Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,056   Posts: 1,561,365   Online: 1064
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    Been reading this thread with real interest. Mainly because I've been trying everything to get the tonal range and details of the orig 4x5 contact print into my enlargements. New lens, papers developer etc .... nothing seems to quite get there.

    So I've often thought about 8x10 but wondered: considering 8x10 is only 4x the film area in size, is it really worth the hassel that comes with the more bulky equipment? Would be very interested in the responses from those doing it.
    In a word...yes! 8x10 is a great format, still light enough to hike with, something you definitly dont do with ULF. I would say I average about 4 8x10s for each 12x20 I take. Go for it...you wont be dissapointed.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    In a word...yes! 8x10 is a great format ....
    Ahuh - so you guys don't miss enlarging / or having large prints then? (assuming you don't have monster enlarger .

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    Ahuh - so you guys don't miss enlarging / or having large prints then? (assuming you don't have monster enlarger .
    Don't miss enlarging at all!

    Love contact printing!

    Viewing contact prints is a very intimate and exciting experience.

    C'mon John, step on out on the slope - be careful - it's slippery!
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    Ahuh - so you guys don't miss enlarging / or having large prints then? (assuming you don't have monster enlarger .
    IMO the only reason to have very large prints is because they seem to draw you in, notice the popularity of the 6' ink jet prints. But a well made contact print has a 3D quality that will draw you in despite being much smaller. I dont miss enlarging at all, and after my tests with JandC 400 I think I will be packing my enlarger for good.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    IMO the only reason to have very large prints is because they seem to draw you in, notice the popularity of the 6' ink jet prints. But a well made contact print has a 3D quality that will draw you in despite being much smaller. I dont miss enlarging at all, and after my tests with JandC 400 I think I will be packing my enlarger for good.
    I see your point Jorge. Very interesting - packing up the enlarger is quite a call!! It's a rather scary thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom
    C'mon John, step on out on the slope - be careful - it's slippery!
    I'm wobbling! :-)

  6. #26
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    Ahuh - so you guys don't miss enlarging / or having large prints then? (assuming you don't have monster enlarger .
    John, I still do some enlarging because I have a few prints from smaller formats that I still like. But, going back to the enlarger after contact printing makes me appreciate how easy and pleasurable contact printing is.

    My mistake was going to 4x5 before 8x10. That little excursion caused be to get a LF enlarger and produce a few 4x5 negs that are some of my best. If I had it to do over again, I would just jump right in to 8x10. I also found that the 8x10 is easier to work with than any other camera I've used. Sure, it weighs more and takes up more room, but I don't have to squint down to see the image. I can look at it with both eyes open and at a more natural viewing distance.
    Semper Fi & God Bless America
    My Photography Blog

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Alex you make a very interesting case.

    Argghhhh - wife's going to kill me!!! Mind you, bought her a really nice pair of shoes for her birthday yesterday. :rolleyes: ... and we *are* going to get the Flaming Chicken at the Thai Classic on Sat night!!!!

    Yup fair trade! I will start thinking about it seriously.

    John.

    boy somone can get in trouble hanging 'round this place....

  8. #28
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    Alex you make a very interesting case.
    Just to prod you a little more John, 8x10 is not much more expensive than 4x5. Film and film holders cost more, Azo paper costs more per box, but one needs fewer sheets of paper to get a good print than with enlarging paper. As an example, just yesterday, I blew probably 10 sheets trying to get the print I wanted on an enlargement. With Azo, its never been more than five sheets, typically only three or four.

    Second prod: another big benefit of the 8x10, IMO, is that the effects of the view camera movements are much easier to see than with 4x5.

    Good luck with the Better Half!
    Semper Fi & God Bless America
    My Photography Blog

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Hawley
    .....
    Second prod: another big benefit of the 8x10, IMO, is that the effects of the view camera movements are much easier to see than with 4x5.

    Good luck with the Better Half!
    Really!? You mean selective focusing and that sort of thing?

    John.

    Argh stop it! stop it!

  10. #30
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    Really!? You mean selective focusing and that sort of thing?
    That too, but I was thinking more about focusing all around the ground glass and perspective control.
    Semper Fi & God Bless America
    My Photography Blog

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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