panorama on 8x10 : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

Most of my LF shots are 8x10 which I contact print. Occasionally because there's too much foreground or sky, or to eliminate an imperfection in development (say, a scratch), I've cut down the contact print horizontally or vertically. These images were shot with a 300mm lens, slightly wide on this format.

Now I'm contemplating acquiring a 150mm lens, and it occurs to me that I could make a regular practice of shooting strongly horizontal or vertical subjects, then cutting down the print. Someday, I may have an 8x10 enlarger, too. I figure 150 mm is equivalent to about 22mm on 35mm in the long dimenson.

Has anyone used a WA on 8x10 for panorama photography? If so, any advice or tips would be welcome. Thanks in advance, Nick.

-- Nick Jones (, December 22, 2001


If you have a bag bellows consider cutting down a dark slide to leave half sheet available for exposure at a time. 4X10 OTcheap. A Schneider G-Claron will cover. I've done this extensively with a 75 on 4X5 with enjoyable results. Just tonight bought a SA 120 to play with the same thing on my 810.

-- Jim Galli (, December 23, 2001.

Or if you're too lazy to cut your own darkslide (or just don't have the equipment to do it neatly), Bender sells them precut:

-- David Goldfarb (, December 23, 2001.

I did some experimenting recently and discovered that I could use my Schneider 72mm Super Angulon XL on my Deardorff 8x10 and (just barely) still focus at infinity.

No, the image circle doesn't quite cover, even stopped all the way to f/45, but it only cuts off the four corners, leaving a 4x10 strip panorama in the center with some light falloff.

The most interesting thing about these images is the incredible angle of view, about 140 or equal to a 12mm lens on a 35mm camera.

I've got an example on (it's the last image in my "People" folder).

A couple of nice things about using the 72 this was are:

1) absolutely no internal bellows flare (no light strikes anything but the film)

2) with the Deardorff, I still have a good bit of front rise and fall using the sliding lensboard even though the bellows is pretty well smushed up

-- David Haynes (, December 23, 2001.

Beautiful shot, David. For those who are unaccustomed to navigating, it's here:

In your notes you say the crop is 3x10". What do you think the maximum height would be with the 72mm on a 10" wide sheet? (I ask because 3x10" is a pretty limited format and I don't shoot any view camera format smaller than 8x10", but I might be able to justify owning such a lens if it could cover 4x10" or 5x10".)

-- David Goldfarb (, December 23, 2001.

Nick, I use the Super symar 150 XL quite often on the 8x10. Plenty of coverage. I use it for full frame, as well as with a half dark slide (4x10) and the images are amazing...that lens is a gem for 8x10 format! A bit pricee, but check with RW or Badger.

-- Bill Glickman (, December 23, 2001.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I've used a Wollensak 159mm with excellent results for wide angle work, as well as Pantar cells in the 165mm range. The Wollensak easily covers 8x10 with room for movement, so 4x10 should be no problem. On a related note, I've also created triptychs with a variety of focal lengths. They're not particularly fun to mount but are quite enjoyable to look at.

David: Presumably you use a recessed lensboard with your 72mm, because I have trouble with 116mm without one on my Deardorff. Did you make your own? Those things are rare than hen's teeth.

-- Chad Jarvis (, December 24, 2001.

Consider the Rodenstock 155mm as well, good coverage, very sharp!

-- Dave (, December 26, 2001.


I dabbled in 4x10 several years ago, and am considering giving it another go. I tried it both ways - two up on 8x10 and with a 4x10 Wisner. Both ways have their advantages/disadvantages. I had a slider board for my 8x10 Deardorff that let me shoot two 4x10 exposures per 8x10 sheet. This is similar in concept to the split darkslide that Bender sells (Toho also sells one of these - or you can cut your own if you have an extra 8x10 darkslide).

Wisner, Canham Lotus and Patrick Alt all make dedicated 4x10 cameras. The drawback is that holders are expensive and hard to find. Cutting 8x10 film down to 4x10 isn't as difficult as it sounds, but it's still an extra step in the process. Since you already have the 8x10 camera, a split darkslide would be the best way to try the format with minimal investment. Unless you plan to shoot ONLY 4x10, a dedicated camera doesn't really make much sense (and they are expensive).

WRT lenses, the 90mm Super Angulon XL is the widest that will cover (barely). The 110 Super Symmar XL, 115mm Grandagon-N, 120mm Super Angulon and 120mm Nikkor SW all cover with a bit left over for modest movements. Depending on your materials and sensitivity, you may need a center filter for anything this wide on 4x10. One of the nice things about this format is that there are a lot of lenses (both modern and classic) that barely, or don't quite cover 8x10, but work marvelously on 4x10. Although I had a 115mm Grandagon-N when I had my 4x10 Wisner, my favorite focal lengthgs were 165mm and 210mm (I'm just not a big ultrawide shooter in any format). For the 165mm, I used a 165mm f6.8 Sinar Select Schneider Angulon from the 1960s. It would have been tight on 8x10, but had plenty of coverage on 4x10. It was also small and inexpensive compared to the larger coverage multicoated 8x10 wide angles. There are a lot of other classic lenses in this focal length range that would also work well for 4x10. Of course, if you are planning to buy a new 150mm for 8x10, it would also work spendidly on 4x10.

I really like the 2.5:1 aspect ratio better than the more standard 3:1 6x17 format. 4x10 is also big enough to scan, with good results, on an inexpensive desktop flatbed scanner, and then you can make 12x30 prints on an inexpensive Espon inkjet printer (the 1200 series handles 13" wide by up to 44" long). And sometimes, it's just FUN to look at familar subjects in a different format than the 1:25:1 ratio we become so used to when shooting 4x5 or 8x10.


-- Kerry Thalmann (, December 26, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ