Jumping from 4x5 to 8x10 film means bigger negatives, longer focal lengths, slower shutters, and a bill that climbs fast with every accessory. Anyone weighing whether the leap is worth it will recognize the mix of excitement and sticker shock that comes with building a fresh large format kit from scratch.
Kyle McDougall walks through the whole setup after finally getting out to shoot 8x10 for the first time, starting with the camera itself. He landed on the Intrepid 8x10, which came in at a little over $750 in the UK. The camera is light, has a magnetic back that pops off to rotate, and offers a full range of movements with zero positions. For a brand new field camera in this format, that price is hard to argue with. McDougall is holding off on a full verdict until he has shot with it for a few months.
The lens choice drives much of the look he was after. He picked a Fujinon 250mm f/6.7, which translates to roughly a 32.5mm field of view in 35mm terms, right in the range he wanted. At f/6.7, it's fast for an 8x10 lens, since 5.6 tends to be the ceiling unless you move to old barrel or brass glass. It's also mounted in a compact Copal 1 shutter that tops out at 1/400 of a second, far quicker than the Copal 2 and 3 shutters he was seeing with their 1/125 limits. For film, he went with Fomapan 100, where a 50-sheet box runs cheaper than a 25-sheet box of Ilford.
Here's the part that makes a fast 8x10 lens so interesting: depth of field scales with format. That 250mm f/6.7 behaves like something close to a 32mm f/0.8 in full frame terms, which is a look no full frame lens can physically produce. Shooting wide open on a negative that large gives you a shallow plane of focus combined with the tonal smoothness of an enormous piece of film. McDougall leaned into this for all three frames, including two environmental portraits of his friend Eric. If you're drawn to large format for the resolution alone, the depth of field behavior is the other half of the equation, and it's the reason people put up with the weight and cost. It also raises the stakes on focus accuracy, which is exactly where a couple of his frames ran into trouble.
Developing 8x10 at home forced a change too. McDougall's usual TH Darkroom processor can't handle an 8x10 tank, so he pulled out an AGO processor paired with a Real Paper 4 drum that runs a single sheet inside a Paterson tank. The AGO monitors temperature and adjusts development time automatically as it rises or falls. It's compact and simple, though one negative came out with dark streaks running down it, and he's still tracking down whether that was a loading error or something else.
Not every frame came out clean. His dark cloth was too small, he wants a Fresnel screen, and a stronger loupe is on the list after focus landed just behind Eric's face on both portraits. McDougall is clear that 8x10 isn't a replacement for his 4x5 Horseman, since he'd never haul this rig on the hikes he does in North Wales.
Watch the video above to see the three frames he came home with and hear his full first impressions of shooting 8x10.
Join the Fstoppers community for free
-
Post comments and join in the discussions
-
Browse the site ad-free
-
Share your work and get featured in the community
-
Compete in the photo contests for fun and prizes
2 Comments
Having worked with Hasselblad 2 1/4 cameras in studio for MANY years the jump to 4x5 was dramatic, to say the least. Then the jump to 8x10 would be very dramatic. I know guys that work with 8x10, and one guy that works with an 11x14. At a 40x60 enlargement you can see the most intimate detail, in a leaf for instance. Of course the cost difference in everything is at least 4x more, so where it costs me about $5.00 per sheet of film + processing, 8x10 would be nearly $20.00 per sheet of film. The big difference is in how much weight are you willing to carry in a backpack. I drew the line at 4x5 - and I wish I had gone to 5x7 - simply because of the weight of the rig. BTW, I carry a camera body, a 47XL schneider lens, 65mm, 90mm, 150mm, 210mm and 300mm lenses, usually two film holders dark cloth, filters and other stuff and my pack loads out at about 38 pounds. If one were to do that with an 8x10 it probably would load out at well over 60 lbs since lenses that will cover an 8x10 film format are multiples times bigger, heavier and expensive. I have carried my pack as much as 15 miles per day over very rough terrain, and at altitude. So the trade of between 4x5 and 8x10 is in expense - which is significant - and weight and bulk which is even more significant.
BTW, the dark streaks on the film that run in the direction of the rotation is likely due to the chemicals running on the film. If he were to use a JOBO processor, for instance, the drum will reverse direction and will help to eliminate that. The scratches on the film are the bane of film processing. Use to get a lot of scratches and film scuffing when I tray developed my film. JOBO is truly the best for home processing of this film.