a brief theory of large format

abruzzi

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
3,068
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
Large Format
I've been shooting 4x5 for a few years and have just started the process of adding 8x10 to my arsenal. While getting setup, I've developed a theory--

first, we all know that on a linear dimension, 8x10 is twice 4x5, i.e. 4" doubles to 8" and 5" doubles to 10". But in photography the only one dimensional action I can think of is focusing, so I need a 300 instead of a 150, and I need a minimum of 500mm of bellows instead of 250mm of bellows.

when we add a second dimension, things start to make sense. In two dimensions, 8x10 is 4 times the area of 4x5. Film is essentially two dimensional (the thickness being apparently irrelevant to this discussion). So 8x10 film is 4 times the cost of the same film in 4x5. 50 sheets of fomapan 100 in 4x5 is about 50 dollars, or a dollar a sheet. 50 sheets in 8x10 is about $200 or $4 a sheet.

When we add a third dimension, we now have an 8 fold increase. So a simple beginner quality (i.e. functional but very used) 150mm lens is about $100-$150. In similar condition a 300mm lens is $600-$1000 (ok, its not quite 8x, but close). I can get good condition used relatively modern 4x5 film holder for $10-$15, but an 8x10 film holder is $80-$120. (in this case the third dimension of the film holder seems to be significant.)

But what about the 4th dimensions? Well, if we assume that time is the 4th dimension, then actually shooting 8x10 should be 16 times more difficult and time consuming. Having just shot a couple of test sheets, I'm thinking that may actually be the case.

 

Robert Maxey

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
310
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Format
Large Format

When you learn and work at it and study your "failures" quickly setting up a view camera can become second nature with very few unwanted surprises. Anyone can use a 35mm camera, but a large format camera takes time to learn. Once you do, Bob's your Uncle.

I have not taken an 8x10 in some time, but I still remember my job. The key is learning how to do things properly.

Bob
 
OP
OP

abruzzi

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
3,068
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
Large Format
I'm pretty quick with 4x5, its just 8x10 is a LOT more effort. From opening the car door at a location, to clicking the shutter release I can do if 4-5 minutes--all setup, focusing, metering, etc. But with 8x10, its multiple trips from because I can't carry the whole kit at once, the lens is so heavy that half the time I adjust the tilt, I don't tighten the locks well enough so it droops the moment I let go. The depth of field is noticeably more shallow requiring more care in choosing an aperture (I don't rally have any DOF sale for each, so if DOF is important in a shot, I generally stop the lens down to confirm focus, which is more difficult with the 8x10 because ƒ45 is much darker than ƒ22. So as a general LF thing, I'm far from an expert, but at least on these test shots, it was a half hour per shot. Whereas, like I said 4-5 minutes with the 4x5. Then on the other side, I can develop up to 6 4x5 sheets at once (with a 20th century spiral), but I can only develop 1 sheet at a time in 8x10.

Again, this is not a complaint, just an observation. If you got into film photography to "slow down" as I frequently hear, the shoot 8x10---it will slow you down.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,533
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
The 4th dimension is length of beard. For shooting 4x5 an closely-cropped beard is optimal, but for 8x10 your beard must be at least 4 inches long. I have never been a successful 8x10 shooter because the terminal length of my beard will not achieve that criteria. So for me, 8x10 shooting is very, very slow as I wait and wait for the impossible to happen.
 

Robert Maxey

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
310
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Format
Large Format
abruzzi said:
I'm pretty quick with 4x5, its just 8x10 is a LOT more effort.
Click to expand...

Yes, it takes more effort, but you will get faster over time. This extra effort is all part of the process, so I would personally forget about it. These things you speak of are simply part of the price you pay when you shoot LF.

Bob
 

Robert Maxey

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
310
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Format
Large Format
BrianShaw said:
The 4th dimension is length of beard. For shooting 4x5 an closely-cropped beard is optimal, but for 8x10 your beard must be at least 4 inches long. I
Click to expand...

I think you might be correct. Should bald people sans beard stick with Minox? Here is a helpful chart:

Bald and no beard: Minox
Regular head of hair, partial balding: 35mm / 120
Regular head of hair and stubble: 4x5
Partial head of hair and 4" beard: 5x7 / 8x10

What about 11x14 and Cirkit Cameras, like a No. 16? A head shrink or two, perhaps?

Bob
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,533
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Ahh... the Maxey Maxim of Camera Compatibility!
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,086
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Robert Maxey said:
...

What about 11x14 and Cirkit Cameras, like a No. 16? A head shrink or two, perhaps?

Bob
Click to expand...

No, just add a wide brimmed hat to the balding top and the 4" beard...
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
8x10" is simpler if you contact print, because it takes out the factor of enlargement. What you see on the groundglass is the same size as the print in your hand or on the wall. It's about the size of a letter or a conventional magazine that you would handle in every day life. When you're looking at the groundglass, you don't have to imagine how the details will come out at a larger size. What could be simpler than Edward Weston's darkroom? A light bulb. A contact printing frame. A few trays. A retouching stand.

I don't shoot as much 8x10" as I used to, but I've managed to get my 8x10" kit (with a Gowland Pocket View and Mido filmholders) to about the same weight as my 4x5" kit (Linhof Tech V and Grafmatics). When I do shoot 8x10" it feels like the purest form of photography to me.

The easiest way to become nimble at 8x10", of course, is to get an 11x14" camera.
 

Robert Maxey

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
310
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Format
Large Format

Unless you want a larger print. An 8x10 enlarger is not something found in most darkrooms, pro or amateur. Even a contact print can be tricky.

Bob
 

grat

Member
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
2,044
Location
Gainesville, FL
Format
Multi Format

.... what about long hair and no beard? I've had multiple beards, but once summer in Florida hits, off they go again.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,533
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
grat said:
Now, THAT is rude.

I half expected "Leica". Although I think my current favorite is the baby speed graphic with a 120 6x9 back.
Click to expand...
Sorry. My account must have been hacked. I would never say such a rude thing!

on photography… I often use roll film back on 4x5 Speed Graphic. 6x6 and 6x7. Still looking for a 6x9. It’s starting to feel a lot heavier than it once felt. Roll film on Baby Speed must be a delight.
 
OP
OP

abruzzi

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
3,068
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
Large Format
I love shooting 4x5, and I really don't expect 8x10 to supplant it. (evidenced by the unrelated fact that I trimmed my beard last month--three inches is about my tolerance level, though I do have long hair.) However 4x5 is just a bit too small to make a nice contact print, and I'm kind of interested in some of the alt processes. I still expect to shoot a lot more 4x5 than I will 8x10.

I'll also comment that at this point, I've given up finding a bag that will carry what I want for the 8x10, so I'm thinking of designing my own--another time suck.
 

AnselMortensen

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
2,478
Location
SFBayArea
Format
Traditional
Umm....
I'm late to the party, but what about wild eyebrows, bushy ear hair, and nose hair?
I'm asking for a friend.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,533
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
AnselMortensen said:
Umm....
I'm late to the party, but what about wild eyebrows, bushy ear hair, and nose hair?
I'm asking for a friend.
Click to expand...
There is little hope for your friend. I have a similar friend and his wife uses tweezers on those wild hairs when he’s least expecting it. Both might be banished to 35 mm. In the Maxes Maxim of Camera Compatibility index.
 

GKC

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
222
Location
Fresno, wher
Format
Large Format
LOL!
 

Robert Maxey

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
310
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Format
Large Format
abruzzi said:
I'll also comment that at this point, I've given up finding a bag that will carry what I want for the 8x10, so I'm thinking of designing my own--another time suck.
Click to expand...

I do not think it is a waste of time. One does what one needs to do. I thought about a better way to carry our Kodak, but all I could manage to do is carry less stuff in the box Kodak supplied way back when.

I do not know what their "case" was made from, some type of pressed cardboard or something. I held the 8x10,half a dozen film holders, some filters, light meter and some cleaning supplies. All in a large box.

I say go for it and let us know what you come up with.

Bob
 

Robert Maxey

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
310
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Format
Large Format
BrianShaw said:
There is little hope for your friend. I have a similar friend and his wife uses tweezers on those wild hairs when he’s least expecting it. Both might be banished to 35 mm. In the Maxes Maxim of Camera Compatibility index.
Click to expand...

It is MAXEY, not Maxes.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…