[LargeFormat] Double checking.

[John Pass]

These are all good points George and I agree with almost all of them.
See below...

3/18/02 12:26:44 PM, george day <geod@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>John,
>
>The fact is, most 8x10 users are packing it up and closing shop.

Good news!


> Here's
>why:
>
>1)  Modern films are ridiculously good.
>2)  Modern lenses are ridiculously good.
>3)  Walking near either of the above for 8x10 is insanely expensive
>
>Think about it.  Film for 4x5 costs well less than half what it does for
>8x10.  You can use readyloads and quickloads (both very reliable) and you
>can use polaroids (invaluable) without paying too much more.
>
You can use these on an 8x10 with a reducing back.  Unless there is
a problem with using reducing backs on 8x10 systems - ie rigidty,
flatness, etc.?


>Films like Provia F, Velvia, E100VS are offer insanely high resolution. 

I'm shooting B&W mostly, BTW.  See below.  Who can resist the urge
to shoot an 8x10 Velvia every now an then, tho!



 Use
>one of these films -- and they easily resolve 100lpm -- with a modern lens
>(Apo Sironar S are the cutting edge, IMHO) that also easily resolves 100lpm,
>and you're talking one sharp picture.  I'm telling you, I go to a lot of
>workshops and shows, look at lots and lots of pictures and have friends who
>are big-time studio and fine arts users, and the end results these days are
>6x7 images being almost indistiguishable from a 4x5 at 16x20 and a 4x5 and
>8x10 likewise at, oh, 30x40 and even 40x50.  Those a BIG PICTURES!
>
>What's more, because 8x10 is so grossly expensive, it's likely you'll buy a
>previous generation used lens.

Not a chance.  Why would I spend the money I have on My Canon 1V, L series
lenses, Hassy, and not buy the best for my LF?  I like sharp.


> Guess what?  A latest generation 4x5 lens
>will run circles around it, in terms of resolution.  And then there's this
>little factor: you can safely shoot 4x5 at f22 and get the depth of field
>you need.  With an 8x10, you're shooting well beyond that.  f22 marks the
>diffraction limit of all lenses -- smaller apertures mean greatly reduced
>image quality.
>
>So, why shoot 8x10?  Scans are horribly expensive

Never, ever will I do digital, Never!  I would encourage
everyone I know to do digital.  But I will resist it as long as possible,
which, by the way technology is going, I'll be able to do till I die.

 (I know "Never say never!")


, as is custom optical
>printing. 

I have access to a 10x10 enlarger now (if I want to enlarge) and
later can get another 8x10 larger of my own.  

 You will spend hundreds more on film alone.  If you're shooting
>human subjects, you definitely will need lots and lots of lighting.

In most cases you are right.  But what little portraiture I do, I wont use
artificial lighting.  I don't do normal portraiture.  See below.

>And...here's a clincher...if you want to do alternative process stuff, like
>making beautiful platinum prints...drum roll, please...11x14 and larger is
>the way to go!

Then maybe I should go larger.  Because this is what I want to do!!!  I have
had a vision of what a photograph should look like (I'm talking black and white
here) and the only way I've seen this vision fulfilled is through LF black and
white alternative process.  I am insatiably hungry for it!!  And given half
the chance I'll get me an 11x14 camera, but I'd rather have one of those 8x20
cameras!!  Now THAT would be a camera!!!!  I will not be dettered from this.
You see, George, an 8x10 camera is a compromise for me.  4x5 wont cut it!

I saw some portraiture by a guy, can't remember his name (on the west coast
somewhere) that was done with natural light, 8x10 and Platinum printed and it was
AWESOME!  And this only begins to go where I want to go with portraiture.  Only begins.


>
>Don't get me wrong.  I think 8x10 negatives are breathtaking and satisfying.
>However, 4x5 *really* is just as good, if not better.  

Can't do decent contact prints with a 4x5.  And just barely with an 8x10.

Remember, there's
>more than just image size that goes into a sharp picture: optical quality,
>film flatness (a joke in 8x10), precise DOF control, etc., are all parts of
>the equation.
>
>So, my recommendation is to either buy a 4x5 and learn it, or, better, RENT!
>Rent a 4x5 system.  Play with it, make pictures.  Rent an 8x10 system and do
>likewise.  A lot of places will rent by the week via UPS, too!
>
>And, hey, something to keep in mind: if your enthusiasm cannot be dampened,
>I really am selling a lot of 8x10 gear -- a nice, light-tight Cambo with an
>8x10 back and a 4x5 reducing back, in a case, for around $450 and shipping
>(these go for around $800 w/o the extra back) -- and a 480 and 360 lens.

I'll contact you off list about this.

>On 3/18/02 10:10 AM, "John Pass" <johnp@novia.net> wrote:
>
>> George,
>> 
>> I appreciate your help, really I do.  But if I'm going to do LF
>> photography and my eventual goal is 8x10, why would I not
>> just start out with 8x10?  Sure my learning curve might be greater,
>> but I'm not a light weight in the determination area either.  4x5 is just
>> too small. And I feel like it would be more of a discouragement to
>> start off with something that wouldn't satisfy than to have difficulty
>> with the logistics/technicalities of an 8x10 for a little while.  Sorry,
>> George, I shall not be denied!!  :-)
>> 
>> Oh, I get it...you shoot 8x10 and don't want any competition...
>> George you sly dog you!!  :-)
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 3/18/02 10:46:43 AM, george day <geod@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>