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.

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.

I do a good percentage of my photography outside the studio.  My 8 x 10 Deardorff is transported in a rolling case so a couple extra pounds is immaterial except lifting it out of the back of the truck on the ground in back.  With the cost of 8 x 10 film, I shoot to maybe for maximum sheets and an outing.  But if I encounter something not worth an 8 x 10 sheet, it's nice to have a 4 x 5 back in a couple of film holders enabling me to take four more shots.  I also have a 5 x 7 reducing back and that would give the great resolution but still at a fraction of the cost of 8 x 10.

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.

I just love the simplicity of the system.  It's just an image circle.

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.

You can reduce my back, but you could never reduce my love for LFF (too large to reduce).

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.

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.

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!

"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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hooray. It's been a lonely few weeks without you Mat 😁 Happy New Year from a rainy Manchester (Y)UK

I DO love your T-shirt ; D