Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,701   Posts: 1,548,417   Online: 1047
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Why 5x7?

  1. #21
    ThomHarrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    172
    Images
    6
    I don't shoot 5x7 myself but I believe that, whether people know it or not, they are attracted to the proportion of 5x7 because it is much closer to the shape of the golden mean rectangle. Actually, 5x8 would be nearly perfect but 5x7 is a lot closer than 4x5. The 4x5 proportion (4x5, 8x10, 16x20) was used as a standard size because it fit the original paper rolls without any waste. The 5x7 proportion is more pleasing from an artistic standpoint because it is a pleasing shape for the brain, not the wallet.

  2. #22
    scootermm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,867
    Images
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by esearing
    drawbacks:
    No current desktop scanners support 5x7 negatives so you will have to stitch if you plan to digitize. Else pay for drum scan.
    I just wanted to make note of this for you esearing and all the rest who might be wondering. This isnt entirely true.

    Epson makes a flatbed scanners that have 6"x9" transparency ability.
    The 4870 runs about $450 last time I saw it advertised.
    Not trying to bring up any digital propoganda but I just wanted to correct the misinformation.

    The Epson 3170 scanner I have gives wonderful scans of 120 and 35mm film and 4x5 negatives with my homemade "transparency" adapter.

  3. #23
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by esearing
    drawbacks:

    Cost/availability of 5x7 enlargers vs 4x5?

    No current desktop scanners support 5x7 negatives so you will have to stitch if you plan to digitize. Else pay for drum scan.
    Due to size and ease of use (or lack of such), 5x7" enlargers are often cheaper than 4x5" ones. You can usually get a 5x7" or larger enlarger for the cost of haulage, while you can still expect to have to pay for a 4x5" one. 8x10" enlargers can be difficult to fit into a normal (home) darkroom, no problems with most 5x7".

    My scanner isn't exactly "current", but the AGFA Duoscan T1200 takes 5x7" film. Ans 8x10", for tht matter.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    The information provided by everyone has been really good.

    Tom, your list is one of the best I have seen on the subject and is Very Helpfully, Thanks.

    Ole, question about enlargers..could a Beselar 45 be converted to 5x7 or would it be less expensive to just find a 5x7?

    Been playing around with some Ziatypes today (4x5 contact prints) and have to say a 5x7 negative would sure make it a lot nicer.

    Thanks Everyone for your input.
    Mike C

    Rambles

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    I picked up a fine durst 138 (5x7 colour head) for £50...but did have to drive 300 miles to collect it. I'd love a 5x7 and will wait until the right deal comes along. Aspect ratio, portability, weight and incresed neg size win the day.

    Tom

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,030
    Mike,
    There are old Elwoods lurking out there for very little money or even free if you'll it away. I have an 8x10 which can easily be masked down to any lesser size format. I've also seen 5x7 on occassion. Kind of bare bones compared to a Durst, but still quite usable.

  7. #27
    Neanderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio River Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    575
    Originally Posted by esearing
    drawbacks:
    No current desktop scanners support 5x7 negatives

    Microtek ScanMaster i900. Scans up to 8x10 transparancy and retails for around $600. And to think I bought a 5900 less than 2 years ago...

  8. #28
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,402
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    Bought a "5X7" Burke and James last month on feebay to rob the lens. It had a coated very late 159 Wolly which I've now added to the burgeoning family. Anyways when I got it, I took it and half a dozen 5X7 loads out to play with it a bit. Damn I had a hard time trying to get those 5X7 film holders into that 4X5 back. So I complained to the seller that the "5X7" I'd bought came up more than a little short. He promptly returned that it was a lucky break for me as 4X5's are worth a lot more $. Had to give him credit for an interesting excuse.

    BTW, I have a dandy old 5X7 Elwood someone can have fairly cheaply if they want to drive to Tonopah Nevada to pick it up. I might haul it as far as Reno. $125 bucks.

  9. #29
    ronlamarsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Seattle Wash
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    462
    Images
    16
    I originally got my 5x7 for contact printing the size and shape are near perfect for me. Also if you check the cost of film,lenses and other necessay accessories you'll see the cost curves takes a non-linear leap in the upward direction once you go beyond 5x7 i.e. a box of film for 5x7 runs about $28 the same for 8x10 is more than double. Also for enlarging I have an acient B&J enalrger and can enlarge the negs that won't work as contacts. And if you have the bucks you can get the nifty TOHO 5x7 monorail that was intended for backpacking(under 5lbs) with full monorail movements. This is the camera I am saving my sheckels for at which time I'll dump all my 4x5 stuff(except lenses as the all work for 5x7)including enlarger.
    No escaping it!
    I must step on fallen leaves
    to take this path

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin