Choice of Subject w/8x10

[Gary]

Hi All- I recently moved up to 8x10 after enlarging 4x5 for years. I don't have an 8x10 enlarger, so I'm relegated to making contacts. I can scan my negs, but that's for another discussion. My dilemma seems to be that, with 4x5, if I shot a landscape, I could enlarge it to the size I thought appropriate. To me, landscapes need to be somewhat large. But with the 8x10, I find that my landscapes, printed to contact size at 8x10, are less than satisfying. So, I guess my question is; Has anyone struggled with finding the appropriate size SUBJECT for shooting with 8x10 contacting in mind? Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Ole]

That's why I like 5x7" - I can enlarge if the subject so dictates, and contact print if that works best. It seems that a print at 8x10" (contact or enlargement) needs a larger main subject than larger prints do. I have addressed this several times as my "still unfinished theory of the relation between smallest most significant detail and overall size" or words to that effect.

I have an 8x10" camera under "restoration", in the meanwhile I shoot 4x5", 5x7", 18x24cm and 30x40cm. The really strange thing is that I choose different framing depending on whether I have 9x12cm or 4x5" film in the 4x5"... I expect it will be the same with 8x10" and 18x24cm?

 

[colrehogan]

No, though I use different lenses on my 8x10 which give me more or less of the subject, depending on the lens. I've never had a way to enlarge any of my negs from 35 mm up to 8x10 unless I pay someone to do it and I do on occasion do this. However, most of my 8x10 prints are contact prints.

I'm relegated to making contacts.

Your statement above makes it sound like contact printing is something to loathe. I don't think that you meant it like that, but that's how it came across to me initially.

 

[Donald Miller]

I shoot 8X10 and 4X5...my personal preference is for enlargements. I have found that I can arrive at 11X14 enlargements that rival 8X10 contacts on Azo. It's a matter of what a person wants...

 

[Robert Hall]

Do you still have your 4x5 equipment? Just use them as tools, look at the scene and shoot what your vision requires.

Please consider diptychs and the like as well.

 

[User Removed]

I shoot only 8x10 camera, and I used to shoot 4x5 and enlarge before that. When I shot 4x5, I was attracted these grand landscapes and could make 16x20-20x24 prints. When I started shooting 8x10, I found myself more attracted to photograph small sections of that grand landscape, and isolate certain subjects within it.

Sometimes, I find that beautiful landscape that I just HAVE to photograph and I feel it does work well in 8x10 size. For example my image of "Storm, Grand Canyon" under my gallery.

If you are not happy with the size of 8x10 contact prints, but still want to contact print...ITS TIME FOR A BIGGER CAMERA! Maybe a 12x20 or something along those lines.

Ryan McIntosh

 

[resummerfield]

If you are not happy with the size of 8x10 contact prints, but still want to contact print...ITS TIME FOR A BIGGER CAMERA! Maybe a 12x20 or something along those lines.

I see that happening too....

 

[George Losse]

There sounds like there could be a lot of different things going on here.

First let me say Contact printing 8x10 is not for everyone. It is not a silver bullet to better work. Often it doesn't work for most photographer's work habits or style of shooting. If its really not for you, go back and enjoy shooting the 4x5.

If you really want to contact print and the 8x10 format is too small for your subjects, then by all means try ULF. I love 8x20, and others love 7x17 or 12x20. Those big negatives are great!

The difference between an 8x10 ground glass and a 4x5 for me is like looking at a large screen TV and display screen on a cell phone.

Seeing the subject and composing an image on the ground glass is different then composing the subject on the enlarging easel. Maybe the contact print, where everything is included, is force you to make the composition decisions in the field instead of the comfort of the darkroom.

Keep working, you can find your way of seeing the subject on the ground glass by working and being very critical of your own work.

 

[jmdavis]

If your used to viewing 30x40 prints at 10 feet, an 8x10 contact can seem small. But, it is also more intimate. It has the potential to draw you closer.

I recently had the opportunity to spend time looking at hundreds of Michael Smith's and Paula Chamlee's contacts and my reaction is the opposite of yours. You can have a complex, wide vista and contact at 8x10.

But if that's not your preference, then my reaction (or anyone else's) is irrelevant.

Mike

 

[dphphoto]

Maybe it's simply a matter of getting used to looking at smaller prints.
I shoot both 4X5 and 8X10 (more 4X5 anymore, as I get older my back can only take so much). Often I'll find a compelling subject for one format, then go back later and photograph it with the other camera. It's interesting to see what works as an enlargement and what works as a contact print. Some subjects work both ways, but look very different, much more so than you'd expect.
You may just need more experience in living with the contact prints. I still enlarge 4X5, but find 8X10 contact prints compelling in their own, different ways. Dean

 

[jp80874]

Hi All- I recently moved up to 8x10 after enlarging 4x5 for years. I don't have an 8x10 enlarger, so I'm relegated to making contacts. I can scan my negs, but that's for another discussion. My dilemma seems to be that, with 4x5, if I shot a landscape, I could enlarge it to the size I thought appropriate. To me, landscapes need to be somewhat large. But with the 8x10, I find that my landscapes, printed to contact size at 8x10, are less than satisfying. So, I guess my question is; Has anyone struggled with finding the appropriate size SUBJECT for shooting with 8x10 contacting in mind? Thanks for your thoughts.

Isn't wonderful that we have choices? I was in the same situation nine months ago. I have done a small amount of 8x10 platinum printing in three weeks worth of workshops over two years. I like it, but decided that what pleased me more was to be able to enlarge 8x10 negatives to 16x20 and 20x24. With the help of friends on APUG I now have an 8x10 enlarger. It was a little less costly than a modern ULF, but that was not the point. It is the right thing for me, now. Six months from now I may sell up and change to ULF. We have those options here.

Look at all the possibilities and different opinions outlined here and decide what works best for you. Which ever direction you go there will be APUG people happy to assist you in that move.

Enjoy.
John Powers

 

[dphphoto]

How much is an 8X10 enlarger? (As with most things in life, money rears its ugly head.) Just wondering what one goes for these days. Dean

 

[Gary]

8x10 subject size

Thanks to all of you for your thoughts and advice. And, no, it's not that I feel it a chore or anything to contact, it just feels like I took away one of my choices-that of determining print size. I'll keep working. I tend to believe that since my old B&J has 4x5, 5x7, as well as 8x10 backs, I'll work it out. And my feeling is that I'll gravitate to the small, more intimate scene; 50 sq. ft. or so. And again, if I just can't NOT photograph some grand vista, I've got a 4x5 back to work with.
Thanks again

 

[John Kasaian]

Of course you can enlarge 8x10s if you have the room. An elderly Elwood is a barebones enlarger you can find quite cheaply (I've never seen one over $600---most of them around $100-200) I agree some negatives almost scream to be enlarged to 16x20 and more often than not I'm finding 8x10s to be downright 'intimate'----which is fine too!)

Cool stuff worth exploring to contact print as 8x10: Architectural details, botanical, marine,(starfish, seahorses etc...NOT Gunnys!) and geological specimens, portraits, prehistoric sites, and old woodworking tools. FWIW I shoot the 'grand landscape' and I don't feel confined at all by 8x10.

Cheers!

 

[Mongo]

I find that almost all of my 8x10 work is either in what I would call "Intimate Landscapes" (that is, small pieces of the landscape...tree roots, rocks in water, etc) or in natural abstracts. Both work well for contact prints in 8x10 and I have no interest in enlarging 8x10.

When I want to work with larger subjects, I tend to grab the 4x5 and make enlargements. There's no rule that says you can't do grand landscapes as contact prints or the kind of work I described for 8x10 as enlargements, but this is the way that I find things work best for me.

I also find that I work with longer equivalent lenses as I move up in film sizes...again, this is what works for me but certainly isn't what makes sense for everyone.