4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

[Mark_5974]

I've just completed a real world test for me between 4x5 and 8x10 formats. One 4x5 Linhof Technica with 150mm lens and one 8x10 Sinar P2 with a 300mm lens. Side by side at the same lens height focused on the same part of a very detailed urban landscape (buildings, trees, cement, piles of dirt, signage, tarmac, cars and people). Both cameras were on large tripods and fired simultaneously with cable releases at the same exposure time and f-stop.

The film was Provia processed at normal. On the light box the 8x10 looked a country mile better, particularly through a loupe. They were then drum scanned to 100mb file size, reduced in file size slightly and printed at around 16"x 20". I would have put money on the 8x10 being a clear winner.

The difference in resolving detail and sharpness was so marginal that I can barley tell the prints apart. There is zero grain in both. It's only when I study the most minute detail through a print loupe that I can pick up some of the differences.

I also shot the same scene with my EOS 1ds Mk II. The large format film makes the 16MP image look absolutely rubbish.

My test is by no means scientific (the lenses are different, the cameras are different etc etc etc) but it's how I operate - on location, scan at manageable sizes and print on inkjet. Others operate differently by scanning at huge sizes and printing on massive Giclée prints or by printing in a darkroom but unfortunately I don't have the time nor money for other processes.

I'd never really bother writing about this but I'm truly staggered that there's no noticeable difference in the prints. I'd love to here from anyone who has conducted a similar side by side test.

[Brian Ellis]

In my experience the point at which different film formats start to show a real difference is with enlargements of roughly 4x or bigger. Even a print from a 35mm negative can look great if it's a 3x5 print. When I used to shoot a lot of 6x7 along with 4x5 I seldom saw any difference between it and 4x5 with prints 11x14 or smaller. I suspect that if you made 20x24 or larger prints from your two negatives you'd see more of a difference but I've never enlarged my 8x10 negatives in a darkroom so I don't know exactly where they really start to shine. But 8x10 negatives must shine at some enlargement factor, Christopher Burkett doesn't lug an 8x10 system around just because he's trying to build up his muscles.

[robc]

your results don't seem surrprising at all. If both scans are producing 100mb files then the 8x10 scan is reducing its resolution to the same resolution as your 4x5 image scan. i.e. both scans contain the same amount of data/pixels. Depending on the scanner and the scanner software one of the images may look marginally better than the other since it will be putting each image through different software/hardware interpolation to arrive at 100mb file sizes.
Only when you have to reduce print resolution below 300 - 360 ppi to achieve your desired print size from a 4x5 will you see a difference between the two assuming that you have scanned the 8x10 to a larger size so as to be able to print 300 -360ppi at the same size.

i.e. if your neg quality is good enough and your scanner is good enough to give you 300 - 360 ppi at the print size you require, then there is no advantage in going to a bigger film format for the same size print.

[QT Luong]

I find it pretty predictable that you wouldn't see any difference between 4x5 and 8x10 with your methodology. Another way to think about this is that a 100MB file from 4x5 is almost perfect. So even if you had a 16x20 camera, you would do no better if you scanned it to 100MB, because one cannot do better than perfect. However, there is only so much one can do with a 100MB file. On the other hand, you say that the 1Ds2 print looks like "rubbish" in comparison, but many would argue that a 1Ds2 produces a pretty good print at 16x20.

[David Luttmann]

I agree QT,

I've got a 16x24 from a 1DS MK2 print as well as one shot with Astia 4x5 scanned on an Imacon 949. If you hold your nose up to the print (thereby only seeing a small part of it) than there is a slight detail difference....however, in smooth areas like the sky or water, the digital is more appealing because there is absolutely no grain. This difference becomes more obvious at 24x30. But to say a 16x20 print from the digital source is rubbish.....is just plain rubbish.

[Paddy Quinn]

"the digital is more appealing because there is absolutely no grain."

Having no grain is a lot like having no soul.

presumably you are speaking from first hand knowledge...?

[John Cook]

Mark, I’m kinda sorry I read your post. It’s discouraging.

For thirty years I have been kicking myself for stupidly selling my brand new personal 8x10 Deardorff, 300 amd 360 Symmars, dozen Fidelity holders, all in the plywood case nobody could lift, much less carry.

Sure, the studio had an 11x14 job on a studio stand, but it just wasn’t the same.

I have lately been trying to convince myself to max out the Visa and replace it with an 8x10 Ebony. It would be b&w 8x10 contacts vs enlargements from 4x5.

Your results aren’t helping me justify the (seven grand, with lens & holders?) pricetag. That in itself is probably a blessing. ;0)

[David Luttmann]

All I'm saying Dan is that people notice grain and accutance before they notice the slightly less detail at 16x20. The complete lack of grain improves tonality....and the higher accutance achievable from a clean digital source is why it takes a lower pixel count than many would imagine to equal 4x5.

[Ed Richards]

Is that 100 meg file an 8 bit file or 16 bit file?

[clay harmon]

Seems to me the test is stacked against the 8x10. Try scanning the 8x10 chrome at the same resolution as the 4x5, and then tell me the differences. I think all your test proved is that a 100Mb file is superior to a 16Mb file and is equivalent to a... 100Mb file.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The complete lack of grain improves tonality

LOL......

[bglick]

Mark, you answered your quandry here.....

> On the light box the 8x10 looked a country mile better, particularly through a loupe

film on a light box, with a good loupe will tell the full story. Then, as QT pointed out, you scanned both images in such small detail, there would be no reason to see much difference, both should be similar. Remember 8x10 film does not resolve more then 4x5 film, they resolve identical, all things being equal. However, 810 has 4x the area, therefore to see the same differences in scanned files, vs. using a loupe, you would have to push the scan to films resolving limits, for both formats. Of course the 810 file would be 4x larger than the 45 file. Of course you could have done a crop of this to reduce file size.

But don't be fooled, the answer is on the light box, not the digital test you ran...

[David Luttmann]

Actually jorge,

Grain breaks down tonality by decreasing graduations in smoothness of tone. It does this in color by reducing the the accuracy of the color pallette. In B&W, it detracts from the smooth graduations in tonal changes from dark to light or reverse.

This is common knowledge.....I guess the LOL meant you already knew that.....or that you simply like to follow me around to start a new battle in an area in which you lack experience. I'll let you have your last word and move to another thread to avoid giving you an audience for your anti digital antics.

Enjoy.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

In B&W, it detracts from the smooth graduations in tonal changes from dark to light or reverse.

keep showing your 20 years of "experience" and "common knowledge, " which is plainly obvious it is not so common.

You clearly do not know how to use grain and certainly your statement that it "detracts" from smooth tonal gradation is nonsense.....

here is an example.

http://www.yesalbum.com/v001/jorge0658/Ebay/grain.jpg

[David Luttmann]

You are joking right.....because that just shows exactly the breakdown I referred to.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yep, sure....seems to me the one lacking experience is another one, I thought you were supposed to be the great wedding and portrait photographer. WHat is the matter? your 20 years "experience" tell you this is a break down?...... once again LOL

[David Luttmann]

I'm sorry Jorge,

But if you can't see that because of the high amount of grain, the tonal values in the shadows on her forhead for example, are severely reduced and in fact in many areas, are not even resolved because of clumping grain, then maybe more experience isn't going to help you. Instead of seeing the obvious, you once again resort to sarcasm and personal attacks.

It is plainly evident in your shot that grain reduces tonal accuracy and obviously overall smoothness. I hope your not trying to say that this image has as smooth tones as ones without grain.

If I tried to put a shot forward with grain like that to a client, they'd look at me like I was nuts. While I like grain for the look it provides to street photography....it is not because of smooth tonality....but because of the grittiness it adds. But if you're trying to sell people on the fact that your sample indicates smooth & accurate tonality, well I'm sorry, all it shows is a perfect case of the opposite.

But please, leave the sample up so I can point it out to others in our group.

There's not much else to say here. I'll leave before your nonsense destroys yet another thread.

Bye!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I am sorry Tech, but you are plainly hoping to see things that are not there. Since you mention the forehead you can see that there are many tones of gray there, which can be plainly seen. A print with can have a smooth tonal transition, it simply means it has grain.

Now if what you meant to say is that in a greatly enlarged negative the space between the grains result in non image forming light and thus can degrade the image, I will agree to that, but tonal transition even with the presence of non image forming light is still possible and in many cases pleasant.

Funny that you would say your clients would not buy anything like this, I am not surprised given the examples in your web site.

[jhogan]

I’ll post this in the hope it will nudge the discussion back into the general direction of the original topic.

This past spring, I attended a Burtynsky lecture where he was asked about his equipment preferences. He related how early in his career he had used an 8x10 for most of his work. He went on to say that by the mid 90’s, the great increase in the quality of optics coupled with higher quality emulsions led him to reconsider the merits of 4x5.

A defining moment came when he began the “Shipbreaking” series in Bangladesh: The ankle deep mud in which the camera needed to be set up (combined with the lack of an assistant at the time) forced him to employ the 4x5 exclusively.

Burtynsky makes his own (“traditional” chromogenic) prints. He is the owner of a commercial lab in Toronto (nearing twenty years now- his “day job” before he was an art star) and, naturally, is very critical about print quality. There is no doubt to those who have seen his work up close.

Excluding diptychs, panoramas, crops, etc., Burtynsky’s pieces are typically 40x50”- regardless of original neg format. At that size, my opinion is that it is nearly impossible to distinguish the 8x's from the 4x’s. Take a look next time his work is in a show near you- I think you’ll agree.

Burtynsky continues to shoot the 4x5. He has spent much of the past few years working in China, and said that it is much easier to navigate the multiple bureaucracies with less stuff.

By the way, he’s making some killer work with a (cheap) video camera. Maybe that’s how he’s using the extra room in his case.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This past spring, I attended a Burtynsky lecture where he was asked about his equipment preferences. He related how early in his career he had used an 8x10 for most of his work. He went on to say that by the mid 90’s, the great increase in the quality of optics coupled with higher quality emulsions led him to reconsider the merits of 4x5.

I dont understand your point. Dont the advantages apply to 8x10 as well (better glass, better emulsions)? As to the test, I think Clay said it best.

[QT Luong]

The advantage apply to 8x10 as well, but when applied to 4x5, they are sufficient to produce the prints at the size envisioned by him, while before 4x5 was not sufficient.

[Scott Rosenberg]

a most interesting thread indeed, though not entirely free from the sophomoric mud slinging that has become a real deterrent from this forum of late.

it would seem to me that mark's DOE is sound, as long as the prints he made mirrors the process he would employ when making any other print. this will only tell him, however, the relative gains in the larger format for his particular workflow, and nothing at all of the potential overall gain in image quality made possible with larger film.

the 8x10 original has more detail, as is evidence by his statement "On the light box the 8x10 looked a country mile better, particularly through a loupe"

so, the question i would like to see answered by some of the more expert folks on the forum, is how to make a print from the 8x10 original that also looks a country mile better than that of a 4x5 original.

[bglick]

> so, the question i would like to see answered by some of the more expert folks on the forum, is how to make a print from the 8x10 original that also looks a country mile better than that of a 4x5 original.

Scott, the difference can be seen in one or two ways..... first, scan them at max. dpi, or take chromes to darkroom.... make prints 50" + and the differences will be obvious. Or, use a printing method that can hold very high resolution, say 5 - 6 lp/mm, and the differences will become evident at much smaller print sizes. If your not printing BIG or making contact prints, 810 offers NO benefits over 45, but certainly has many drawbacks. You pay a heavy price, for the ability to print extra big...i.e. price paid = size, weight, cost of gear, cost of film/processing/scanning, 2 stops shutter speed, lack of movements due often to limited image circles, film flatness, more vulnerable to wind, etc.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The advantage apply to 8x10 as well, but when applied to 4x5, they are sufficient to produce the prints at the size envisioned by him, while before 4x5 was not sufficient.

Agreed, but I see this as a persona choice more than proof that 4x5 either scanned or traditionally printed is better than 8x10 or "just as good"....no?

[jonathan smith]

When I was doing some testing, I compared an 8x10 contact print with an 8x10 inkjet print of a scan. From 4 feet or so there was no discernible difference in sharpness, and tones and character were just fine for both.

But when you come in, especially with a loupe, you can see raster marks in the inkjet print. I decided to do all my prints the wet way just for this extra sharpness, which isn't seen at normal viewing distance.

I think the strength of using 8x10 is the contact print, and if you enlarge at all the quality goes down. Contrast as well as sharpness. I thnk it has something to do with the directness of the light rays vs. bent light rays. Yes we pay a price for that, but it's that no-compromise attitude that distinguishes large format photographers.

Doing it on the computer may mean there's no advantage to 8x10, but that would be true if you were using a small digital sensor rather than film. Call me crazy, but I think the larger lenses are sharper, too.

[Mark_5974]

Wow, thanks for your responses.

I'll try and respond to a few questions marks about my test.

I own all the camera equipment so there's absolutely no favouring for any of the formats.

I conducted the test because the prints I was getting back from my 8x10 shoots weren't looking as amazing as I hoped. I do, like the rest of you have obsessive standards in quality.

The original scans (of each format) yielded an image size of around 22"x18" wide at 300dpi (8 bit). One may argue that it should be at 600 dpi but I have also tested this and found that there was the most minute fraction of difference in quality which isn't translated to a more detailed looking print. Michael Reichmann also talks about this somewhere on his site.

The files were both 103MB in size. This doesn't mean that they'll look the same because they're the same file size?? - they were produced from two different sources. If I had thrown in a 35mm chrome and scanned it to the same size it would look vastly different to the 4x5 and 8x10 files. I would have thought the 8x10 would have produced a more detailed file, it didn't. Even when viewed on the monitor at 100% the difference between the 2 is negligible.

Remember the finishing line is a 16x20 print, not a chrome on the light box being viewed through a loupe. I'm sure there would be a more noticeable difference if the print was around 6' wide but unfortunately people viewing my portfolio don't have 6' of desk space, nor does the House of Portfolios make a 6' wide portfolio book.

This urban scene has minute detail to it. This is where large format shines. It can resolve detail so much better than digital (P25 included, I have tested this as well - that one saved me £20,000!). The 1Ds Mk II print just doesn't yield the detail that the LF prints do. If I was just interested in photographing skies for instance then I think there would be no noticeable difference between an 8x10 and 1Ds Mk II print.

I think I have saved myself a whole lot of trouble and money by doing this test. I still don't quite believe it myself so before the 8x10 gets ebay'd I'm going to do a few more tests. I would love someone to disprove me with a similar test of his or her own.

[John_4185]

Dave Luttmann All I'm saying Dan is that people notice grain and accutance before they notice the slightly less detail at 16x20. The complete lack of grain improves tonality

Certain subjects are susceptible to higher acutance when the grain is just below an objectionable level - that is, not quite apparent. The same susceptible subject without any grain will look softer.

Jorge's example doesn't work because the grain is mushy, probably due to the scanner (if from a negative) or unfortunate enlargement technique.

Grain is my friend.

[Michael Jones]

"The advantage apply to 8x10 as well, but when applied to 4x5, they are sufficient to produce the prints at the size envisioned by him, while before 4x5 was not sufficient."

I think that pretty much sums it up: sufficient. If that’s all you need, so be it. I have no interest in sufficient; my experience, interest, goals and tastes are in line with Jorge on this.

Again as QT hinted, if you limit the scan output, you are wasting the additional content from the original 8x10. It’s the functional equivalent of an enlargement from 4x5 to 8x10 and printing an 8x10 to 8x10 through an enlarger. (Its easier in reality for people to compare a 4x5 same size enlargement to a 4x5 contact print, if you call that a comparison. Try it.) You miss the benefit of the additional information in the larger negative.

Finally, as someone else once said: different is not the same. How can you get the same results from different equipment? You get different results from different equipment. The only standardization here is the final size. That brings me back to QT's statement: … sufficient to produce the prints at the size envisioned by him.

mike

[David Luttmann]

JJ,

I like grain as well....for certain subjects....and only when I want it. I agree. The grain is mushy. Sharp grain would have changed little though. The point I made on tonality was simply to state the obvious. There are many reasons people move from smaller film sizes to large format. These would include movements, better resolution, more accurate color, better tonality and lack of grain. For me, it was not so much the higher resolution I was after, but a lack of grain and better color. I believe Matt above described it as a creamy tonality.

There is a reason that tonality and color is better on LF.....it's because sheet film needs to be enlarged less for a given print size than smaller formats. This enlarging less means that the image is degraded less by grain. It is grain that breaks down the accuracy of the color and tonality. That is why people describe the color or tonality from 8x10 or digital to be creamy in texture. It is in fact, a complete lack of noise/grain that does it. Or better put....what else could it be? Given the same film is used in 35mm, MF, and LF, color and tonality will be better with the larger format.

[Calamity Jane]

The film was Provia processed at normal. On the light box the 8x10 looked a country mile better, particularly through a loupe.

WOAH NELLIE!

If it's the same brand of film, wouldn't it be the same emulsion on both the 4x5 and 8x10???

Why in blazes would it look different under a loupe??

[Paul Butzi]

The advantage apply to 8x10 as well, but when applied to 4x5, they are sufficient to produce the prints at the size envisioned by him, while before 4x5 was not sufficient.

Linda Butler expressed this same story to me when I asked her why she had used 8x10 for her work on Shaker villages but had used 4x5 (and medium format) for her work from Japan and Italy - that the improvement in film and optics had made 4x5 sufficient for work where before she felt 8x10 was required.

[RJ Hicks]

I have shot some 8x10, but mostly 4x5 with a view camera to enlarge. The times I used the 8x10 the final outcome is always a contact print, which is obviously more detail rich than any enlargement that I have made. I probably would shoot more 8x10 if my camera was a smaller and less cumbersome (a cambo monorail).

It would seem to me that if your workflow is scanning to a 100mb file and printing from a computer than I don't see how 8x10 would be a huge step up, unless of course you just get a kick out of the process of working with a large camera and seeing the image on the larger groundglass. All three cameras you use seem to be tools that can be used for different ends and different kinds of images. Even though the print size is smaller, an 8x10 contact can be hugely powerful because of the amount of detail and information contained in the negative.

[Michael Jones]

"If it's the same brand of film, wouldn't it be the same emulsion on both the 4x5 and 8x10?"

Not necessarily. The boxes have different emulsion numbers to let you know the film has been cut from a different master roll. Black and white film emulsion is also a recipe (I assume color is also, but don’t know) and the most minute difference will produce a different result. Also used to be that the emulsion was "fermented," so to speak, before coating thus allowing nature to work her magic.

Another thought on the comparisons that began this thread, because of the physical difference in the size of an 8x10 bellows compared to a 4x5 and the difference in optics used, the same scene shot with different equipment will likely produce a different exposure. You may want to try taping 4x5 film to an 8x10 holder, using the same lens as on the 8x10 version and moving the tripod to minimize variations. Again: different is not the same.

Check those emulsion numbers on the end of the box, Calamity Jane.

Mike

[Scott Schroeder]

Mark,
For the additional testing, why don't you get a 300-400 Mb scan of the 8X10 and then compare it to the 100Mb scan of the 4X5.
It seems that was the main concern with the digital workflow you presented.
Of course, please come back with any results.

[David Luttmann]

Scott,

A 1200 dpi scan would be sufficient to yield 600 dpi on a 16x20 and weigh in around 345MB. I agree, 100MB is just too light.

[Ed Richards]

A 100 meg scan of a color image is not getting the most out of the 4x5, much less the 8x10. If it is an 8 bit file, you are scanning at about 1400 DPI, if I calculate correctly, for the 4x5. If it is 16 bit, for better dynamic range, then it is more like 1000 DPI. That does not begin to get the data out of the 4x5. You also do not mention sharpening, which is a necessary part of the digital workflow - since sharpening will affect the 8x10 scans differently from the 4x5 scans, you cannot just skip sharpening and get a valid comparison.

I would like to see this done with a 400 meg scan of both - I suspect you would not see any difference in the prints between the two 400 meg scans, but would see a difference compared to the 100 meg scans.

[bglick]

Calamity Jane > WOAH NELLIE!

If it's the same brand of film, wouldn't it be the same emulsion on both the 4x5 and 8x10???

Why in blazes would it look different under a loupe??



If both shots used the EXACT same fl lens, then you would be 100% correct. However, the poster used 2x the fl on the 810 shot, therefore the 810 shot, of the same crop, would have 2x the resolution of the 4x5 shot. When comparing formats, its always assumed you have the same composure which means you have 2x the magnification of any given part of the scene.

[Dave Moeller]

For a 16x20 digital print, I can't see how moving from 4x5 to 8x10 is going to gain you anything other than possible a hernia from carrying the camera. If you were printing large, you'd find the difference, but I have no idea how large as I have no interest in printing large.

8x10 gains you 4x the resolution as 4x5 if you handle the focus and movements properly and use equivalent glass. Scanning them both to the same final resolution means that you're throwing away detail in the 8x10. If you want a fair test of the film, then either enlarge them to the same size in a darkroom or scan them at the same resolution and look at the resulting files. But making a 16x20 inkjet print probably won't gain you anything worth worrying about...it's just not that much of an enlargement for a scan from a 4x5 color slide.

An 8x10 contact print of a B&W negative looks, to my eye, better than an 8x10 enlargement from 4x5. Others have said that they see no difference between the two, and I'm sure that's true, but in my work I definately see the advantage to taking the extra optical step out of the process (even though I use top-end enlarging lenses, have my enlarger perfectly aligned, and have done everything that I can to get the best enlargements that I can.)

If you measure the size of your prints in feet or perhaps yards, then you'll see a difference between 8x10 and 4x5 assuming that you use equal quality equipment for both and treat them both the same. Whether or not the difference you see matters to you is another thing entirely, and one that's definately a personal choice. If the 4x5 works for what you want to do, then use it and save yourself some trouble and some money. I can't imagine that an inkjet print at 16x20 is going to stress a 4x5 negative that much. But again, it's a personal choice.

Speaking of personal choices: Jorge, I absolutely love that image. It's why I shoot film...my heart and my eyes always love the look of a well made grainy image...and that one is gorgeous. (A note to those of you who shoot digital: Good for you. But it's not for me, and no amount of argument about what's "better" is going to change my opinion on what I find attractive. I've seen the smooth, grainless skies, and they all look awful to me. But it's a matter of taste, not of fact. Arguing taste is like teaching a pig to sing: It wastes your time and it annoys the pig. So if you love grainless skies, shoot what makes you happy. If you love grain, shoot what gives you that look. Saying that grain "breaks down tonality" is an argument based in taste and opinion, not in fact. The tonalities in Jorge's image are fabulous to those of us who enjoy that kind of image, but will always look bad to those who like grainlessness. Do what makes you happy.)

[bglick]

Matthew.... yes, there is always a resolution vs. grain issue with all film. This is often not discussed as most LF shooters use low speed film. In the case with higher speed film, the grain quite often becomes the limiting factor in a scan, assuming you find it objectionable. But since color film resolves very little to begin with, maybe with the exception of Velvia, if one uses lower speed 100 ISO or lower, most often grain is not the limiting factor. Although there is many issues with film, when enlarged appear as grain, mainly bubbles within the emulstion. Fuji had this problem for many years, and I still wonder if they ever corrected it.... but anyway, just how deep does the scan need to be to grab all the detail? This is dependent on MANY factors....

MTF of the film (chrome much higher then neg film)
MTF of the lens
fstop of lens (diffraction effects)
Near / far of subjects (defocus effects)
Fiilm flatness

AT the point of exact focus, here is the resolvability of 3 films with decent contrast ratios.....

B&W neg- 120 lp/mm
Color Chrome - 60 lp/mm
Color neg. - 40 lp/mm

Quite a range, huh? Backtracking to ppi,

B&W = 120 x 25.4 x 2 = 6070 dpi x 1.5 overscan factor = 9,100 dpi
Color Chrome = 4500 dpi
color neg film = 3000 dpi.

As you can see, the scan there is quite a huge range of scanning dpi required, based on what you are starting with. The overscan factor is required to "grab" the actual detail, it is dependent on the subject matter to some extent and is more critical with XY scanners vs. drum scanners, but applies to both. Now, extreme LF example, shot at f45.... so diffraction effects...

1500/45 = 33 lp/mm (max. theoretical resolution, at point of exact focus)

Considering some defocus factor for DOF, you can scan at 20 lp/mm and grab 90% of all the rez in the film.... .so....

20 lp/mm = 1500 dpi. (w/1.5 overscan factor)

Quite the range, huh..... so, scanning at arbitrary ppi is sensless.... one should always start with the variables of the film and work backwards to the scan ppi required. The numbers above only demonstrate the scan ppi to record ALL the detail potential of the film.... But this is not always required, so next you must consider the print size and the resolvablity of the printing process, in such cases where print size is not being pushed, you can scan at even lower ppi then above....

The overscan factor is a big variable.... in very high end drum scanners, this value can be as low as 1.2x, whereas in lower end flatbeds can be as high as 2.5x. This is why shooting 810 film with a lower end flatbed scanner can produce amazing results if the print sizes are not too big.... the key being, pay a little more for film and processing, and save a bundle on scanning hardware / software.

[bglick]

Dave....

> 8x10 gains you 4x the resolution as 4x5 if you handle the focus and movements properly and use equivalent glass.

810 has 4x the area, but only 2x the resolution.

> Scanning them both to the same final resolution means that you're throwing away detail in the 8x10.

I think what you meant is..... scanning them at lower then optimum resolution, means you're throwing away detail in the 8x10. Meaning if they were both scanned at say 3000 dpi, (same final resolution) then 810 would surely demonstrate its better resolution.

> An 8x10 contact print of a B&W negative looks, to my eye, better than an 8x10 enlargement from 4x5. Others have said that they see no difference between the two, and I'm sure that's true, but in my work I definately see the advantage to taking the extra optical step out of the process (even though I use top-end enlarging lenses, have my enlarger perfectly aligned, and have done everything that I can to get the best enlargements that I can.)

There is two variables here, outside of the basic resolvability of the two formats, which I described in my last post. But assuming they are both equal...then...

the resolvability of the printing process is a key consideration....if the paper can't hold it, you can't see it, even if the extra rez existed in the film.

If the paper can hold it, and it exceeds your eyes ability to resolve, then you can't see it. This is why you mention, some people see no difference, whereas other do. Human vision, un aided, can range from 1 lp/mm to as high as 6 lp/mm. I used to see at 5 lp/mm but in the past 5 years my eyes have degraded to 2 - 3 lp/mm, which is considered average.

[Ed Richards]

Bill,

What is this overscan factor? Are you talking about alaising from information theory? If so, I think it is 2 or greater, every time. Drum scanners do not do better than the theoretical minimum of 2, but they get a lot closer than consumer flatbeds.

Your example shows the striking effect of diffraction, even at F 45. Shooting at f 22 looks like it gives 2x the resolution for B&W.

[David Luttmann]

Oh I agree Dave. I love grain in my street work. I used to adore 2475 recording film in 35mm. Nice big grain....and not a bad speed for its day. That said, for landscape or portrait work, I prefer a grainless sky, mainly because when I exposed the image, I didn't see any grain with my eyes & that's how I like it. Not everybody does though. Of course, with an 8x10 contact print, your skies would be grainless as well.....even @ 16x20.

Different strokes.....

[bglick]

> What is this overscan factor? Are you talking about alaising from information theory?

Ed, overscan factor is a neccessary evil in any form of reproduction whereas you desire as close to 1:1 reproduction as possible. Imagine this simple example, and it will become apparent. Lets assume the film contains a checkerboard pattern of B&W squares. Now, a flatbed scanner records using the same checkerboard pattern (CCD chip). Now, if you can lay the film pefectly on the flat bed, so that each checkerboard square is aligned perfectly with the recording checkerboard XY grid (CCD), then (assuming no optical losses in scanner lenses) you can scan the image at the EXACT ppi of the films checker board pattern. So in this theoretical case, NO overscanning is needed.

As you can imagine, this is only theoreticaly possible, but certainly NOT practical, so therefore there will always be a mis alignment between the recording grid and the films data grid. To overcome this, you must overscan, i.e. scan a smaller checkerboard pattern in the scanner, vs. what exist on the film. Now, if the checker board patterns are on the same plane, but just mis aligned, the overscan factor can be low, and vary from 1.2 - 1.5x based on how good the interpolation software is in the scanner. However, if you then turned the films checkerboard pattern 45 degrees vs. the scanners grid pattern, now the ability to resolve becomes even less and you have to overscan even a greater amount, say 2.0 - 2.5x. (this is an extreme example which does not exist much in the real world subject matter recorded on film)

Now, toss in optical losses of the sanner lenses, noise, etc. and you can see why you must scan so deep to grab detail that exist under a loupe. What differentiates high end flat beds, $10k+ vs. consumer flat beds, $1k <, is scanning efficiency. The overscan factor of a high end flat bed is much much less then a consumer flat bed, which means consumer scanners will produce much larger files to acheive the exact same resolution....this, of course, assumes the resolution exists in the film.

As you can tell, there is many factors that influence just how much you need to overscan to hold the detail you are trying to record, (what you can see under loupe inspection) . Experimentation must be done with each scanner, film type, software, etc. to optimize the scan resolution to keep the file sizes as manageable as possible. So I generalized a bit to demonstrate the principal.

Digital SLR cameras have the exact same vulnerability as described above, as they are basically "one shot" scanners. Hence why digital cameras suffer so poorly with of axis checkerboard type patterns. And a pixel in a digital SLR will only record one of the RGB colors, whereas the CCD sensor in a scanner records all 3 RGB colors.

Drum scanners are less prone to this problem since they do not have an XY grid, instead they have a grid pattern equal to the threads on a screw. Then software re assembles the threads into a flat 2d image. Imagine a line 45 degrees on a piece of film placed on a drum. When you scan, the diag. line will have to be re assembled or stitched where the thread "views" touch..... well, at 1:1, the liklihood of a perfect stitch is not good, so overscanning the line will give the software more information to stitch the line so it appears exactly as it did on the film....so drums are not immune to this issue, but surely less sensitive to the issue.

however, flat bed techhnology is getting better and better, and the high end CREO and Screen Flat beds have been shown to only require 1.1x overscan factors on simple, on axis, bar charts....but once those bar charts go off axis, the factor jumps to 1.3 - 1.6x.

This is a synopsis of the answer, hope it helps.....

[QT Luong]

Depends on whether by "fine art" you mean "decorative" or "cutting-edge". The subjects might be "dirty" (although this is not the focus of his work), but the prints can be beautiful. What makes him an "art star" is that they are widely exhibited in art museums.

[Jim collum]

> Photographing metal/tire/ship junkyards or quarry mines is journalism and not " fine art ". His >photographic interests are in showing the dirty part of society by means of a camera (and there >is nothing wrong with that). However, the market for displaying such images is best suited to >industrial or waste management magazines, city hall quarterly, public health environements,

That is a very narrow view of 'fine art'. That definition would disqualify both Stephen Shore, and Richard Misrach... as well as countless others. In fact, I'd venture to say that there are more artists that fall outside of your definition than in (in fact, traditional 'landscape' photography isn't considered art at all in most European galleries)

Jim

[Dave Moeller]

I've spent a lot of time over the last two years photographing decaying industrial buildings and metal scrapyards. Is it art? I don't think I'm intelligent enough to judge. But I get enjoyment out of the process and out of the images that I make, and that's all I can really hope for from my photography. Judging from the reactions I get to my prints, at least some people consider it good work...I've given away quite a few images, especially of the decaying industrial buildings. (I don't sell my work, but if someone sees a print of mine that they like I'm more than happy to give it to them as a gift.)

Art, more than anything, is in the eye of the beholder.

[John_4185]

I've spent a lot of time over the last two years photographing decaying industrial buildings and metal scrapyards. Is it art?

Could be. It is certainly as much 'art' as the millions of pictures of sticks, stones and streams that posit themselves as some kind of superior subject. Art is not about the subject. It is about the art.

Worry not.

[John_4185]

Vancamper: the market for displaying such images is best suited to industrial or waste management...

Life and Art ain't about calendar images, Pollyanna. But you know that, and there's nothing you can write that will change it.

[Michael S. Briggs]

"here is the resolvability of 3 films with decent contrast ratios.....

B&W neg- 120 lp/mm Color Chrome - 60 lp/mm Color neg. - 40 lp/mm

Quite a range, huh?"

Bill, I am not sure that the differences between film types (of the same speed) are this large.

Here are some example figures from Fuji datasheets for low-contrast test charts, 1.6:1. (I think the low-contrast measurements are more representative of real-world subjects than 1000:1 test charts.)

Across 100: 60 lines/mm, Provia 100F: 60 lines/mm, Fujicolor Pro 160S: 63 lines/mm. (Fuji must mean line pairs per mm.) The example color negative film is the newest, but also the highest speed.

[Michael S. Briggs]

Vancamper, Burtynsky was brought into the discussion as an example of someone who makes large prints of high technical quality from 4x5 films. Your mind seems to be firmly decided on subject mattter limitations on what can be art (or is it on "fine art"), so there's probably no point in further discussions.

[Jim collum]

hanging in our home, chosen by my wife are

www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_039.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_039.jpg)

www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_033.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_033.jpg)

www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_031.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_031.jpg)

www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_036.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_036.jpg)

www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_035.jpg (http://www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_035.jpg)

these images are platinum with pigment color.

all of these have sold to households, as well as to law offices for office decoration (represented by Susan Spiritus Gallery ... www.susanspiritusgallery.com/main.htm (http://www.susanspiritusgallery.com/main.htm) and choose James Collum

again, I stand by my words of that being a very narrow view of 'fine art'.. and i have put my money where my mouth is

jim

[Jim collum]

... and back on topic,

100Mb is too small a scan to demonstrate the difference in the formats.

If you're not certain there is a difference, then walk into a gallery and look at 20x24" prints hanging on the wall. It doesn't take much of an eye to pick out the 35mm, medium format, 4x5 and 8x10 produced images. It's there in the detail, lack of grain, and tonal quality.

There was a recent exhibit Burtensky's work at Stanford in California. Most images are 30x40, 40x50 or 50x60. It was obvious walking thru and looking at them (from about 6 feet away), which were 4x5 and which were 8x10 originals.

jim

[John_4185]

Vancamper's clarification of what is Fine Art has settled the matter for me. I shall avoid it for the disease it is.

[RJ Hicks]

Art need not be pretty or beautiful, sometimes its there to make you think.

[luis prado]

hello to all:
i used to do photographs with 4x5 and a year or so i moved to 8x10 . I only do negative colour film influeded by Misrach , Meyerowitz, Shore and Joel Sternfeld. can sound rare and strange but i have never had a enlarged negative from my 8x10 negatives , waiting to have a coherent work and enlarge to 20x24 and bigger, but in this interesting forum it sounds like if 4x5 is enought and 8x10 is a waste of time , effort and money, i would like to hear an expert or an user defined the advantages of 8x10, because i think there are . sorry to all for my bad spelling.

[bglick]

> B&W neg- 120 lp/mm Color Chrome - 60 lp/mm, Color neg. - 40 lp/mm
Quite a range, huh?"

> Bill, I am not sure that the differences between film types (of the same speed) are this large.
Here are some example figures from Fuji datasheets for low-contrast test charts, 1.6:1. (I think the low-contrast measurements are more representative of real-world subjects than 1000:1 test charts.)
Across 100: 60 lines/mm, Provia 100F: 60 lines/mm, Fujicolor Pro 160S: 63 lines/mm. (Fuji must mean line pairs per mm.)



Michael..... As for B&W film, check out Chris Perez test results, using B&W with Mamiya 7 camera system he acheived 120 lp/mm, so have others. Color chrome film, we agree upon, and color negative film, I have tested and well as many others, and 1/3 less sharpness is very common. Granted, for B&W, it was shot using test charts which are high contrast.....anyway, the only point I was trying to demonstrate is the huge range of "on film" resolution that one must deal with, when considering "on print" resolution, and scanning resolution needs.... a 300% swing is quite large.

Also, one of the issues I failed to mention earlier when comparing 4x5 and 8x10... something which I recently came to grips with as another good 45/810 strategy, specially for infinity or low DOF shots, is the ability to switch from chrome film to negative film, as you can gain much more image exposure lattitude with neg film... while not paying much of a penalty for grain (using 810 color neg) since you use 1/2 less enlargement factor...of course, a gain in resolution is quite often negated. But for scenes that have a need for greater exposure lattitude, and large print requirements, often color neg on 810 is the perfect fit.

[bglick]

> but in this interesting forum it sounds like if 4x5 is enought and 8x10 is a waste of time ,

Quite the opposite..... I think this discussion has demonstrated "in what situations" 8x10 earns its full merits. At the same time, it has become more clear where 4x5 is quite often sufficient.... A dump truck is not always better then a race car....horses for courses!

[Mark_5974]

Okay, it seems the consensus is that 100Mb is "too light." I can understand the theory and I will get the shots re-scanned. So for a 16"x20" print size output what should the dpi be for the 8x10 and the 4x5, or should they both be the same? Should they also scanned at 16bit instead of 8bit?

[bglick]

Mark, if you are paying for scans, then to save a few bucks for the experiment, if the composure is the same on both formats, then take a small crop of the same area for each and do a deep scan, say 45 lp/mm (3000 ppi) at the point of exact focus (to assure you see the differences)..... then view the two crops on the monitor or print em.... remember, the equal size crop of the 810 will have 4x the area as the same on the 45, as that is how 810 gains its sharpness, i.e. no more sharpness per say, just more area..... make sense?

[Mark_5974]

I'm not paying for the scans so they can be enormous if need be. I just want to compare 2 prints at their full size. So 16x20" at 3000 dpi? That's an 8G file. Should be a doddle to work with...

[David Luttmann]

Michael,

On a good scanner, the resolution will be limited by the film, not the scanner. A decent scanner will be able to pull all the dynamic range & res out of a chrome. I'll echo the comment on scanning & printing a crop to save money.

[QT Luong]

Even if you scan at higher resolutions, you might not see a significant difference between two 16x20 produced digitally, because the weakest chain then becomes the printer (that's why at small sizes, optical prints, and in particular contact prints, can be significantly sharper than digital prints). The best would be to do 40x50 prints. Short of that, print a 16x20 crop of the 40x50 print.

[Michael S. Briggs]

If the largest print that Mark every wants to make is 16x20, then there is no reason for him, for his decision about what equipment to use, to make a 40x50 print. His experiment was trying to decide whether he can tell the difference between 16x20 prints from4x5 and 8x10 films. As he found with a lightbox and loupe, the 8x10 film has more information, but if it essentially doesn't show on the 16x20 print, compared to the one from the 4x5 film, why bother with the 8x10 camera. Now, if someday he might want to make 40x50 prints, that would be a reason to repeat the experiment with 40x50 prints, or smaller prints at the same enlargement factor from cropped portions of the films. Or if he wants to help answer the question for the rest of us....

[robc]

Mark,
to calculate required file size for digital printing:

for a 4x5 neg:

first decide what dpi you will print at lets use 600 dpi.

for a 20x16 print that means 20x600 high by 16x600 wide = 12000 x 9600 pixel file.

thats 115200000 pixels.

now multiply by your colour depth lets say 24 = 2764800000 bits in your file.

divide by 8 to give bytes = 345600000 = 330mb file size required for 20x16 print @ 600 dpi

scan needs to be done at 24 bit colour (12000/5) x (9600/4) = 2400 x 2400 to achieve that file size.

you can half the scan res to print at 300dpi but many like to downsize to final print size so 2400 x 2400 is good providing your scanner performs well at that resolution.

if you were to substitute 48 bit scan colour depth then file size will double.

for a 10x8 neg file substitue 10 for 5 and 8 for 4 in above. result is same file size but required scan res = 1200 x 1200

what your optimum print dpi is for your setup can only be determined by your own tests and taste. It may be 300dpi, 600dpi or higher.

[Lenny Eiger]

I am running these same tests now. So far the 810 is winning, to my dismay as I am tired of carrying it around. I hope I can fix this... However, theoretically, if you have an edge that is an inch wide on a 4x5 - it is 4 inches wide on an 8x10. So, even the resolution is the same, or lower, to match the pixels, which is more likely, given file sizes, the description of the item will be tighter. Next week, as soon as the next batch of Efke 25 gets here, we are going out in the field to test the actual realities of this. I am most interested in the sensitivity of film in the midtones and its ability to render something like fog rising off a lake.

I will echo the latest statements about scanning. You need a scan that contains the number of pixels you need - determined by multiplying the number of inches you want in your print times the resolution you want. If you take a single dimension its easier. 20 inches times 720 dpi minimum (my preference) is 14,400 pixels. An 8x10 scanned at 2,000 dpi will give you just under 20,000, a 1.5-1.7 gig file at 16 RGB. The same for 4x5 scanned at 4,000 dpi, or 6x7 at 8,000.

You should forget about megabytes, and you should boycott (or at least harass greatly) vendors who talk to you in megabytes, a meaningless (or at least misleading) number. We don't do that for our clients. If you will excuse a unabashed plug - unless people really insist, we scan everything at the max that is available - on our Aztek Premier, best scanner ever made, with twice the optical resolution of its competitors.

I am having another problem with the 4x5 film, which is that while it is quite sharp in the areas of sharpness - and grain is tight, the grain is accentuated where it is not sharp, or where there is a large area of open tone, or blurring movement. This effect seems to be much more prevalent in the 4x5 than in the 8x10's. I need to know more about this effect and welcome any information any of you might have on the subject...

Lenny

Lenny Eiger

eigerphoto.com

[Desperate Sam]

As others have suggested you need to scan the 8x10 at a higher dpi (and create a larger file than 100mb), and then print it, and compare it to the print made from the 4x5 scan. Besides that, a higher quality scanner (in terms of dynamic range, noise, and other characteristics) will bring out the difference in 8x10 over 4x5 better than a lower quality scanner. An important reason for using any large format at all (as opposed to medium or 35mm format) is, in addition to potentially higher resolution, smoother tones - smoother and subtler tonalities, etc. Anything but the highest quality scans tend to degragde those subtlties, in my opinion.

I used to shoot 4x5 (color) but went to 8x10, and have stayed with it for three reasons - (1) better technical quality, (2)easier to compose and focus, and more pleasurable to look at the groundlgass, (3) viewing color 8x10 trannies is much more pleasurable to me than the 4x5s.

I agree with Brian Ellis that at 4x enlargement, you won't see a worthwhile difference in quality between any two formats such as 4x5 printed to 16x20 (a 4x enlargement) vs 8x10 printed to 16x20. Larger than that, then I think you'll see a difference, given analog printing, or given a good scan. Scanning has a lot of variables, and that's where a lot of comparison test shots/test prints get messed up, in my opinion.

On the other hand, if you only print to 16x20, and you get the quality you are looking for from the 4x5, and you find using 4x5 just as easy (or easier, due to lighter weight, etc.), then no need to do anything but just use 4x5 and forget 8x10.

[Richard Kenward]

Having been shooting 4x5's and 10x8's using Sinar cameras for 35 plus years, and more recently been running a drum scanning service for photographers world wide, I have to say that a good big one offers better technical quality than a good small one. This becomes obvious as the degree of enlargement increases. Large prints look great provided the picture has sufficient content interest and strength and provided nothing is lost in the reproduction chain. Drum scanning is obviously the best way to digitise film but not all drum scans are equal for a multitude of reasons.

Cheers

Richard Kenward

[JW]

"When I was doing some testing, I compared an 8x10 contact print with an 8x10 inkjet print of a scan. From 4 feet or so there was no discernible difference in sharpness, and tones and character were just fine for both. "

Kind of like looking at the chick at the bar after you have had six drinks & then seeing reality the next morning.

[Lenny Eiger]

I keep hearing all this talk about viewing distance. I am not exactly sure what you were saying, but I can tell you I had a show this past weekend and when people viewed my 32x40 b&w prints, the first thing they did was to walk up to them, say 4 inches away and stare at the grain and sharpness.

These images were scanned, and there was no grain. Sharpness was superb, and they were printed at over 500 dpi. Back to the point - I think that the idea that there is a viewing distance - unless you can enforce it, as in a billboard situation, is not a factor.

Lenny

[David Luttmann]

Lenny,

I think viewing distance is a factor. I suppose someone will tell me they had someone looking at their 40x50 with an 8X loupe as well. For a print of about 32x40, most viewers settle into a distance of about 18" to 3 feet. As far as 4" is concerned.....I wouldn't worry too much as must adults can't focus on a target at less than 7".

[Lenny Eiger]

Dave,

So, perhaps it was 7 inches they were looking at. But almost everyone went right up to them. I think that there is a lot of misleading information out there, like no one can really tell the difference if you print at 180 vs 360 or more - it exceeds the printer's capaability to render it (someone actually said this to me). I have found this simply not true.

I want to make prints that are great at any distance. If someone else doesn't, well, ok. That's just my preference.

Lenny

[tim atherton]

"Burtynsky makes his own (“traditional” chromogenic) prints. He is the
owner of a commercial lab in Toronto (nearing twenty years now- his “day
job” before he was an art star) and, naturally, is very critical about
print quality. "

And digital chromogenic prints via Chromira

"Ed Burtynskys images are commonly "classified" as industrial photography, not fine art. If you want to justify it as "quality fine art", then put your wallet where your mouth is and buy it, then hang it on your living room wall next to a Robert Bateman. Now lets see if your wife will appreciate it, and how many positive comments you will get from your friends. LOL. Tell them "art is in the eye of the beholder (Dave Moeller)", as if that will justify for poor taste. "

The National Gallery doesn't usually exhibit industiral photogoraphy?

The Batemean produces "art" to match your sofa.

My definition of fine art fits in line with the
Heritage dictionary definition..... photos of flowers, children story
telling (Trisha Romance), animal images (Robert Bateman), grand landscape
(Ansel), seascapes (Phillip Plisson), portaits (Karsh), etc., are not what
I call a narrow view of fine art. These are artists producing things of
beauty! There is NOT a single image that I can remember by any present or
past artist whose fine art images include junkyards in the background (or
foreground).

Sounds more liek a definition of kitsch than art? By that definition a lot of Goya's work wouldn't pass the test - nor Picassos

[matthew welch]

On the topic of asthetics that this thread has raised, Vancamper clearly has no contemporary aesthetic thought behind his definition of art... the rigidity of holding onto a definition of what is good in a world of subjectivity, clearly shows how small his level of thinking is. Art does not have a clear definition. Adams and the like he refers to are examples of photographers who's work that was strictly aesthetically pleasing in their time and I won't go into a discussion on formalism. Most museums that have interest in contemporary work would dismiss it by today’s standards beyond its historical & technical value, as it is lacking any significant subtext that is relevant to the world we live in today, beyond beauty. If you want to be in a bubble and pretend everything is OK, then dismiss anything that might provoke some thought, but art is meant to make us think... not placate us. For example, at this point in our history, impressionism (which was radical in its time), can be found on the side of a Kleenex box... is that art relevant now beyond it's place in history? Posters, please learn your art/photo history before spouting off and trying to smash your opinions down our throats. Be it Misrach, Shore, Burtynsky, Gursky or a myriad of other important contemporary artists who are using photography as a medium for its aesthetic resonance and its ability to be a social barometer of our time, it sounds to me like there is a lot of non-thinking when it comes to these general definitions of art... you don't have to like it, but at least engage it. To say Burtynsky is not an artist of the highest order; not only technically, compositionally, through use of color palette and perspective.... but in his use of the medium itself to comment on our society, is an irresponsible view of an artist you have not looked at close enough to have a real opinion past the surface of the print. Like it or not, you can not deny his commitment to a singular idea which he has worked towards for the last 20 years as he has developed a cohesive body of work and that is why thoughtful people who engage contemporary photography see the value in his work and how it relates to us on a global level... not many of us can hit that mark.

[Paddy Quinn]

Misrach, Shore, Burtynsky, Gursky

Burtynsky is the odd one out of those three. Chances are his work won't be remembered in 50 years time in the same way as theirs is.

His work is good and his images are often quite beautiful, but his concepts are often fuzzy. His championing of the eco-cause is really little more than an opportunistic after the fact justification of why he has done much of his work, which is overly didactic at time. Large sections of his work isn't that much different from what you see in National Geographic, it is just printed bigger. Burtynsky's work actually has much in common with his fellow Canadian Polidori. Both are essentially industrial/architectural photographers who flirt with art photography (very successfully it must be said, in market terms - but never let it be said that Burtynksy doesn't have a first class marketing machine). But the work of both of them lacks the depth, individually and uniqueness of the other three listed above.

with regards to:

not only technically,
compositionally, through use of color palette and perspective.... but in
his use of the medium itself to comment on our society

Each one of the other three you list does all of those far better and much more convincingly and with greater originality (as an example, I have a magazine from 20 years or so ago which has photogorahs made with a large format camera of the marble quarries of Carrera which are not only strikingly similar to Burtynksy's later ones, but in many way more successful.

[Thomas Kinkade]

If you don't know the difference in 'fine art' and junk, please come into my many galleries & buy something.

[Bill_1856]

Tim, Walker Evans produced several superb "fine art" images with junkyards included.

[tim atherton]

Bill, that was a quote from "Mr Kitsch" somewhere above - but the italics thingies didn't work right:

My definition of fine art fits in line with the Heritage dictionary definition..... photos of flowers, children story telling (Trisha Romance), animal images (Robert Bateman), grand landscape (Ansel), seascapes (Phillip Plisson), portaits (Karsh), etc., are not what I call a narrow view of fine art. These are artists producing things of beauty! There is NOT a single image that I can remember by any present or past artist whose fine art images include junkyards in the background (or foreground). is twee Mr Kitsch, not me - I like junkyards.... :-)

(have you looked up "Trisha Romance" - whoa - gag me with as spoon - saccharine overload)

[matthew welch]

<<"If you don't know the difference in 'fine art' and junk, please come into my many galleries & buy something"--Thomas Kinkade>>

Please let us all know where your galleries are Mr. Kinkade as I googled you but could find none? I was searching in NYC, Los Angeles, Paris and London, as I would assume this is where you must be located to keep your finger on the pulse of contemporary art, as you are clearly a large and respected gallery owner with many locations. Also, please let us know who you show so we can all educate ourselves as to who is current... a web link would be nice as well to one of your galleries and/or maybe you can post a list/samples of your current artists work (who do not make "junk") and where you have placed their work, i.e. which museum collections your artists are in... MOMA, Gugenheim, Louve, Tate, etc or manybe the upcoming Venice Bienial? Then we can all decide which pieces we might want to buy before they start to skyrocket. If you can convince me, maybe I will auction one of my junky Burtynsky's as they are now going for over $15k+ and then reinvest in some quality art from you.

[matthew welch]

(have you looked up "Trisha Romance" - whoa - gag me with as spoon - saccharine overload) --tim atherton

I am cleaning my keyboard now, as I projectile vomited when I opened the web site... but maybe I should take a closer look, as that was just a visceral reaction.

[John Kasaian]

Its like this: 4x5s make itty bitty contact prints. That is why there is 8x10. If you're not contact printing or making really huge enlargements, why bother(unless you've got poor vision and need the large gg, or maybe lugging an 8x10 is part of your exercise routine?)

Of course, you can always make a small fortune with shooting color in an 8x10----just start out with a large fortune!;-)

A Ferrarri and a Hummer will both take you to the store, but going to the Safeway for milk and bread isn't want either vehicle was built for. I think the same analogy applies when comparing 4x5 vs. 8x10. I have an 8x10 enlarger but I find that I seldom make enlargements from 8x10 anymore, but I shoot my 8x10 far more than any other camera I own.