord. One problematic area is special runs as compared to on the shelf availability that many have been used to in the past. There is an anxiety of what to buy, when and how to budget it in. A once a year production run makes it difficult to stock and change product. When a special job comes up you have to pass do to lack of materials and the time lag in obtaining them. The average individual can't stock a vast amount of different materials. They depend on distributors for that. Ilford can be number one if they rise above the norm and set high standards of customer support.

Regards,
Curt

 

[sanking]

It is my favored and most used large format. If I travel light, then I take the 45. 810 is just for show and a couple portraits a year. When tripods or speed prevent large format I use 6x7 roll.

I like 57 for the aspect, the ability to make a nice contact, and that it is twice the neg of a 45 and not much more hassle.

5X7 is one of my favorite format for the same reasons: it is very compact, large enough to contact print with some presence, and a wide range of lenses are availble for it. It is always the camera that I take when traveling light, as by plane because the size of my 5X7 Nagaoka (2.75" X7.5"X7.5") is smaller than most 4X5 cameras.

I used to shoot a lot of color transparency film with the 5X7 but do not any longer, so as long as films such as FP4+, Efke PL100, TRI-X 320 and TMAX-400 are available film choice is in excess.

My second favorite is 7X17, but the size and weight of ULF imposes significant restictions on mobility.

Sandy

 

[Neanderman]

5 x 7 and 8 x 10 are my main formats as well. I've been shooting T-Max 100 processed in Xtol and am very happy with the results.

I'd be heartbroken if 5 x 7 ever becomes unavailable.

 

[Wm Mitchell]

I'll add my support for 5x7 being the ideal format, IMHO.
I must "blame" Roger Hicks for this discovery when I was first getting into LF photography: he wrote a Shutterbug article about 8 years ago suggesting that 5x7 was his "medium format." His points made sense to me, and when I got my first 5x7 camera, I knew he was right !

BILL

 

[Ole]

...Do you think Ilford is or will be making a commitment to the 5x7 format?...

I have seen fresh FP4 in both 5x7" and 13x18cm formats in Ilfords warehouse. I know they are committed to B&W photography, and will continue to make everything we continue to buy.

Oh yes - and I guess about 80% of my LF photography is 5x7" / 13x18cm.

 

[Schlapp]

Gosh Ole, you must have eagle eyes!

 

[Ole]

Gosh Ole, you must have eagle eyes!

It's easy when you know what you're looking for. In my case, I noticed lots of different cm-formats!

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I'm still shooting 8x10 but am seriously considering dropping down to 5x7... I already have a carrier for my enlarger.
I think it's a great size and all the film's that I like are now available, no gloom and doom from me.
-Rob Skeoch

 

[Dave Wooten]

I'm still shooting 8x10 but am seriously considering dropping down to 5x7... I already have a carrier for my enlarger.
I think it's a great size and all the film's that I like are now available, no gloom and doom from me.
-Rob Skeoch

Hey Rob,

Can I have your old 8 x 10 since you won't be using it anymore