Underwater 8x10 Camera!

Dead Link Removed

I saw this while browsing again at 4am. Pretty wicked. Its weighted down with 60lbs of lead, haha try carrying that around on land! But is only about 10lbs actually factoring in buoyancy the article states.

...nice!

....ditto; I like the camera and the photos are lovely as well.
The first real in-situ underwater photos were actually done with that format, a slightly bulkier version, in 1893 (5x7) and then in 1895 (8x10) by french scientist, diver and photographer Louis Boutan. David Stahl's looks a bit more compact, but is, partially due to the format, still pretty massive.

As an aside, I worked on a 8x10 a while back as well and later settled for 5x7 which gives me two exposures per dive, and configured as a 6x17 I have four exposures on a motorized rollfilm back per dive. I had the same problems: Bulkiness and weight, but got my 5x7" down to ~14kg in air and 0.2kg underwater. I found that DOF became so critical in 8x10 that in practicality it went past the sweet spot of resolution vs. focussing ability and thus I had to incorporate camera-tilt to maximise usefulness. Another guy though, Erick Regnard, has been using a 4x5" very successfully for deep wreck dives recently. LF underwater seems to have a second life!

With 4x5 inch size, it becomes possible to consider roll-film - you can still get rolls of 4" wide b&w film and perhaps color emulsions as well. You'd have to build in some kind of transport mechanism for the film and a way to make it light-tight along with being water-tight. If 8" or 10" (9.5" or whatever it is) roll film is still available, I don't think I'd want to know what the weight of something like a roller transport mechanism for that would be. The motorized back for my RB67 is heavy enough, and it only needs 4 AA batteries!

Wow I didn't know there was more history to underwater LF. Very cool. I have to check out those photographers mentioned.

TheFlyingCamera said:

With 4x5 inch size, it becomes possible to consider roll-film - you can still get rolls of 4" wide b&w film and perhaps color emulsions as well. You'd have to build in some kind of transport mechanism for the film and a way to make it light-tight along with being water-tight. If 8" or 10" (9.5" or whatever it is) roll film is still available, I don't think I'd want to know what the weight of something like a roller transport mechanism for that would be. The motorized back for my RB67 is heavy enough, and it only needs 4 AA batteries!

Click to expand...

Yes, I think 9.5" rollfilm would go even further into insanity territory even just from a pure image quality output; not something that'd lend itself to versatility on a dive.
I can (and do) use a 6x17 back on my 5x7 (1x 9V battery there); its only a 120 back (vs 220) and I have to choose: e.g. color or b/w before the dive , but 4 shots is sometimes better than two (I can do 2 shots of 5x7/dive and of course can load different emulsions).