The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

8x10 vs 4x5?

RodK

Active member
Ther are some factors for both sides of this ongoing discussion:
The 8x10 lenses are equal now-if speaking of the last 10 or 15 years to the quality of the latest 4x5 lenses so that isd less of an issue than before. A great benefit of 8x10, not mentioned yet, is that composing on an 8x10 is much easier than any of the smaller formats. You are looking at a 'finished size', so you have a better perception of what it might look like on the wall.
The down size is traveling with an 8x10 and the film. Airlines not making it easier.

The new films thought:Ektar 100 and Pro 160 do scan better than most transparencies so can yield some outstanding results given a good scanner and operator.
The larger formats do lend them selves to the alternative processes without again going onto computers.

On the digital side, Color control is much easier with Digital than Film. Especially with the WB control available now and the RAW adjustment capabilities as well.
The time on a computer verses the time in the darkroom is about a wash for the more skilled photographic worker who has a high 'GE' factor(Good enough).
So there are things to be said for both. I did 20+ years of 8x10 and 4x5. I still shoot 4x5 some but find I love the control, acciracy and precision of my technical camera so much that I want to photograph even more often than before.
So both are good, both have advantages. I guess we all just choose...
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
+1 to Rod,
I spent far too many years making color correction masks for dye transfer and of course there was that non-reproducable technique of dipping the yellow mat "just a little" and rinsing it more than usual to offset a slight color shift.
I am really glad to be using the digital process :)
-bob
 

FredBGG

Not Available
I am shooting landscapes with 4x5 and 6x17cm, both on color transparency film. I then drum scan and print with a Chromera/Lightjet on Fuji Crystal Archive. My focus is large gallery prints (as large as 48x65 and 32x96, but more often 30x40 and 24x72). If I am doing a good job throughout the process, will I see a vast print quality difference moving up to 8x10 and
4x10?
Thanks for the experienced input.

Jon
I have shot a large amount of 6x8cm, 4x5 and 8x10.
Personally I find that 8x10 has a significant advantage over 4x5.
You have double the linear resolution with the film and the image is not reduced down to the smaller size and then enlarged.

While some point out that 4x5 lenses are inherently sharper than 8x10 lenses... ... well that may be true, but the difference is very small and it is made irrelevant by the fact that 4x5 has to be blown up twice as much.

I have not had issues of film flatness being a problem, even shooting vertically down.

8x10 scans far better than 4x5. Twice the resolution.

Dust specks will be half the size.

Add to this the fact that larger format lenses just have a nicer look and more depth. This is a difference that you will see even with moderate enlarging.

Regarding comments about digital being as good a 8x10...... IMHO it's no. Simply because of the lenses. Whenever a lens has to cram the image down into a small negative of capture area it loses out.

If that were not the issue we would all be shooting the 200MP crop sensor Canon developed.

Medium format digital is great.... but for me it is not a substitute for 6x8cm film or large format. Just the fact that the 6x8 that I use has tilt and shift on all the lenses is a game changer.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
AFAIK 8x10 is four times the resolution of 4x5, not twice.
four times in terms of total information but twice in terms of linear information but given the same lenses and the same film, the same in line pairs per mm.
-bob
 

downstairs

New member
I shoot a lot of both formats and scan the negatives on a flat-bed because I can't afford the time, money and gunk involved in a drum scan. 8x10 is beautiful and fulfilling but pretty useless for a digital exhibition print whereas 4x5 is clean and practical.
8x10 has 4 glass surfaces plus two film surfaces to hold dust in the plane of focus. Whatever glass you use to hold the negative flat (and upside down) it will pick up newton rings somewhere.
The two 4x5 surfaces in the film holder can be kept dust-free with an anti-static brush.
It takes me a couple of hours to clean up a flat-bed scanned 8x10 and sometime I give up when the rings cross into subject matter. A 4x5 is done in about five minutes.
(4x5-8x10-Digital comparisons here)
 

FredBGG

Not Available
I shoot a lot of both formats and scan the negatives on a flat-bed because I can't afford the time, money and gunk involved in a drum scan. 8x10 is beautiful and fulfilling but pretty useless for a digital exhibition print whereas 4x5 is clean and practical.
8x10 has 4 glass surfaces plus two film surfaces to hold dust in the plane of focus. Whatever glass you use to hold the negative flat (and upside down) it will pick up newton rings somewhere.
The two 4x5 surfaces in the film holder can be kept dust-free with an anti-static brush.
It takes me a couple of hours to clean up a flat-bed scanned 8x10 and sometime I give up when the rings cross into subject matter. A 4x5 is done in about five minutes.
(4x5-8x10-Digital comparisons here)
Why not wet scan your 8x10? No more newton rings.
 

downstairs

New member
Wet scan with the Epson needs some extras which are not available over here. Drum scan services are expensive and not always satisfactory when you are chasing tone and mood in black and white. It's like having someone else make the important decisions.
I have found some happiness with Rollei Retro Tonal 8x10. The emulsion side does not pick up newton rings and it stays pretty flat without an extra glass. You need to dry it hanging from two corners.
 

georgl

New member
Keep your eyes open for an old Eversmart or drum scanner, the Epson is destroying too much, IMHO.

All you need for wet mounting is the fluid, cleaning fluid, cleaning clothes and mylar. Where are you located? Without special wet-mounting holder it's a little bit messy, but that's it. It shouldn't be an issue to get them in Europe?
 

downstairs

New member
Thanks, geroal. Its the Epson wet mount holder that I can't find in Milan. If the fluid is the same as for drums, then there's plenty of that. I'm going to shop around for an Eversmart though.
The anti-newton feature of Retro Tonal is mentioned on the printed sheet.
 

georgl

New member
Get Kami SXL 2001, it evaporates without residue and doesn't harm glass or plastic. But it's quite inviscid.
Be patient with the Eversmart, you can also get Oxygen 2.3.5 and 2.6 from me for free, I also have the calibration slide I can loan. Just be careful with the Jazz, it's not really an Eversmart (the manufacturer was Umax?)
 
Top