B/W 32x40 enlargements from drum scans of 4x5: Shoot transparencies or b/w?

[Ralph]

Hi all, I've been charged with producing four to six 32"x40" (roughly) black-and-white prints using my 4x5. The budget allows for drum scanning and digital printing, so that end of the process looks like it will be as good as can be.

My question concerns which film to shoot, b/w (probably TMax 100) or color transparency (probably one of the Fuji 100 emulsions). It seems to me that the b/w is "sharper," or it appears so to me, but I don't know how much of that is actually due to grain, and I've also heard from Roger Hicks and others that b/w "breaks up" at a certain point of enlargement before color does. In other words, color's "grain" results in more of a steady degradation with increased enlargement while b/w looks better up to a point and then rapidly falls behind.

I don't mind grain (and I've enlarged enough 4x5 to know that it shows up sooner than smaller-format users assume it would!) but I'm also wondering about what characteristics of sharpness vs. smoothness (for lack of a better word) I can expect at that enlargement size from the respective film choices.

Has anybody done any real-world (scanned) comparisons of the two? Even if you haven't, which would YOU choose? By the way, being able to use Channel Mixer to vary colors before converting color scans to Monochrome is nice, but not a deciding factor in this case, nor is the prospect of "someday having the same images available in color." For that matter, the ability to develop my own b/w film to preference is also not a consideration, as my lab will develop either film any way I wish. I'm only asking about comparisons of final image quality and qualities. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[Øyvind Dahle]

I suppose the T-max have smaller grain, and I believe that the "break-up" can be avoided in the digital process, so if you have a scanned file whithout interference between the filmgrain and scanning resolution: The effect you see in National Geographic magazine when they print the 35mm film on two pages.

The T-max can have much higher degree of details in the highlights and shadows, so that would be my choice.

Just my 2 cents. Øyvind:D

[Dave Brown]

I'd go for the negative film. Transparency film has a useful range of 3 or 4 stops, versus 7+ for B&W negative film. There is no way around it, you'll lose information with slide film. All of this assumes that digital output can exploit this extra range (I know nothing about digital printing). But hey, film's cheap; why not shoot both.

[kthompson]

If what you need is a b&w print, seems like it would be easier to just have it done traditionally using b&w film. A 32x40 inch print isn't that big--almost any pro lab should be able to go straight from a 4x5 to this size--and my guess is it will be cheaper compared to the cost of a drum scan and output using a Lightjet (assuming this is what you mean by "digital"). fwiw--I work a bit on exhibit production, and recently we did an exhibit with a sizeable amount of both trad. & Lightjet output murals and larger sized prints. The lightjets were either done with drum scanned 4x5 transparencies for color, or drum scanned 8x10 RC prints for b&w. The job was big enough to go out for bids (gov't)--and was split between a number of vendors in the end--who wound up outputting the materials however was cheapest for them to meet the bid specs--and in the end, it didn't matter as long as they got it done & it looked good. A 30x40 sized lightjet was running around 70 something bucks as c-print and mounted to Sintra with a laminate overcoat to boot--only this price is about half to third of what someone off the street would probably pay. My guess is a drum scan would run about 50 bucks or so street price, and the cheapest commercial Lightjets would be about 12-15 a square foot, not counting mounting or any laminate overcoats. By comparison, a 30x40 b&w rc print will probably run around 75 bucks or so....fiber is another story, but my guess is it might be twice that, with 100% or so for toning.

At any rate--you haven't provided enough information really to give a good answer--like what subject matter is and what the output is. Lightjets are around 300 dpi or less, and an inkjet would be less as well--then of course viewing distance plays a big factor in large prints as well--so in the end, it's kind of a moot point to talk of image loss & such...the fact is that you can take some rather small format negs and smallish digital files and get decent quality murals and such out of them at the *proper* viewing distance--which may be across the room, it's all relative in the end.

hope this helps all the same--my opinions only, not my employers.

[Ralph]

K,

Thanks for your answer; it was very helpful. I agree that viewing distance matters, but the first thing I do when I see a large print (unless it's up near the ceiling in Grand Central Station) is go right up to it and see what kind of detail there is. If that kind of scrutiny wasn't a factor for me, I'd shoot these in digital or MF and ascribe any shortcomings to "You're standing too close." So I guess I'm saying I'm looking for the process most likely to please MY eye, not just what would please the client.

And with respect to digital vs. traditional printing, if cost isn't an issue it seems to me that most photographers who make very large prints are now doing so digitally, in part because of the control they have over the negative but also because (they say) there are not optical aberrations introduced during the enlarging step. In galleries I've seen some amazing 40x50 Lightjet prints from 4x5 (Joseph Holmes kind of stuff) and I'm not convinced that that kind of quality can be matched, in b/w or color, via conventional printing. But I may be wrong about this.

Again, thanks for your insights!

[Ed Burlew]

don't assume traditional printing is inferior. I contunue to use traditional printing through a lab for my 8x10 color neg and the 50x60's are wonderfully sharp. The 30x40's have extreeme sharpness. To me the reason to got to digital is to use the Glicee (sp) archival pigments or to use some of the special papres for their surface quality.

[Bruce Watson]

I shoot 4x5 Tri-X and do my own drum scanning. Tri-X is easily good for 10x enlargement before the grain becomes barely visible. 100 x 125 cm (39.4 x 49.2 inch) prints are not a problem - razor sharp, nearly grainless, and milky smooth tonal transitions.

You know that color transparancy film is only good for about 5 stops of dynamic range, so if you have a large subject brightness, this is probably not a good choice. Color negative film can handle just a little less subject brightness range than B&W films in general.

If you are going to print B&W, I'd suggest you'll get better results from a B&W negative. But... it all depends on your subject and your artistic vision for what you want in a print.