Should I look at 5 X 7

[kennethcooke]

5 X 7 prints are my favourite size which I enlarge from 35mm. Members will be only to aware that I considered a 6 X 6 Rollei system sometime ago which I fortunately decided in the end not to pursue but I can see sense in retaining one of my 35mm camera bodies and having a simple 5 X 7 view camera. I say simple because my knowledge of such things is very limited but there is a rather appealing idea of producing 5 X 7 contact prints and keeping my enlarger for 35mm. The logic here is that if I am going to make photographs with the aid of a tripod I might as well go bigger negative wise whereas 6 X 6 is sort of half way house. Comments on this would be helpful as my knowledge is very little

[wiesmier]

I use 5x7 for contact alt prints but as yet, I have yet to be convinced about contact prints over 35mm / 6x6/7/9 enlarged prints

[Trevor Crone]

The 5x7 format is considered by some photographers as the ideal format - Paul Caponigro being one. Certainly film is cheaper then 8x10 but the double dark slides are a little more difficult to come by.

Personally I quite like 5x7 contact prints but for me 8x10 contacts suited me better for what I had in mind when I bought my 8x10 in 2008. I suppose I'm an old romantic I just love the idea of exposing a sheet of photographic paper under a simple light bulb :)

[Keith Tapscott.]

Get an 8x10, it`s four times the size of 4x5 and more than twice the size of 5x7, so you get decent size B&W contact-prints. There`s also more choice of films in 8x10 if you fancy taking some colour photos.

[kennethcooke]

Thank you for your comments- Next question- Costs involved. I would consider parting with my black M6 body to fund the exercise and retaining my chrome body and lenses but what are the costs involved, equipment wise? I can see the relative film costs on the various sites so my only outlay would be for hardware

[Trevor Crone]

Kenneth, 5x7 and 8x10 cameras pop-up on ebay from time to time at reasonable prices. But here is a link to Mike Walkers cameras that will give you some idea as to equipment costs http://www.walkercameras.com/cameras.html

[gari]

Hi Kenneth, I have a 5x7 camera on the sale board at the moment, inc holders(Halfplate). £300 ono if thats of any interest.

Gari

[kennethcooke]

Get an 8x10, it`s four times the size of 4x5 and more than twice the size of 5x7, so you get decent size B&W contact-prints. There`s also more choice of films in 8x10 if you fancy taking some colour photos.That rather devalues my own thought process and also I do not take colour photographs only colour reversal as and when I can find a suitable replacement for the sad demise of Hemelchrome. I also believe, like many others that 5 X 7 is a decent size contact print

[kennethcooke]

Rob sent me a private message which I have replied to and have copied and pasted here

Originally Posted by percepts
Sounds to me like the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

If you are only printing upto 10x8 then you should be getting stunning results with a modern T-grain film and your Leica. If you are doing landscape then you must use a tripod.

All 5x7 will do is slow you down and make everything 5 times more difficult. You simply don't need it for prints at that size.

I suspect you are not happy with the results you are getting and would suggest that you spend time experimenting with Ilford Delta 100 or 400 developed in ID11 or if you want the smoothest tonality then Perceptol 1+1 or 1+2.

HP5 is great film but needs bigger negatives although with perceptol 1+2 it will give good sharp results.

ID11 and HP5 is somewhat grainy for 35mm film.

Delta films are perfect for small format.

So my guess is that you would save yourself a lot of stress by experimenting with film developer combinations for 35mm to maximise quality before considering a move to a bigger format.

The only reason to move to 5x7 would be if you want to make BIG prints (need an enlarger) or if you intend to scan for digital printing.

just my tuppence worth of opinion.

RobC
Thanks Rob and yes you may be right about the grass being greener and maybe I have too much time on my hands.

The results I am attaining at present with my Summicron lenses are magnificent and as my main enlargement size of choice is only 5 X 7 with the occasional 8 X 10.

I have recently acquired, for a song, a Leitz Focotar 50mm enlarger lens which I could not refuse for £25.00 there again the results are extremely pleasing.

With regards to film stock I am using Pan-F, Rollei Retro 100, Kodak T-Max 400 and Kodak T-Max 3200.

So I am sorry to be tedious but in Rob's case and certain others that have responded to my post I really value those thoughts and feel sure that they have been expressed with the best intention

[wiesmier]

On second thoughts, its just fine to look at 5x7. Just don't buy one!

[Sandeha Lynch]

I haven't explored half of the developing options that Rob mentions, but basically he is right (I think) to stress that a bigger negative won't necessarily give better prints at standard sizes.

If you want wall-sized prints it's another matter and a good medium format camera will handle humungous enlargements without going into sheet film. Sheet film is really a different animal from either 120 or 35mm. There are some advantages, firstly you have the option of extensive movements for focus or defocus, secondly you can develop each shot one at a time which is ideal if you want/need to experiment. And thirdly, contact printing can be fun. Three advantages, against which using sheet film has too many disadvantages to list.

I was shooting 4x5 today because I like using an LF camera, (for all the above reasons) but then my enlarger can handle 4x5. On the same cam I sometimes shoot 5x7 or whole plate, but only for contact prints.

As Andrea suggested above, and I would confirm from my own experience, you won't get greater sharpness from a 5x7 contact print than you would from an enlargement to that size. However, I wouldn't consider MF any kind of half-way house. It shares all the convenience of 35mm enlarging, but with greater scope for greater enlargements and a certain enhancement in tonality from the larger negative. I'm assuming your enlarger doesn't run to 120 film formats ... if it did, would that influence your thinking?

[Pete O]

I wouldn't sell a Leica body to get a 5x7 as there are good 4x5/5x7's out there at reasonable prices.Three years ago I bought a B&J 4x5/5x7 from a seller in The States for $200. O.K. P&P and customs duty added to the cost but it's a nice usable camera and I'm happy with the results. Scan a 4x5 transparancy and you'll be amazed at what you get. I also bought an original Ansco (built between 1906 and 1927) for $100 this year. 5x7 back only, no front tilt and it needs new bellows but what do you want for $100? I bought a 4x5 back and got some temporary Wista 4x5 bellows for £18 and I can use it for 4x5 with movements and 5x7 slightly cropped at the moment. Lenses don't have to be expensive, yeah, the best are but budget L.F is about compromise.
In my case my 5x7's are considerably lighter than my 8x10/11x14.
Pete

[Victor Krag]

Can someone mention the image dimensions of a 5x7 neg? The 5x7 paper size I have is truely 5x7.

[Alex Tymków]

Hi Victor
All sheet films are slightly smaller than their stated size, whereas papers are their stated size. The reason for this is that glass plates were the exact size, like the papers. When film became popular camera manufacturers made thin metal inserts for the plate holding bookform double darkslides that were in use. The folded edges of the inserts meant that the film had to be cut smaller to fit. Paper sizes stayed the same. 5x7 film is actually 4⅞"x6⅞" (124mm x 174mm). The image size is 4¾"x6⅝" (120mm x 168mm). These measurements are taken from a negative made in a modern Fidelity Elite double darkslide. The image size made with darkslides from other manufacturers, or of different ages, may vary. Alex