Digital BW, The Print

Martin writes:

> Alan,
>
> I remember Morley Baer letting me look through his old 8x10 and it was a
> real eye opener in comparison to the puny 4x5 I was working with. I never
> went to 8x10 due to the enlarger barrier but now with digital the
economics
> shift and 8x10 lends itself to less expensive scanning solutions than 4x5.
>
> Martin

I'm a little jealous and envious now...I absolutely love Morley's work and
have at least one video where he is interviewed. He seemed like an
unpretentious man...one of those rare photographers that is both GREAT and
approachable. I would have loved to do a workshop with him or, at least,
have met him.

Did you know that Brett Weston referred to the 4x5 as his miniature format
camera? I know that he used MF during his later years, but quite a few of us
seem to migrate downward in format as we age. I'm trying to talk my son into
lugging the 8x10, but he's not biting yet...smart boy!

Once I started using the 8x10 I pretty much gave up on 4x5 for about 10
years. To my eye, B&W contact prints are simply stunning and the 8x10 is
just big enough to see the image well. Though, my late friend Fred Picker
did some really lovely 4x5 contacts of snow/ice/water details of brooks in
Vermont. However, as you said with digital the economics of using 8x10 is
looking really good. The cost of film is way up there now--I used to buy 50
sheet boxes of Tri-X for about $50US--but, processing can be done with a few
cheap plastic trays, and probably just about any flatbed that can handle
this size film would be fine. My Epson 1680 does an acceptable job. Most of
the B&W quads I have produced from 8x10 have been roughly A4 size. I guess
the only real downside to the economics involved is that you'll want a LF
printer! <g> Epson 7000 anyone?

Alan Huntley