Any info on 4x10

[photomc]

Kerry,
Have not started 4x10, in fact have only had the 8x10 for 3-4 months, but one of the main reasons was to use it for 4x10. Plan to use the cut darkslide, because after Donald Miller mentioned the 6.125x10 as being very close to the 5x7 aspect that really got me going. Love the look of 5x7 contact prints, wanted to try the 4x10 and now will try them and the 6.125x10. Both should have a fit for some shots. Think I will just go with one of the pre-cut darkslides from Bender to start off with, then if it works well for me, will cut my own 6.125x10 and go from there.

For general interest, Lee Carmichael and I have discussed the cut darkslide quite a bit, and I will be using a hint he gave me...to paint the edge of the darkslide day-glow orange or something to help remind me which darkslide is in the flim holder....not a bad idea at all.

Thanks,
Mike

Mike,

I hope you enjoy the articles. I certainly had fun writing them. The 4x10 format is a personal favorite of mine, and I've wanted to write these articles for years. I'm glad I finally got around to doing it.

Are you currently shooting 4x10, or just thinking about getting started? As you can tell from this thread (and as discussed in Part 1 of the article) when it comes to 4x10, there is more than one way to get the job done. Whether you are using an 8x10 and cropping, using a slider board or a split darkslide, or have a dedicated 4x10 camera, it doesn't really matter. I've tried all ways and they each have their advantages and disadvantages. The 4x10 format has helped me see old, familiar subjects in new ways. It's been a fun adventure, and I plan to keep 4x10 for years to come.

Kerry

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Mike,

Using a split darkslide on 8x10 is certainly a viable option. I've done it myself many times. The only real problem I had was with wide and ultrawide lenses - and this is mostly a function of my 65 year old 8x10 camera that isn't exactly what you'd call wide angle friendly. With the 30" original fixed bellows all scrunched up, there just wasn't any flexibility left for movements with a 150mm, let alone a 110mm, lens. I couldn't even get enough front rise/fall to center the lens on the 4x10 film area. This was compounded by the fact that my wide and ultrawide lenses didn't have a lot of excess coverage. Of course, you can just center the image on the 8x10 film and crop when printing, but then you only get one image per sheet. This, along with the smaller size and lighter weight, is why I ended up going with a dedicated 4x10 camera. Like I said, more than one solution to the problem. If you have a newer 8x10, especially one that can use a bag bellows, or if you don't use really wide lenses, this probably won't be an issue for you.

Kerry

 

[Monophoto]

Ever since I got back from the LF Conference in May, I've been noodling over the prospect of making some panaramic contact prints. The options are either enlarged negatives or a larger camera. The 210mm I use with my 4x5 will cover 4x10 (according to Kerry's lecture in Springfield) so that has a certain appeal. I've also been thinking that making a 4x10 camera would be a nice project to kill a few dozen winter hours here in the great Northeast.

But the issue is holders. I saw a 4x10 holder on the auction site a few weeks ago that someone made by cutting down an old 8x10 holder. Any guidance on how to go about doing that?

 

[photomc]

LOL Kerry, well since the 8x10 is about 100 yo...a nice vintage Korona you may have a point, but then the old Wollensak lens seems to give me pretty good movement..with one set of cells (it came with 2 sets, only identify marks are roman numeral III which I take to be series III and either a 4 or 5) The 5 seems to be about the same focal length as 8 or 81/2 in, the 4 looks to be around 6 to 61/2 so it might not work quite so well. Have 305 barrel lens, no shutter, so it would work for some shots, but will give the 8 in the first pass. The thing that appeals to me using the 8x10 over a dedicated 4x10 is the ability to rotate the back, and as I mentioned the 6.125x10..true only one shot per sheet of film, but I can live with that. If it looks like it will become a favored format, then I can consider going with a dedicated camera..this way I get to try it.

Oh, as to wide lens...have managed to get some use from my 210mm Rodenstock Geronar with a little bit of rise/fall on the 8x10. The specs don't say it will cover 8x10 at all (great on the B&J 5x7 though), but have used it some and it is quite nice.

Thanks for the input...helps to know what to expect before trying it out.

 

[photomc]

Just a couple of things to add to this...1st of all, took Steve up on the offer for the current issue with Kerry's 4x10 article if I subscribed..which I did and the current issue arrived in the mail today (now folks, that impressed me...it is not only good customer service, but Steve did exactly what he said he would do)...Thanks Steve.

2nd, if you have not read Kerry's part 1 article, it is worth looking at IMO. In fact, and I will be the first to admit that it is not always the case, this issue covers several subjects that appeal to me....Rob Kendrick's Texas Tin Types, Irving Penn (what a photographer) plus the 4x10 article.

Only problem I have, and have it every time I read a good article, is ready for more....sure hope part 2 is just as good...and keep the good stuff coming.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Mike,

Glad you enjoyed part 1 of my 4x10 article. I sent all the files for part 2 yesterday. It covers lenses and film options for 4x10. Including the article text, the photos and a table of lenses, it ended up being almost as long as part 1. It's amazing how many lenses there are that cover 4x10.

As long as you're shooting with lenses 210 and longer, your old 8x10 Korona should work fine. I didn't have any problems with my old Eastman until I got down to 150mm and especially the 110mm. 110mm is super wide on 4x10, and if you don't center the lens you get uneven fall-off. My dedicated 4x10 Swiss-Lotus handles the wide lenses with ease.

Kerry