Posted by Marc Adamus on August 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Maybe a long shot, but who knows. I've been asking around the area lately if there are any photographers close by (or planning a trip out here - the NW in general) who have a good deal of experience shooting big film - 8x10 in particular. I ask because I have been searching for new creative avenues lately and am contemplating moving part time to an 8x10 system for my landscapes. I have very limited experience with view cameras in general, but lots of experience with film. I'd like to work with someone presently using an 8x10 system and ask questions ranging from camera operation, lens selection, traveling, scanning options, etc.
I know it may seem odd for someone like myself known for fast and light, far and high travel to obtain my landscapes to want to use an 8x10 system, but it's such the opposite of my present mentality towards landscape photography, the challenge of it intrigues me greatly. Also, I've always missed the art and challenges of film photography and am looking at ways to get back into it.
Thanks for any info.
Marc
wildlandphoto@yahoo.com
www.marcadamus.com
Posted by Mike Sellers on August 10, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Marc,
Have you checked out the 8x10 work of Christopher Burkett at http://www.christopherburkett.com/home.html
I have thought about 8x10 but the drawbacks compared to 4x5 are many- 4x5 cameras are lighter,film is easier to scan, readyloads/quickloads available but not for 8x10. I was at Midwest Photo Exchange Saturday and I was looking at the Shen Hao 4x5 in black walnut-neat little camera. I think I can justify digital and 4x5 film!
Posted by Marc Adamus on August 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Hi Mike. Thanks for the reply. Chris actually has a display with the same gallery as I do (Capture Gallery, where I am expanding my showing this month). I may see if I can bother him for his time when I'm down there in early September (he's often around that area), but I'm not able to spend too much time in the area on my September visit and I'd like to find someone local that can help me also.
Posted by Darren White on August 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Well I have shot 4x5 before and I know the efforts that go into that....so good luck with the 8x10.....
besides the artistic side and getting back to basics with film, what other reasons would you be wanting to use such a large format.....I mean are you planning on putting an image on the side of a building...I don't think many people realize just how BIG you can print an 8x10 ... but I will be the first one looking here for your first scanned transparency shrank down to 720 and 200KB...... good luck in this endeavor!
Posted by Ned Fenimore on August 10, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Can't wait to see what you can do with a large piece of film.. should be breathtaking! Good luck with this, Marc!
Posted by Marc Adamus on August 10, 2009 at 9:25 PM
I've been looking at some 8x10's printed in the 40x60 range and bigger lately and am loving it. I am working with the Capture Gallery on a much-expanded showing of my work as well, and would love some Chris Burkett type of enlargement ability. I have a lot of experience looking at big 4x5's, but really, all I need to do is stich a few digital images together to get that kind of resolution or go MF digital. There is a substantial difference in image quality when you're looking at 40x60+ from 4x5 vs. 8x10. 4X the resolution is incredible. It's literally every speck of detail you can possibly put on the paper at 4x5 feet and way more (I was looking at a couple 80x100's in Jackson last week).
More than anything else though, it changes your artistic outlook. It changes how and what you shoot. I want that. There are so many scenes I take that look pretty on the web, but don't look a lot better when you see them big because they rely on the basic subject matter for impact, not finite details. I can count so many scenes in my head where I want to record that type of detail. From the Olympic rainforests to Autumn in Colorado. They are scenes that simply MUST be seen huge to be enjoyed, and that's a contrast from my present photography. Additionally, I'll soon have a couple great outlets to offer them for sale as speacial limited editions.
But again, it's not as much about resolution as it is about a different way of thinking. A different way of seeing and approaching the art of photography. It's almost the opposite of what I do now. Perhaps I've gained some patience with age, or perhaps I just find digital easy enough and want to try something that focuses as much on the art of the process as the final image. I want something NEW! Maybe I'm having a mid-life photo crisis at 30 I'll see where it takes me. One thing's for certain, and that is I have to get back into film at least in some capacity.
Marc, I applaud your efforts to go 8 x 10. I don't spend much time in galleries as you ...and am ignorant of issues of photo-taking using large format ...but, I have found myself transfixed on seeing large 'quality' wall size prints...they have a lasting beauty and are at a class above all others, in my opinion. Their power is to attract the viewer from afar...with elements like composition as a 35 mm...then draw the viewer ever closer and into wonderment as the labyrinth of details comes into focus.
Posted by Mike Sellers on August 10, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Marc,
There used to be a gallery in Sedona owned by a photographer who shot 4x5 and his smallest print size was 30x40. He mostly had 40x60`s on display. Who has walls that can use this size print? His sales went to wealthy home owners with large walls and corporate type clients. Here are my thoughts-why spend $25,000 or more for the high end digital back when you can shoot film then get a good drum scan for printing.If you want to do your own scanning then good used drum scanners are very affordable now.
Posted by Vance Gese on August 10, 2009 at 11:03 PM
You are probably aware of this website, but if not, might find some useful info. The forum is quite informative.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info
Large prints from 8x10 transparencies, such as Burkett's, really are stunning.
Posted by Mike Sellers on August 10, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Marc,
Here is a website for a fairly lightweight 8x10-am considering their 4x5 for myself
http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/810.html
Posted by Paul DeCesare on August 10, 2009 at 11:37 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to say "Sure Marc, I shoot 8x10 a lot, I'll help you out."
Actually, Kosta Koeman shoots large format and I've seen him post on here before, maybe he'll jump in.
Marc, I recently read Ansel Adams Making of 40 Photographs, and in there he talks about one of the hikes he took to shoot El Capitan (and the challenges of light vs. time getting there), and how he only had 10 plates with him... TEN shots he would take on the whole adventure and how he was rationing them to try and get the image he was after (and what an image it is). I was really taken in by time and thought he put into that... talk about slowing down and getting the image right. It really had an impact on me. I can't (or can) imagine an image like your Crater Lake or that sunrise up in Banff (Nov 17?) printed out five feet wide. I think this is such a neat step you're taking.
Posted by Erik Lundh on August 11, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Have you thought of using a pano film camera like Ross Wordhouse in Bend does. I went shooting with him a couple of years ago and the results are impressive.
Posted by Jay Defigh on August 11, 2009 at 2:14 AM
I haven't posted to this site in a while, but saw this thread and felt compelled to chime in. I have been looking at photographic books (large hard back books) in the last few months, of pictures that were taken with 4x5 and 8x10, and I find that the amount of detail they capture is stunning. A scene which would be ordinary or mediocre on digital or 35mm is transformed into a work in which the smallest of textures and subtlest of tonalities spring to life. I can scan these photos for minutes at a time seemingly, and each time I look I see new nuances. For example, a picture of a woodland trail in overcast light becomes a feast for the eyes...as the bark, the leaves, the rocks, carry so much information they're like pictures within pictures. When I think about the photos I'd like on my wall, it's these kind of pictures, where each new glance yields a new unfolding story.
Please keep us updated about your progress and learning.
I've shot 8x10 for about 10 years now (but just sold it since I bought a medium format digital back). I believe I could answer most of your questions. Believe me, the 8x10 is a whole different ballgame compared to 4x5. It can be extremely rewarding and also extremely frustrating. I'm traveling this week and should be back home Sunday. Drop me an email offline or give me a call some evening. My phone # is on my website at:
www.naturesfinestimages.com
We are going to be in your neck of the woods from Aug. 23 through Sept.2 doing some shooting around WA/OR. Maybe we could hook up for a chat about 8x10. I'd be more than happy to give you details on the good and bad.
Posted by Marc Adamus on August 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Tony, I have seen your website before and I should have thought to contact you. I very much enjoy your work. That's neat you'll be out here so soon. Too bad you sold the camera recently, but I have quite a few questions I'd like to ask. I'll shoot you an email.
Posted by Mark Windom on August 11, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Marc,
A good friend of mine here in the Seattle area is selling his Wista 8X10. If you are interested let me know and I'll pass along his contact info.
"But again, it's not as much about resolution as it is about a different way of thinking. A different way of seeing and approaching the art of photography. It's almost the opposite of what I do now. Perhaps I've gained some patience with age, or perhaps I just find digital easy enough and want to try something that focuses as much on the art of the process as the final image. I want something NEW! Maybe I'm having a mid-life photo crisis at 30 I'll see where it takes me. One thing's for certain, and that is I have to get back into film at least in some capacity. "
Learning a new way of seeing/thinking only benefits you in the long run. Taking on something new to you is a very good endeavor.
Posted by Marc Adamus on August 11, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Mark, I would appreciate that very much. I'm also looking at a Tachihara system right now.
Posted by Kosta Koeman on August 11, 2009 at 10:27 PM
For LF (as Paul said, I do shoot 4x5 on occassion), one thing to consider when buying lenses is the image circle. I really pushed the boundaries of my 135 mm lens when shooting White House Ruins in Canyon de Chelly when shifting the front up. Of course, the tradeoff is weight. However, would one rather suffer a bit with the extra weight or miss the shot?
Shooting LF is a very different experience, one that I enjoy greatly. Others wind up wanting to throw the camera over the cliff (or into the river as with a friend of mine).
Did I hear you say you were in Jackson last week? I wish I knew that! I was at GTNP 8/4-5. I saw most animals, except a moose. I would've had more keepers if people didn't treat wild animals like zoo exhibits and walk right up to them:(
Good luck with the 8x10 cam, I'll keep the light SLR myself...
Kevin
Posted by Mark Windom on August 12, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I too almost went down this road a year or so ago, and still might on the side as a sort of novelty.
After all the research, at that time, I decided to develop stitching further instead. Not stitching for panoramas but stitching to increase resolution. I am currently working on some images pushing the stitching well above 100 MP and am mind boggled at the resolution and print quality. I am a big believer that the common MP=film equations are often wrong. I believe (by testing) that when done right I can match certain film resolution with less MP than some claim. Although still very much in process, I am amazed so far at the potential for print quality. I am convinced that as long as the scene is not too dynamic, by stitching I can match and exceed LF without too much headache. But, as you know, a major problem to stitching can be when a scene is extremely dynamic and things are moving and changing too much to be taken in multiple shots. Thus a very different approach is required.
I still think I might end up trying the 8x10 one of these days for certain types of shots, but it seems like a very big commitment, and in some ways going backwards for me, so, so far I am a reserved about it.
Good luck, I look forward to seeing how it goes for you.
Mark
Posted by Tyson Fisher on August 19, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Marc,
Neat to hear you're considering 8 x 10. I've slowly been building an 8 x 10 system myself. I recently sold my D700 so I could purchase a few lenses. This is a completely new thing for me as well. I've shot 4 x 5 some, but, like others have mentioned, 8 x 10 is quite a bit different. I was looking for the lightest and most affordable setup so I contacted Peter Gowland and had him build me an 8 x 10 Lite. At 4.5 lbs, it's the lightest 8 x 10 ever made. The tradeoff is you don't have rear movements and the rear standard is a little flimsy. All in all though, I've been quite happy with it. I've already taken it on many backpacking trips this summer. It's an absolute joy...most of time anyways. I have a feeling I may be upgrading to something a bit more rigid in the near future. For now however I'm having a blast using the 8 x 10 in places I thought were out of reach for such a huge camera. In addition to Peter's 8 x 10 Lite, you might also want to consider looking into the Phillips Explorer (hard to find and only available used), and Bruce Wehman's 8 x 10 http://www.wehmancamera.com/camera.html. Good luck with your search. If you'd like to go shooting sometime, let me know. I'd be happy to show you what I have going.
as you know, we use 4x5 as others shoot with D-SLR's, and am looking towrds 8x10 for a couple years now. (not to switch but as an addition for pretty much the same reasons you mention) I have collected quite some knowledge about the advantages and downsides and dangers to make that move and a few try-outs with that stuff but could sure give you some advice or might answer some questions, if there are any left.
btw. "but really, all I need to do is stich a few digital images together to get that kind of resolution or go MF digital." not really, Marc, not really.
Best
Georg
P.S: I would consider it good and smart move, considering your kind of landscape work. The one asset really missing from your images, is the classic print quality that HAS to come with it.
i recently gave my digital camera away and am only using medium format film but have been thinking about bigger formats .. look forward to seeing the results when you go down the 8x10 route!
Discussion
24 repliesI know it may seem odd for someone like myself known for fast and light, far and high travel to obtain my landscapes to want to use an 8x10 system, but it's such the opposite of my present mentality towards landscape photography, the challenge of it intrigues me greatly. Also, I've always missed the art and challenges of film photography and am looking at ways to get back into it.
Thanks for any info.
Marc
wildlandphoto@yahoo.com
www.marcadamus.com
Have you checked out the 8x10 work of Christopher Burkett at http://www.christopherburkett.com/home.html
I have thought about 8x10 but the drawbacks compared to 4x5 are many- 4x5 cameras are lighter,film is easier to scan, readyloads/quickloads available but not for 8x10. I was at Midwest Photo Exchange Saturday and I was looking at the Shen Hao 4x5 in black walnut-neat little camera. I think I can justify digital and 4x5 film!
besides the artistic side and getting back to basics with film, what other reasons would you be wanting to use such a large format.....I mean are you planning on putting an image on the side of a building...I don't think many people realize just how BIG you can print an 8x10 ... but I will be the first one looking here for your first scanned transparency shrank down to 720 and 200KB...... good luck in this endeavor!
More than anything else though, it changes your artistic outlook. It changes how and what you shoot. I want that. There are so many scenes I take that look pretty on the web, but don't look a lot better when you see them big because they rely on the basic subject matter for impact, not finite details. I can count so many scenes in my head where I want to record that type of detail. From the Olympic rainforests to Autumn in Colorado. They are scenes that simply MUST be seen huge to be enjoyed, and that's a contrast from my present photography. Additionally, I'll soon have a couple great outlets to offer them for sale as speacial limited editions.
But again, it's not as much about resolution as it is about a different way of thinking. A different way of seeing and approaching the art of photography. It's almost the opposite of what I do now. Perhaps I've gained some patience with age, or perhaps I just find digital easy enough and want to try something that focuses as much on the art of the process as the final image. I want something NEW! Maybe I'm having a mid-life photo crisis at 30
There used to be a gallery in Sedona owned by a photographer who shot 4x5 and his smallest print size was 30x40. He mostly had 40x60`s on display. Who has walls that can use this size print? His sales went to wealthy home owners with large walls and corporate type clients. Here are my thoughts-why spend $25,000 or more for the high end digital back when you can shoot film then get a good drum scan for printing.If you want to do your own scanning then good used drum scanners are very affordable now.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info
Large prints from 8x10 transparencies, such as Burkett's, really are stunning.
Here is a website for a fairly lightweight 8x10-am considering their 4x5 for myself
http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/810.html
Actually, Kosta Koeman shoots large format and I've seen him post on here before, maybe he'll jump in.
Marc, I recently read Ansel Adams Making of 40 Photographs, and in there he talks about one of the hikes he took to shoot El Capitan (and the challenges of light vs. time getting there), and how he only had 10 plates with him... TEN shots he would take on the whole adventure and how he was rationing them to try and get the image he was after (and what an image it is). I was really taken in by time and thought he put into that... talk about slowing down and getting the image right. It really had an impact on me. I can't (or can) imagine an image like your Crater Lake or that sunrise up in Banff (Nov 17?) printed out five feet wide. I think this is such a neat step you're taking.
Please keep us updated about your progress and learning.
I've shot 8x10 for about 10 years now (but just sold it since I bought a medium format digital back). I believe I could answer most of your questions. Believe me, the 8x10 is a whole different ballgame compared to 4x5. It can be extremely rewarding and also extremely frustrating. I'm traveling this week and should be back home Sunday. Drop me an email offline or give me a call some evening. My phone # is on my website at:
www.naturesfinestimages.com
We are going to be in your neck of the woods from Aug. 23 through Sept.2 doing some shooting around WA/OR. Maybe we could hook up for a chat about 8x10. I'd be more than happy to give you details on the good and bad.
A good friend of mine here in the Seattle area is selling his Wista 8X10. If you are interested let me know and I'll pass along his contact info.
Learning a new way of seeing/thinking only benefits you in the long run. Taking on something new to you is a very good endeavor.
Shooting LF is a very different experience, one that I enjoy greatly. Others wind up wanting to throw the camera over the cliff (or into the river as with a friend of mine).
Good luck with the 8x10 cam, I'll keep the light SLR myself...
Kevin
Contact info sent.
I too almost went down this road a year or so ago, and still might on the side as a sort of novelty.
After all the research, at that time, I decided to develop stitching further instead. Not stitching for panoramas but stitching to increase resolution. I am currently working on some images pushing the stitching well above 100 MP and am mind boggled at the resolution and print quality. I am a big believer that the common MP=film equations are often wrong. I believe (by testing) that when done right I can match certain film resolution with less MP than some claim. Although still very much in process, I am amazed so far at the potential for print quality. I am convinced that as long as the scene is not too dynamic, by stitching I can match and exceed LF without too much headache. But, as you know, a major problem to stitching can be when a scene is extremely dynamic and things are moving and changing too much to be taken in multiple shots. Thus a very different approach is required.
I still think I might end up trying the 8x10 one of these days for certain types of shots, but it seems like a very big commitment, and in some ways going backwards for me, so, so far I am a reserved about it.
Good luck, I look forward to seeing how it goes for you.
Mark
Neat to hear you're considering 8 x 10. I've slowly been building an 8 x 10 system myself. I recently sold my D700 so I could purchase a few lenses. This is a completely new thing for me as well. I've shot 4 x 5 some, but, like others have mentioned, 8 x 10 is quite a bit different. I was looking for the lightest and most affordable setup so I contacted Peter Gowland and had him build me an 8 x 10 Lite. At 4.5 lbs, it's the lightest 8 x 10 ever made. The tradeoff is you don't have rear movements and the rear standard is a little flimsy. All in all though, I've been quite happy with it. I've already taken it on many backpacking trips this summer. It's an absolute joy...most of time anyways. I have a feeling I may be upgrading to something a bit more rigid in the near future. For now however I'm having a blast using the 8 x 10 in places I thought were out of reach for such a huge camera. In addition to Peter's 8 x 10 Lite, you might also want to consider looking into the Phillips Explorer (hard to find and only available used), and Bruce Wehman's 8 x 10 http://www.wehmancamera.com/camera.html. Good luck with your search. If you'd like to go shooting sometime, let me know. I'd be happy to show you what I have going.
btw. "but really, all I need to do is stich a few digital images together to get that kind of resolution or go MF digital." not really, Marc, not really.
Best
Georg
P.S: I would consider it good and smart move, considering your kind of landscape work. The one asset really missing from your images, is the classic print quality that HAS to come with it.