Large format photography

[Dave Miller]

Hey Dave, wanna buy my Sinar Norma 8x10?

Now Keith, why would I want two? Balance maybe to I could walk in a straight line when carrying them.

 

[scootermm]

It's repressed only if you don't buy an 8x10. Once you buy one, all that repression is released.

and oh man is it messy sometimes.

 

[Robert Hall]

I personally feel that to be truly elitist one needs the absolute biggest camera one can carry.

 

[Andy K]

I personally feel that to be truly elitist one needs the absolute biggest camera one can carry.

... or the most expensive logo on the camera...

 

[Dave Miller]

I personally feel that to be truly elitist one needs the absolute biggest camera one can carry.

I think an elitist would have assistants to do the carrying; one would merely direct, surely?

 

[Robert Hall]

... or the most expensive logo on the camera...

Of course. Have you not seen my Leica 10x8? I have _all_ the lenses.

 

[kraker]

I think an elitist would have assistants to do the carrying; one would merely direct, surely?

 

[Dave Miller]

The hypothesis I proposed in the O.T. included the deliberately contentious statement that there was no difference in image quality between the formats. I think I have shown that the gain from using larger formats comes only from the reduced enlargement required to get a print of a given size. This should result in better print quality being derived from the bigger negative up to the level that the receiving medium can display. I accept that there are those of you enjoying enlarging from 10x8 negatives, but for myself I don’t believe that there is anything to gain from going beyond 5x4 for the print sizes I produce, typically 16x12. I suppose if I had a much larger darkroom I could be tempted, given the low cost of 10x8 enlargers, at least for second-hand units. My reason for buying a 5x4 field was simply for the enjoyment of using the instrument whilst my 10x8 camera is intended to produce negatives for contact printing using so called “alternative processes”.

 

[2F/2F]

Well, elitists do lots of things. But there is a *big* difference between being an elitist and being elite.

 

[Anupam Basu]

I think I have shown that ...

I thought anyone who had done multi-format photography was familiar with this basic principle. If you've bought your first Holga after your 35mm P&S, this pretty much sinks home. But I agree with your conclusions in general.

 

[sanking]

If you limit the size of your print size to 16X20 "I would go one step more and suggest that by using MF with a slower speed and finer grain film you should be able to match quality from 4X5. For example, in my own experience I see about the same quality in 17X22" prints from negatives made with Mamiyia 7II 6X7cm format and Fuji Acros as with 4X5" format and Ilford HP5+. The fine grain and sharpness of the Across appear to roughly compensate for the slightly higher magnification factor you have to use with the 6X7 cm format.

Sandy King

The hypothesis I proposed in the O.T. included the deliberately contentious statement that there was no difference in image quality between the formats. I think I have shown that the gain from using larger formats comes only from the reduced enlargement required to get a print of a given size. This should result in better print quality being derived from the bigger negative up to the level that the receiving medium can display. I accept that there are those of you enjoying enlarging from 10x8 negatives, but for myself I don’t believe that there is anything to gain from going beyond 5x4 for the print sizes I produce, typically 16x12. I suppose if I had a much larger darkroom I could be tempted, given the low cost of 10x8 enlargers, at least for second-hand units. My reason for buying a 5x4 field was simply for the enjoyment of using the instrument whilst my 10x8 camera is intended to produce negatives for contact printing using so called “alternative processes”.

 

[Ian Grant]

That almost holds true except when you put 10"x12" (image area) prints from 6x4.5cm, 6x9cm, 5"x4" and 10"x8" negatives side by side you can see the difference. What is true is the differences are very slight, but they are discernible, and when you enlarge further become far more important.

Ian

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Now Keith, why would I want two? Balance maybe to I could walk in a straight line when carrying them.

You actually own an 8x10 camera?

 

[Ian Grant]

Hard to believe but he claims to. :rolleyes:

Ian

 

[Zebra]

Huuummm!! Wonder if that has anything to do with why I recently bought a 20X24" camera?

Better check with Zebra to see how he is doing.

Sandy King

Repression is a bad thing? Mixed with my denial I can almost survive a day!

Gotta go, It takes all day just to get one neg done with the 20 x 24 and since it's already 7 am I'm behind!

Zebra

 

[Dave Miller]

You actually own an 8x10 camera?

But of course, doesn't everyone?

 

[2F/2F]

Only those who stink in bed.

 

[dpurdy]

For the inadequate there is the new, very big and sturdy, Viagraview 10x8. It has a hair trigger though so you have to be careful not to set off the shudder to quick.

 

[Ole]

But of course, doesn't everyone?

Except, of course, those who own 10x8" cameras.

Since mine is a Gandolfi Traditional I feel I belong in that group even if I mostly shoot 18x24 in it.

 

[2F/2F]

...and don't shoot with it for more than four hours at a time.

 

[epatsellis]

But of course, doesn't everyone?

or two?

 

[papagene]

Now you guys are really making me feel inadequate as I only have a 5x7!

gene

 

[JBrunner]

Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?

Now Dave, I can't speak for everybody, but I can say that my 8x10 for sure doesn't represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy.

Rather the opposite.

I have a tremendous sense of balance and proportion.

It only makes sense that I would use a very large camera.

 

[jimgalli]

Dave, you troll.

Well sure if all you want is boring sharp cereal box pictures.

Think about what people will pay for an f2.8 150mm lens that barely covers 4X5. $1200 bucks. Crazy. Yet with a 300mm f5.6 I have the same shallow depth on my 8X10 that they paid goboons of money to accomplish on their 4X5. That's just the jumping off spot. From there we could talk about Pinkhams and Petzval's that are just nuts for personality and good looks.

If all I wanted to do was make sharp pictures of the Grand Canyon I wouldn't even bother with medium format at this point. My Nikon D200 would suffice perfectly. Perfectly boring.

Look through the pages at my little web site. It's easy to see I've gotten a lot of fun from my $285 8X10 camera. That's right, 8X10, not 10X8. I think having the steering wheel on the wrong side of the car has affected your brains over there.

 

[phfitz]

Dave Miller,

"The hypothesis I proposed in the O.T. included the deliberately contentious statement that there was no difference in image quality between the formats. I think I have shown that the gain from using larger formats comes only from the reduced enlargement required to get a print of a given size."

Wrong answer but I guess you're new to 8x10. Besides all the advantages of a view camera, 8x10 lenses were the 'flagships' of the lens makers, they were tuned up and tweaked a bit. When you get into the really large lenses, 80mm diameter and larger, they can actually 'see' farther around objects than 'naked eye' vision and product a more 'stereoscopic' dimensionality to a print that is not available to smaller formats.

"comes only from the reduced enlargement required"

What enlargement? 5x7 through an 8x10 enlarging lens (flagships again) can produce grain-less, tack sharp billboards but that is usually not the case or the point.

Have fun with the GAS attack, especially after the Portrait lens bug bites.