Large format photography

[Nick Zentena]

Originally Posted by Dave Miller

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?

Isn't this Mother natures way of telling you to hit the gym? Have we gotten to the point that hauling an 8x10 is really a hardship? People used to walk uphill to school both ways.

OTOH my 8x10 is lighter then my 6x7

[Les McLean]

I wonder what the difference in the American description of 8 x 10 to the UK use of 10 x 8 has on this in relation to the "repressed sexual inadequacy" that Dave refers too. Is it significant that across the pond the smaller size comes first?

[Akki14]

I just thought it was logical putting the smaller number first because you say/type/write... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. So pick your numbers out of your lineup and it's 8x10. Not sure what the UK logic is in saying 10x8 ... Do you read from right to left now too? :P

[gr82bart]

Originally Posted by MattKing

Don't you mean euphemism?

Told ya I was shooting blanks. Not to mention I HATE typing into my iPhone.

Regards, Art. (Yet I love my iPhone ...)

[Ian Leake]

It's an oldie, but this seems appropriate here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0rKBVDb7f8

[Andy K]

I've always said 8x10... but when it comes to lumber I say 4x2.

[Steve Smith]

I say 8x10 and 5x4.

Steve.

[hawkwind]

Developing individual sheets of film allows zone system adjustments. Also, as mentioned earlier, it's rather difficult to fit a 13" Cooke Series II Portrait lens on your average Nikon. I shoot mostly 4x5, but I'm working on getting my Calumet C-1 ready for 8x10. And, yes, one can't always throw up the tripod and get the shot in a couple seconds, but that's where the zen takes over.

--Gary

[Monophoto]

Originally Posted by Dave Miller

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?

In other words, using 8x10 (or 10x8) is a form of penis envy?

[Jim Chinn]

I think it simply comes down to deciding the size you want to print and if you need movements. If you don't require movements and are only going to enlarge up to 11x14 or 16x20 MF with top quality glass will give equal results with the benefit of more dof for a given focal length and faster lenses. IIRC Barry Thornton demonstrates that for the above sizes a camera such as a Rollie SL66 is far superior to LF. Contact printing with an 11x14 camera does not gaurantee an image sharper then an enlargement from say 6x7 MF if poor technique is used or an inferior lens. If you want to go larger with your 6x7 negative you can go the digitally enlarged neg option and use that neg for contact printing or alt processes.

But it is not quite so simple. LF (especially 8x10 and larger) bring a certain aesthetic or quality to the image specifically due to the ability to use movements, the lenses available and the relationship between a portrait sitter and the big camera. And if 8x10 is the perfect size print for you what is simpler than contact printing an 8x10 print. Plenty of inexpensive high quality used cameras and tack sharp lenses available. Using the Lf camera is itself a craft and requires a specific skill set to get optimal results. Just like most of us prefer practicing the craft of the wet darkroom a opposed to digital some prefer the craft of LF to smaller formats. Simple as that.

You also have to consider the enlarging side of the equation. You can have the best MF or 35mm kit money can buy but an inferior enlarging lens, out of alignment enlarger or poor technique will never produce an 8x10 print that comes close to a contact made with an average 8x10 kit.