improvement in the quality of my 23.62x47.2 prints

I use a 4x5 camera (Horseman FA), Rodenstock Grand.75/4.5, 150mm Sir.S and Shneider 110XL lenses, 6x9 and 6x12 Horseman film holders. I have access to Nikon 8000ED scanner and Epson 9600 printer. My prints are 23.62x35.4 or 23.62x47.2 inches at 360 dpi – x10 enlargements of Velvia 50 transperenses. Using of Imacon or Tango scanners is too expensive for me.
Can I get the radical improvement in the quality of my prints if I will use 8x10 camera Velvia50 and Epson 4990 for scanning?
I know, using 8x10 camera is a joy….. I think about Shnen-Hao 8x10 and 150XL…

Thanks so much!
Dmitri

While it depends somewhat on the subject matter and scanner, in general you will see a significant improvement when you go from a 10x enlargement to 3.5-4.7x.

Bear in mind, of course, that 8x10 has an entirely new set of issues versus roll film shooting (much reduced depth of field; much smaller f-stops and slower shutter speeds; bulk and weight; loading and reloading large film holders; stabilization issues in the wind; etc.). However, if you are willing to put up with these challenges, you will get significantly sharper prints with most subjects (particularly landscape shots). You may want to consider shooting the faster Velvia 100 (will compensate for reduced shutter speeds) or perhaps even negative film (greater exposure latitude) since with 8x10 film grain is no longer an issue.

I shoot with 8x10", scan with an Epson 4990 and print on my 9600, and if the 8x10" original has no "main" problem (i.e. focusing issues and diffractions) my 32x40" and 40x50" prints are tack sharp, an huge improvement against a 4x5" slide drum scanned (actually I see differences even in smaller prints, the 8x10" has really "something" in it).

But Eric is absolutely right, 8x10" has an entirely new set of issues and obtaining a "perfect" shot for enlarging purposes is not always simple, lack of depth of field and diffraction limits immediately come to mind...

Ciao
Marco

Uh, I forgot: when I scan with a "cheap" flatbed like the 4990 my maximum enlarging factor is 4x/5x, both with 4x5" and 8x10", when I enlarge more the quality of the prints is not up to my standard, and you have to make a very clever and creative use of contrast masking...

Ciao
Marco

Thanks, Eric.
Less enlargements – higher quality of print. But my customer needs big prints for decoration of new building . Then, Epson 4990 is affordable for me. Using Imacon or Tango is too expensive. So, I was thinking that 8x10 film and flatbed scanner could give me the improvement in the quality…..
Dmitri

Getting a good scan of an 8x10 from an inexpensive scanner is going to be hard, at least getting one that is significantly better than 4x5 or 5x7.

Practically speaking, I don't think you could beat your 4x5 outfit unless you go all out and do everything - from best lenses and best scanning - with 8x10 at the highest level. And even then it would be very hard to see the difference in a 40 inch inkjet.

Your "biggest bang for the buck" is probably to invest in learning how to make the best scans and do Photoshop work as good as possible. Second would be buying high quality scans from a good Tango operator.

Once again, I am speaking out of my arse. Marco actually has compared and I am only guessing - go with Marco's practical advice.

Frank,
My poor English does not allow me to translate the <arse<. But Google search helped me and gave me a lot of information about this word! Anyway, the work of scanner operator and using the Photoshop are very important and I have to learn more about digital printing.
Dmitri

Ok, Internet does not work properly for me. I was not ably to post my last massage
Anyway, using Photoshop is important and I will learn more about digital printing.
Arse longa vita brevis.
Dmitri

Bruce Watson has also done a lot of scanner testing, and his rule of thumb is consistent with Marco's experience: he suggests a maximum of 4-5x enlargements with consumer flatbed scanners, 6-7x enlargements with professional flatbeds, and greater than 7x with drum scanners. See this thread: largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503548.html. Thus 8x10 and an Epson scanner would accommodate the print sizes you are contemplating.

Dmitri, I did not mean to seem simplistic by simply stating that smaller enlargement factors mean better prints. With 8x10, you have much less depth-of-field than with roll film, so how much sharper a result you get depends on the subject. All else being equal, 8x10 requires stopping down two more f/stops versus 4x5 (maybe 3 more stops versus roll film?); an 8x10 shot at f/64 may not provide a dramatically sharper result than a smaller format due to diffraction, wind, etc. If your subjects usually require less depth of field than that, then 8x10 will clearly outperform smaller formats. All I'm suggesting is make sure you are comfortable with this before upgrading to 8x10!