Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Macshroomer

macrumors 65816
Dec 6, 2009
1,305
733
The calculations above show f1015.
[doublepost=1539907712][/doublepost]
It is as much about the process as it is about the image. The size isn’t for resolution and an uneven exposure is not frowned upon. I do like being unconventional but the primary goal is an art piece for Burning Man and beyond. I’ll be stripping a pickup to the frame for the base platform. When the camera is folded up it will look like a flatbed of sorts. The cab will ultimately be stripped down and steampunked out. The truck/camera will then be used to pull my trailer that is currently being pulled by my Jeep. Off playa it will be used for events and for fun.

Practical? No.

For quality film images I’ll stick to the 4x5 and 8x10.

Ok...that’s fully worth the effort, props sir!

I “Van Halen”-ized a Nikon F100 and a pair of Leicas for a project on Kodachrome in 2010 at BM, still gotta get that book out....
12A50941-AE49-40D7-AF5C-B9FBCBB85938.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Laird Knox

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jun 18, 2010
1,958
1,346
Kudos to @Macrshroomer and @Laird Knox.

There’s no reason to shoot 8x10, 7x17, 8x20, 16x20 film unless you love it. If you love it, no other reason is needed.

Cheers, Azy
That’s a pretty sweeping statement.

I do, however, enjoy using a camera that is over a century old.
[doublepost=1539916410][/doublepost]
Ok...that’s fully worth the effort, props sir!

I “Van Halen”-ized a Nikon F100 and a pair of Leicas for a project on Kodachrome in 2010 at BM, still gotta get that book out....
View attachment 796425
I playa-ized a pair of D800s.

F943EF00-1787-42BD-B4CE-F3114265E18E.jpeg
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,353
6,495
Kentucky
One can make an argument for shooting 8x10...it DOES give you a lot more resolution than 4x5, and I consider it at least an imminently practical size. At least most common emulsions are available off-the-shelf(not special order) in 8x10-or at least nearly everything available in 4x5 is also available in 8x10.

Still, though, when you get right down to it 4x5 will get you impressive-looking obscenely large prints. The cameras and lenses are significantly smaller than 8x10, and both the film and the processing(the latter whether you're doing it yourself or sending it off) is 1/4 the price. I can shoot and pay for processing a box of 4x5 Velvia for about $150 total(knock that down to about $120 if I process it myself, which I usually do), while a 20 sheet box of 8x10 Velvia is well north of $300. Processing that box of 20 sheets is around $200 at most commercial labs(vs. $80 for 4x5). A $40 Arista 1 qt. E6 kit will do 32 sheets of 4x5, but only 8 of 8x10, so get into buying an $80 1 gallon kit...

Still, though, at current prices I'll likely end up with an 8x10 kit one of these days. A 4x5 transparency is jaw dropping enough-much less an 8x10. A completely grain-free 8x10 contact is also appealing, although you have to hunt for grain even with a film like TXP-320 when it's enlarged to 8x10.
 

Macshroomer

macrumors 65816
Dec 6, 2009
1,305
733
I have gone back and forth on the idea of 8x10, I have three lenses that will cover it, a Jobo 3005 drum that will process it (I have 5x 3010 drums too) but my three enlargers are all standardized as LPL 4550 XLG’s so I can’t enlarge it.

I did a test at a friends’s place years ago in which we did a contact print from 8x10 and then the same shot done on 4x5 printed to 8x10 and hardly saw a real difference. It was smooth, great tones but if I can’t go beyond an 8x10 from that expensive sheet of film and all that heavy gear then there really is no point for me, especially considering how portable and affordable 4x5 is.

One of my 4x5 cameras is a Sinar P2, I almost bought the 8x10 conversion kit for it recently but I thought about that small print size and passed.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.