Format for 60x75 inch Gallery Prints - 4x5 or 8x10?
This might seem like a dumb question, but please bear with me.
I use MF digital usually, but want to get into LF for my fine art work as I am tired of stitching.
Next week, I plan to buy a 4x5 or 8x10 Arca Swiss F-Metric Compact (or similar).
I shoot primarily 5-second (plus) exposures of landscapes and interiors (devoid of people) in color. My prints need to be ~60x75 inches (strict requirement). In terms of workflow, I drum scan, modify in PS and print digitally.
My questions:
1) What is the absolute best ~150mm (or comparative 8x10 normal lens) lens I can buy for each camera?
2) If I use a top Rodenstock or Scheider normal lens, will I be able to achieve a high quality 60x75 inch print, with solid tonality and detail, from the 4x5 (which I am leaning towards this due to size considerations)?
3) Assuming I use excellent technical skills in either format, what will I gain by shooting 8x10? In other words, will a 60x75 inch print (landscape) from an 8x10 look THAT much better or different and how so?
I understand well how 8x10 film stores more data, but I'm particularly curious whether prints at the above size will look that much different if I use the best lens I can.
Thank you in advance for your input.
PS. I want to stay away from 5x7 due to my aspect ratio preferences.
Re: Advice Needed: 4x5 or 8x10
Note that a 150mm lens on 4x5 will be much less wide than a 150mm on 8x10. You probably want a 300mm lens on 8x10 to keep the same angle of view.
If you're not experienced with large format, 4x5 will be far easier to get used to. It's also a lot more portable. Film is also much more available, with many more emulsion options. Lenses are easier to find.
"High quality" means different things to different people. I can get what I believe are quality 11x14s out of 35mm, if I use a tripod and slower film. That implies I could get approximately 44x56 prints out of 4x5. 5x7 would let you get about 55x70 which is very close to your requirement. Then again, with a print that size your viewing distance might be much more comfortable than I am thinking of with a 35mm to 11x14 print.
Re: Best Format for Large Gallery Prints - 4x5 or 8x10?
This is all relative. Do you own a drum scanner or paying someone else? (8X10 drum scans are a lot more expensive than 4x5's). What is your intended output - inkjet or Lightjet? (inkjet can't resolve as much detail). How closely do you expect
people to view your prints? And it's not like you can just pick up a large format
camera and instantly know what you are doing. In general, 4x5 is a easier and
certainly less expensive to learn, but if you want the most hypothetical detail, 8x10
is the way to go, PROVIDED you don't encounter major depth-of-field issues. The
same angle of view with a 4x5 exposure at f/32 will require f/64 with an 8x10,
hence a four times longer exposure PLUS reciprocity correction with most films.
Either way, anything printed digitally this big is going to have some real compromises.
Re: Format for 60x75 inch Gallery Prints - 4x5 or 8x10?
Some basic's : lenses 35mm to 4x5 = factor 3, 35mm to 8x10 = factor 6
So, a standard 50mm on 35mm equals 150mm on 4x5 and a 300mm on 8x10.
Price-wise: 8x10 is a lot more expensive than 4x5: gear, lenses, film.
At 4x5 you are looking at a 15x enlargement, at 8x10 a 7.5 enlargment.
YES you will see a diference, up close, but I doubt at viewing distance if you use the finest grain film posible.
Think of Velvia 50 ASA for color.
And why should grain be an obstacle ?
Don"t forget that you will be dependable of the quality of your lab too, whether it is with 4x5 or 8x10.
I have both formats and had 30x36 prints of 4x5 at a regular basis and loved it, my customers, architects, too.
I would choose 4x5, esp if you are a newbe to LF and see if you like it at all.
4x5 is heavy, 8x10 is a lot more heavy: the camera, the lenses, the filmholders, the tripod and so on.
As far as lens quality: the Schneiders and the Rodenstocks have the same quality and there are very good Nikons and Fuji's aswell.
Peter
Re: Format for 60x75 inch Gallery Prints - 4x5 or 8x10?
Drew,
Thank you for your response. My answers to your questions/comments:
- I have access to a friend's drum scanner where 8x10 or 4x5 will cost the same.
- Lightjet, as most fine art photographers use these days for extra large prints.
- Longer exposures are no problem with my subject matter.
- I can address reciprocity correction issues in PS.
How would you print this large?
Re: Format for 60x75 inch Gallery Prints - 4x5 or 8x10?
Looks like I probably need 8x10.
Thanks everyone.
Re: Format for 60x75 inch Gallery Prints - 4x5 or 8x10?
Purchase the 4X5 film camera. Use a Schneider 150 Super Symmar-HM lens. Drum scan the color film. Edit in Photoshop. Print digitally with either a Lightjet or a wide frame inkjet printer.
You should have no trouble obtaining beautiful 60X75 inch prints, that are sharp and grain free, with a combination of those elements.
Whether large color prints that are made from scanned film capture are superior to prints that are made from high-end digital capture is a matter of personal preference.
Re: Best Format for Large Gallery Prints - 4x5 or 8x10?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
This is all relative. Do you own a drum scanner or paying someone else? (8X10 drum scans are a lot more expensive than 4x5's). What is your intended output - inkjet or Lightjet? (inkjet can't resolve as much detail).
Actually, in my experience, labs charge by file size rather than capture medium, and inkjet prints are sharper than lightjets.
To answer the original question, of course 8x10 would be better, but I think 4x5 would be enough. For a print that large, a 15x enlargement is going to be acceptable to most.
Re: Format for 60x75 inch Gallery Prints - 4x5 or 8x10?
Well, 8x10 is certainly rewarding. And Lightjet will squeeze the detail out fairly well.
I'm sure you'll pick a good lens. But the weak link is the filmholder. If you point the
camera down, the sheet will bow more than with a 4x5, so will not be in consistent
focus, at least for really big enlargements. I personally use adhesive filmholders
which solve this problem. You can get them from Sinar or potentially make them
yourself. Since I am a darkroom printer, you probably understand your workflow
past the film exposure stage much better than I would. In this day and age, Lightjet
will probably be the most direct way to achieve high detail. True optical prints can
be distinctly sharper, but the skill set required to do this is getting rare these days.
I only print my own shots, so don't have to deal with either compromises or tight
delivery schedules. 8X10 can also be a lot of fun, but the expense of it will certainly
self-regulate any waste of film!
Re: Format for 60x75 inch Gallery Prints - 4x5 or 8x10?
QT- just curious, but where on earth are you obtaining inkjets sharper than Lightjet
from large format files? (or alternately, from Chromira, which is admittedly a bit
"grainy" even if sharper still). But at a 15x enlargement, how can ANYTHING be
considered sharp?? After all, I'm one of those folks who completely rejects the
"normal viewing distance" doctrine. A thirty-foot wide billboard made from 35mm film looks sharp from a "normal viewing distance" of 75 yards!