I have used a 4x5 reducing back on a Deardorff 8x10 extensively when I was making a living in photography back in the 1980’s. It is very nostalgic seeing your video on this subject, keep up the good work Mat. A few comments on why I used that reducing back so much. All students at Art Center College of Design were required to have a 4x5 camera. There was no requirement for any other camera though most students had either medium format or 35mm cameras. In fact you could go through the whole curriculum with just a 4x5 and a couple of lenses. After finishing college I spent a year assisting photographers in New York City and many of the studio photographers I worked with were shooting on 8x10 so I traded in my Cambo 4x5 for an old Deardorff 8x10. The New York winters weren’t for me so I returned to Southern California. My clients eyes widened when I pulled out that beautiful wooden camera so there’s another advantage of shooting with an 8x10. Even though most of my large format assignments were shot on 4x5, there was that wow factor. I never experienced any disadvantages. I wasn’t shooting architectural so I didn’t require ultra wide angle lenses, extensive movements or bag bellows. One thing worth mentioning is that if you are using a lens that has lots of coverage, the light is more likely to bounce off the interior of a 4x5 camera bellows than on an 8x10. Not a big deal most of the time but something worth noting. One more thing is that the 8x10 wooden field camera was actually easier to haul to locations than a 4x5 studio monorail camera.
I have a Graphic View and Graphic View II -- I'll completely agree that an 8x10 wood field camera would be easier to haul around than either one -- but I've got less than $500 into both; I haven't seen a 'Dorf even in "parts" condition for that kind of money -- and even vintage lenses for 8x10 will cost more than reasonably modern ones for 4x5.
I just received mine via FedEx, waited all day! from Catlabs for my Deardorff 8x10. Can't wait to try it out and do some more film testing! Thanks Mat!
Thanks for this. I recently purchased a 4x5 after decades of not using one. I had buyers regret after purchasing the 4x5 although I like the camera very much I'm extremely happy with both camera and results. I had regret for not going to the 8x10 with a reducing back. This video helps me confirm I made a good decision.
With how niche the market is and how resale values aren't as bad as digital, a later migration to 8x10 wouldn't be near as painful as buying a whole kit up-front. The lesser kit to haul around is a big plus!
Thanks Mat. Great topic and video. I have a Burke & James 5x7 with a 4x5 back. I get the 5x7 when I want to make a contact print and a 4x5 for less expensive film. The weight and size penalty is very doable.
Great video Mat. Speaking of Intrepid, the available bellows was part of the reason I went with a reducing back. I like shooting 4x5 portraits with 250/360mm lenses. This is severely limited in their 4x5 cameras. Using an 8x10 Intrepid with reducing back to 4x5 gave me the bellows I needed, larger front standard and more stability overall.
I find a reducing back quite useful when shooting tintypes at an event. I also reduce my 11x14 to 8x10 when shooting portraits to take advantage of the larger front standard and bellows draw for my heavier lenses.
Agreed. I can decide on the fly what size plate I wanna shoot and the only thing I have to switch in my camera case is either the 4x5 or 5x7 back and the compatible plate holder. It's more complicated with film because you'd have to load different holders, etc. Much easier with plates.
IMHO, the most thought provoking of all of your large format videos. Despite 50+ years in large format, you raised issues that had never appeared on my radar. Brilliant and so clearly elucidated. Nonetheless, for landscapes and studio portraits, i find them indispensable. For my 5x7 wooden Canham, I have a 4x5 back and the 4x10 back & bellows. On long road trips, that has me covered for most eventualities. One of the ugliest large format cameras ever made, the 8x10 B&J "Rembrandt" is my studio workhorse, in no small part because that overbuilt front can hang an 18" Petzval with no flexing. Using Petzvals and soft focus lenses, changing the format also changes the nature of the image. With a Petzval, you can have a larger format and capture the swirlies, or with a smaller format on the same lens, eliminate them and take advantage of just that wonderfully curved film plane and shallow DOF. With many (but not all) soft fcous lenses, there is a "sweet spot" in the center, thus by changing formats, the smaller format renders a somewhat sharper image whereas the larger format appears more diffuse; the characteristic highlight glow remains the same in either case. The final reason: the diameter of some lenses. Sometimes you need a large lens board for a given lens, and you can only find that on a larger camera, e.g., an 8x10 Eastman Studio camera with a 9x9 board can essentially mount any lens you're likely to ever use. Just my two cents.
Mat, your ability to find a video topic that answers a question I've been mulling over the past couple weeks is uncanny. I recently happened upon a gently-used Canham 8x10 and its necessary accessories. 4x5 and 5x7 are formats I still use. The thought has occurred to me that 4x5 and 5x7 backs are available for this camera, and I've already got suitable lenses for them. Getting those backs means I wouldn't need dedicated cameras for the smaller sizes and a couple backs are a lot easier to store than whole camera kits... You did raise a few details that throw a wrench into that plan, or at least highlight the compromises that would be required. There are lots of considerations for different situations. Thanks for raising relevant points.
Totally agree - I use a 6x9 roll film back on my 4x5 sometimes, and it's nice because of 120 film variety, cost, and the fact that I already have lenses that work well with 6x9. Reducing backs make sense if you're already well-positioned to shoot the format your camera is built for, have all the gear for that, and are aware of the limitations on the wide angle side of things.
John Nesbitt, who made lovely wooden cameras in Wales, had an additional argument for using a 4x5 reducing back on 5x7, which he encouraged people to get. The drawbacks of using reducing backs identified by Mat, in particular that the lenses are not appropriate, are reduced because the size difference is relatively small. Instead, the 5x7 body has greater movements and more flexibility which is particularly useful for historic architecture.
Just for completeness: If you shoot glass plates on vintage book-form plate holders (I feel I'm the sole, global champion for them!) there is yet another way to shoot smaller formats. You can get (or more likely make) reducing inserts for the plate holders. Often you come across these in the plate holders when you buy them. Or you can make them out of two sheets of regular, black mounting board. One is the size of the larger plate with an aperture the size of the smaller plate. The other is slightly smaller than they larger plate with an aperture slightly smaller than the smaller plate. The smaller sheet is glued on the front of the larger sheet. That is easier to demonstrate than describe in words. Basically they are a near zero cost mechanism to shoot almost any smaller format in a plate camera, even formats you make up yourself. I have some adapters to shoot half plate in my whole plate camera - although I'm now renovating a dedicated half plate camera for the reasons of size and convenience outlined in this video. I've not done it yet but I'm planning to make some adapters to go from 10x12 down to 8x10 because you can't really get 8x10 *plates* in an 8x10 camera but it would be really useful for my workflow to have plates I can print on 8x10 paper. 8x10 isn't that much smaller than 10x12. Probably the key with reducing is not to do it by too much.
great topic, one other 'use case' for a reducing back, is as an adaptor to the 'universal fit back' to take polaroid and 'standard' holders, as for things like 5x7" some holders, film availability, esp. in the stock you are after (colour is mainly available in 4x5", but not the bigger sizes) does make the use of these backs the only solution to these issues, also things like the 'spring back' on some cameras can't go sideways, aka landscape or portrait only, or the Darkslide, for the native format holders can't easily be removed in one orientation, so switching to a smaller back, gives you distance from the 'tailboard' to remove the darkslide safely, without bending or breaking it.
Thanks for this, I never thought of this .. I have one lens for my 8x10 and a few for my 4x5 ... I actually shoot more 4x5 and these daze am doing more medium format in actual medium format cameras!!! I guess what I got from this video is use the right camera and lens for the format!!!
"I've used this...4 times in the last 5-6 years. That's not a good value proposition." Oh boy, did that hit home. This is something I really, REALLY need to take to heart as I look at my gear closet. There are lenses that I've purchased for my 8x10 kit that I have yet to use. Cool things like Rodenstock Imagons and Jim Galli modified Velostigmats, too! But when I go out with the 8x10 kit, I almost always default to three lenses and even then, I almost always default to my tried-and-true 12" Commercial Ektar. Meanwhile, thanks for the episode on reducing backs. I was kind of contemplating picking one of those up for the 2-D, too but I think I'll stick to 8x10 film with it instead of adding another item in the gear closet that sees little to no use!
My Deardorff V8 came with a 5x4 reducing back when I bought it. I've used it twice in two years, and one of those was just to test it out. I do quite often use a roll film back on my 5x4 cameras though, mainly to have a colour option that isn't too expensive.
When I was in high school (1960-64) I worked on Saturday for the local studio who used a 5x7 view camera with whats called a sliding back where you could get two 3.5x5 inch negs on one sheet of 5x7 which was cheaper per beg than standard 4x5. Moving to today I have a couple of different 8x10s but my 5x7 Intrepid also has a 4x5 back too. This is mainly because its hard to get color film in 5x7 or was so I'm out in the field and shoot my 5x7 negs then change lenses and back and get the same scene in Ektar-100.
Hi Mat, I purchased a Rittreck View 5x7 with 5x7 and 4x5 backs. Yet, surprised to see increasing backs, i.e. 8x10 and half-plate. Nice option for the future. :)
I don't have an 8x10 and probably not getting one as I mostly shoot medium format anyway but I considered getting a roll film holder for my 4x5 at some time which is kind of a similar thing. Decided I don't need one as I have several good medium format cameras and I rarely use movements anyway so why bother, especially as 4x5 is not really that much more expensive per frame than 120. So if I want to shoot 120 I simply use my RB67. But of course buying gadgets is a disease, I have got a lot of stuff I rarely use but like to have anyway because I just love old cameras and equipment.
why eliminate an excuse to buy another camera 😀 - my 9A studio camera (8x10) came with both a reducing back (to 5x7) and a sliding carriage to shoot two images on one 8x10 sheet - the original owner must have had a lot of call for 5x7 (customer demand back then?) because the reducing back shows a tremendous amount of wear to the wood where the film holder slides into place. I shot one image on it for the heck of it since I had 5x7 gear anyway, but I still need to try the sliding carriage one of these days. I think your thought that it was a way to get more business without having to have a second set up is the likely answer. But I have to say, that big old 420 Voigtländer lens still gave a great image on the smaller sheet.
All makes sense when considering a jump/reduction of two format sizes. But I found the Deardorff 5x7 with an additional 4x5 back to be the best of both worlds, without a huge increase in size over a single-format 4x5. Also the lenses (150, 180, 210, 300) covered well, with the exception that the 150 did not cover a lot of movement on 5x7.
I've been looking hard at the Intrepid 5x7 backs, but the availability of the film makes it a hard prospect. If it were easier to get a hold of at prices that fell between the formats as well, it might be nice. I've been attempting to not spend that money, at least. ha ha.
Great content! The constant talking causes me to zone out. Watch some old Martha Stewart shows (yes Martha Stewart). She’s a master of saying only what is needed while showing how to do something. Silence is golden.
I have a different reason for considering a reducing back. I have the 4x5 and 5x7 Intrepids and I share a couple lenses between them (much easier to do than with 4x5 and 8x10). If my 5x7 setup is all packed and ready to use, but I want to shoot 4x5, I currently have to get out the spanner and swap the lens boards on the lenses before I go. It would be nice to be able to just pop a reducing back on the 5x7 instead. Of course, what I really need is a lens board adapter, but it's such a niche problem that Intrepid doesn't make one for their 5x7 cameras and to my knowledge no one else does either.
It annoys me that Intrepid used a different lens board on the 5x7. It is probably the only reason I've never got around to buying one in a late night shopping spree. Most of my lenses are on Linhof style boards and I have a Linhof lens board adapter for my Intrepid 8x10. Overall it is probably a good thing though - I've hit peak camera already!
Got sent here from another site. Great video. I’ve wondered if it makes any sense to do a smaller reduction than 8x10 to 4x5. Specifically, would getting a 5x7 with the idea of having 4x5 and 6x17 backs make any sense in terms of the lenses you can use and general total amount of gear I’d have to carry?
I've got less into all my 4x5 equipment (Speed Graphic, Graphic View, and Graphic View II, plus several lenses, a bunch of film holders, and three Grafmatics) than the cost of a decent 8x10 camera -- and I'm nowhere near the limits of 4x5 resolution and other capabilities (in fact, my Speed Graphic is useful in ways an 8x10 can't possibly be). Do I want to step up to 8x10? Of course I do, especially given that X-ray film is still quite affordable and fits the film holders without trimming. Would I get a reducing back if I do manage to get an 8x10 and a lens or two? Nah, I don't think so. It's a neat idea, especially if you already know the dance and have the money for an 8x10 setup, but not for a full 4x5 kit as well -- but it's got a pretty limited use case, like the small town portraitist you mentioned.
I might also consider an 8x10 if cheap X-ray film was still a thing here in Finland. Unfortunately all X-ray imaging here (and I would imagine in most of the Europe) has been digital for years so I would probably have to have the film shipped from US which would eat the savings. And of course an 8X10 would be a seldom used curiosity for me anyway, I can't imagine anything (besides maybe useful size contact prints which would be the only option anyway as I don't have an enlarger or scanner capable of handling 8x10) it could do for my photography my 4x5 and medium format (which I mostly use anyway) cameras can't do.
@@Murgoh While medical X-ray has been digital for a good while in the USA also (if not about cost, it reduces patient radiation dose per image as well as cutting down the need for retakes, also cutting dose), X-ray film is still made and sold for industrial applications. I'm sure I've seen X-ray offered from EU sellers (tried Fotoimpex?), which would be effectively "local" shipping to Finland. Now, whether you have any need for an 8x10 is a separate question, of course -- but do any of use really have a "need" for 8x10? Just being able to make a contact print big enough to frame and hang allows for a lot of experimentation, and if film costs are controlled...
I did get myself a reducing back for my newly aquired Linhof Technikardan 4x5" that allows me to attach the rotatable 6x9cm and 56x72mm roll film holders that I already own for my Technikardan 6x9. My plan was to sell the 6x9 Technikardan, but unfortunately I would need an additional 6x9cm focusing screen for the reducing back as the focus plane is not the same as with the 4x5 screen. So my intended scenario of focusing on the 4x5 screen and then exchanging the back for the reducing back doesn't work. I am currently unsure about how to deal with the situation, as I want to continue shooting bot 120 and 4x5" but don't like owning two nearly identical cameras that costly...
How about a 5x7 with 4x5 and 6x17 (120 roll) reducing backs? It seems a decent solution to multiple formats without having to lug around an 8x10? Would love to hear your thoughts.
I just made an 8x10 sliding box camera and was wondering about the best way to shoot 5x7 with it. I'm thinking the easiest way is a reducing 8x10 template that fits into an 8x10 film holder like a negative and holds a 5x7 sheet of film somehow....
Image softness isn't just due to the enlargement factor. A lens designed for large format doesn't need to be as sharp as a lens for smaller formats, so it isn't (unless it's a very expensive one).
No, that darkslide is not literally cut in half. You have to cut less than half, otherwise the two images you shoot on the same piece of film will touch.
