Start big or graduatelly grow

[haris]

Hello,

While going my way to LF I started to think about next: I think (and my experience so far showed me that) I will have lots of problems to get enlarger for 4x6 or 5x7. Looking so far nowhere near me (in my or surrounding countries) there are enlargers, and because thier weight shipping cost will be so big that I won't be able to buy from other places. Also, I have no room in my apartement for it. So, I decided to go with contact printing, and because of that I consider to buy 8x10. But, is that good idea? Will it be better to start with 4x6 or 5x7, without enlarger, and after time and learning period to go to 8x10, or it is OK to go from start with 8x10? Are there serious reasons for not start with 8x10 and if there are, what are they? I have no experience with LF, only with 35mm and MF.

Thanks

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

cut out some paper to the various sizes you are thinking about using, and hang them up on the wall for a bit, to get a feel for how big they actually are. If you're thinking of going bigger than 4x5 because of your lack of ability to enlarge, think about how big you really want to print, and then find a camera that will work in that size. The reasons to pick 8x10 over other sizes are availability of cameras, lenses, film holders and film. The downsides are the size (depending on your perspective, it may be too small or too big), format proportion (many people find it to be "too square", compared to 5x7 or 7x11 or 11x14). 8x10 is a big learning curve from medium format, because it makes you slow down a LOT. 4x5 or 5x7, not so much. 4x5 has the advantage of being cheap and compact, and still relatively fast. It makes for a VERY small contact print, though, and you'll have to decide if that small size works for or against the kind of images you want to make.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I started LF with 8x10". It felt more intuitive to me than 4x5" at first and it was easy to see the effects of different movements on the big groundglass. I loved the contact prints and it was a very natural size for me--about the size of a sheet of paper or my computer screen, and I liked the aesthetic of working 1:1, so that the size of the image on the groundglass would be the same as the size on the print.

After working with 8x10" for a while, I felt I could get a lot more out of 4x5" and the smaller formats, using what I'd learned from the larger camera.

 

[c6h6o3]

But, is that good idea? Will it be better to start with 4x6 or 5x7, without enlarger, and after time and learning period to go to 8x10, or it is OK to go from start with 8x10?

4x5 is definitely too small, IMHO. I used to shoot 4x5 and 8x10. Then I got a 5x7 extension back for the smaller camera. Ever since then my 8x10 has been collecting dust.

5x7 is almost twice the square inches of 4x5, perfectly suitable for display as contact prints. The film is half the cost of 8x10 with a commensurate reduction in size and weight of your equipment.

5x7 is by far my favorite format. The only downside is more limited availability of film. My favorite color film is thankfully (still!) made in that format, and it looks like a special size cutting of my favorite b&w film in 5x7 is in the offing, so for the nonce I'm happy.

I'd go with 5x7 if I were you.

 

[darinwc]

It doesnt sound like it would be, but 5x7 is a very nice size for displayed prints. The cameras are about the same size as full-featured 4x5's.
More lens choices in 5x7 than in 8x10.

4x5 does have some advantages in being easy to enalrge and scan (quite a few flatbeds have 4x5 function). Lots of film available inexpensively.

An 8x10 will allow you to make nice contact prints right away without having to invest in an enlarger. Mobility is quite limited though.

It's a tough choice. But make one and hop on the boat!

 

[Jim Noel]

I have most of the sizes of cameras one might think of from 6x9cm to 7x17 inches.
My most used camera is the 5x7. I usually make contact prints either on silver or one of the alternate processes. When matted these are a very attractive size, and the most often sold.
4x5 is just too small in many cases, although I have seen some beautiful 4x5 contacts.

 

[haris]

Thank you all.

Well, who knows, maybe if I find affordabe, I would buy 5x7 AND 8x10 with one "normal" lens and up to 5 film holders for both . I am closer to 8x10, but I seriously think if find affordable to get 5x7 too. Who knows, maybe in future some enlarger drop off from someones attic or jump up from someones basement I am not worried about slowing down, in fact it is one of the main goals, and when I want speed I have motorized AEAF 35mm In a next few months (I would like sooner, but I can't), I will make definite decision. Which will probably be 8x10 and 5x7

Regards

 

[Ole]

5x7" enlargers are far smaller than 8x10" ones, and I haven't seen a 8x10" enlarger that will fit in a normal house. You need extra ceiling height, unless you live in a 1600's building - or get a horizontal enlarger. Some 5x7" enlargers, like the Durst L138S are relatively "compact".

I use both formats, in addition to 4x5", 24x30cm and 30x40cm - as well as 6,5x9cm, 9x12cm, 13x18cm and 18x24cm.

Anything much smaller than 5x7" is too small for contact prints, and anything larger than 24x30cm is too big to haul around. IMO, of course, and there are exceptions...

One thing about 8x10": If you don't like the squareish aspect ratio, get a few 18x24cm holders. The shape is very different, even if the difference is only 2cm on one side and 1 cm on the other.

 

[haris]

Thank you Ole. My curent enlarger is Magnifax 4 and I have just room height to make 30x40cm (12x16) prints from 35mm with its b/w head (which is, of course, taller than colour head). And that is biggeast paper size I plan to use for now. My apartement height is about 2,5 meters (yup, fast and cheap socialistic building for workers which built my country into new and bright future ), and enlarger is at height that I can normally work while standing, or sitting on tall chair. By the way, under it is clothing washing machine I am 1,86 meters tall. If 5x7 enlarger can fit into that space, great, if not, contact printing till I buy new home

Regards

 

[John Kasaian]

8x10 is a fine format to start out with. The downside is that everything is going to be more bulky, heavier and more expensive. The upside is that contact prints from an 8x10 negative are very special. 5x7 is a good format too---the dimensions make it like a mini 11x14 which is a very pleasing format for portraits and landscapes. The downside is less emulsions seem to be available in 5x7 and the price of holders often exceeds what 8x10 holders are going for.
Take your pick!

 

[Ole]

John, the fact that haris lives in Bosnia means that he has easy (relatively) access to 13x18cm film. And 13x18cm film holders are surprisingly cheap on German ebay right now - sort of like 5 fine holders for the price of one 5x7" holder on US ebay.

Same with 18x24cm vs. 8x10" - holders are cheap, and film is available. In this case the aspect ratio is much nicer, too.

 

[Nick Zentena]

The downsides with 8x10 have been mentioned. Cost of film. Weight. Ratio. The lack of an 8x10 enlarger makes the aspect ratio a potential killer. It's harder to crop with a contact print.

I think you should get something you can easily haul around at least until you've learned everything. To me that means one of the smaller cameras. You need something you'll use and not ignore.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think it's pretty easy to crop with a contact print. I've got a Rotatrim, but a razor blade and a straightedge will do. I usually crop the print, but I've occasionally cropped negatives.

 

[Nick Zentena]

There is that way-)

 

[vet173]

It doesn't matter. Which ever you chose, will only dictate the order you in which will eventually have both.

 

[CBG]

Being new to LF - you really won't know what's right for you, so why not just purchase based on cost. Find a 5x7 or 8x10 or 13x18cm etc. at a cost that you can live with even if what you learn is that you need a different format. Basically keep the cost of learning cheap.

C

 

[jbbooks]

Hello,

While going my way to LF I started to think about next: I think (and my experience so far showed me that) I will have lots of problems to get enlarger for 4x6 or 5x7. Looking so far nowhere near me (in my or surrounding countries) there are enlargers, and because thier weight shipping cost will be so big that I won't be able to buy from other places. Also, I have no room in my apartement for it. So, I decided to go with contact printing, and because of that I consider to buy 8x10. But, is that good idea? Will it be better to start with 4x6 or 5x7, without enlarger, and after time and learning period to go to 8x10, or it is OK to go from start with 8x10? Are there serious reasons for not start with 8x10 and if there are, what are they? I have no experience with LF, only with 35mm and MF.

Thanks

While I understand why you would consider an 8x10 for contact printing, for which it would seem to me to be a minimum size, I don't understand why neither you nor anyone else here has mentioned scanning 8x10 as the means for elimination of the need for an enlarger for 8x10 images. Is this group so adverse to digital that I am the only one who has gone off the reservation, so to speak, to solve the problem of printing images taken with an 8x10?

I am not going to get into an argument regarding contact prints, which I will concede have a quality to them that I appreciate, but the real reason I put up with the weight, bulk and expense of an 8x10 is to gain the level of detail I want on a print that will be considerably larger than that. My darkroom, like the poster's will only accommodate a 4x5 enlarger and 16x20 is the largest print size I can reasonably attempt. Given these constraints, it seems to me that scanning the images and printing them digitally is the only reasonable solution.

 

[vet173]

Some things, although correct, are better left unsaid in certain context.

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

Being a student, 4x5 was the only reasonable choice.

I'm shooting ALOT of film per best shot, and continually learning and developing (myself, not just film).

My 4x5 enlarger can still be picked up, and carried into the bathroom, although I intend to get a cart to put it on, and then I can just wheel it into the bathroom and keep my paper underneath.

My 4x5 developing tanks are cheap, and can take 6 sheets per. I bought two, and since they are nice and light tight, (combi-plan T) I can develop my film while watching T.V.

I like that four sheets of film contact print on one sheet of paper.

I like that a pack of fifty sheets of cheap black and white film costs 20 bucks.
I like 8x10. It fits nice into 11x14 inch document frames that cost about 12 dollars each with 71/2 inch by 9 1/2 inch openings from the mailorder place.
I like 8x10 because it fits nice into the really cheap 8x10 document frames at the dollar store.
I like 16x20. It's a very nice size to print a very nice image, and is only a four times enlargement. It's also the largest size that they make cheap document frames in.

I'm poor, very poor.
I paid less for my camera w/lens than most of the contact printing elite paid for their maplewood contact printers, and I paid only 225 dollars for my beseler 4x5 enlarger.

I won't impress them, but I sure can kick my digital buddies in the testicles with my 16x20's from my 4x5 negs.

Also, I can afford to give away impressively sized gift prints at major holidays. A 16x20 sheet of paper, with taxes and shipping, still costs only about two bucks, assuming I buy at least a four 25 packs.

 

[Denis P.]

Haris, I've sent you a PM.
Maybe I can help - I was/am in the same predicament as you, and I might have something for you.

Denis

 

[haris]

Thank you all

Denis, PM is answered.

Ole, unfortunately NOTHING is available in Bosnia, but my long term supplier of Ilford films is always there for me, and Croatia (EFKE) is very near And your mentioning of 18x24 cm is very tempting...

Nick, true, that is why I am thinking about 8x10 (or 18x24). I am afraid that smaller formats with contact printing will not make me happy and that smaller formats will be more left unused...

CBG, that is very reasonable. I saw 8x10 "starter kit" cheaper than 4x5 and vice versa, and both (per one, not both ) cheaper than for example my Mamiya RB, so cost of equipment can be taken care of. After all, I don't think about getting new Linhof or Sinar (well, unless won on lottery )

lbbooks, No digital in my photography. I work DTP jobs, I work everyday with scanner and staring in computer monitor, so I want my private photography to be strictly out of digital.

For all of you who talked about enlargers, I do respect yours views, but there are rational reasons as unavailability in my near surrounding which makes transport too expencive and more important I simply have no room in my apartement for it.

I am left with next: 8x10 (18x24) AND (most likely) 5x7 - contact printing. Now I will decide what to get first, other - next year

To all: Thank you for all help and enjoy life

Haris