Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,142   Online: 1005
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: 8X10 vs 5X7

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    5x7 is much more portable than 10x8 IMO. Film holders of the latter are over double the size, much heavier etc. I sold my 10x8 as I found it a pig to carry about. Film handling and processing is easier and more efficient with 5x7 too. however, there is no denying the impact of a large neg on enlargements...

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    876
    I have a 5x7 reducing back for my Ritter 8x10. (Note: the Ritter 8x10 is almost 8 lbs lighter than a Zone VI or Wisner 8x10) The lighter Ritter allows a lighter tripod and lighter tripod head. I love the look of an 8x10 Azo print and find I shoot about 100 8x10 negatives for every 10 5x7 negatives. Yes, the 8x10 holders are heavier, but if weight were an major issue, I'd be using a 35mm. The quality of the image is what matters, and it trumps the weight issue.....at least it does for me. As stated earlier in this thread, nothing beats working with an 8x10 ground glass. YMMV
    John Bowen

  3. #23
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    I'll just add this postscript: Shen Hao just agreed to make up a 5x8 reducing back for my 4x10... just what I was looking for! The cost is only US$180.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

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