Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Why scan 8x10 at all?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Why scan 8x10 at all?

    CXC made a point in the 8x10 scanning thread - why scan 8x10 at all? It is total overkill for almost any form of digital reproduction, other than contact printing, or traditional enlargements. Same goes for other ULF sizes (unless you are that guy trying to make the world's largest scan, and get publicity in the NY Times...)

    I think the last commercial 8x10 job I did was for a wrapper that went around a CorningWare package - it was 4/c 24 inches x 96 inches, one shot, of a panoramic still life of plates and casseroles. That was in the mid-1990s. It became too expensive to do, and most packaging is now one or two color screened images printed directly on the cardboard.

    I also did a 30x40 poster with 8x10 in the pre-digital era (it was drum-scanned, but this was before Photoshop - early 1990s). I really doubt that you could see the difference between it and a 4x5 version, as similar posters done with 4x5 look just as detailed.

    I do see a difference between 4x5 and 8x10 in traditional C-prints and Ilfochromes, but when you can scan a 4x5 to 300mb, why would you want an even bigger file?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    444

    Why scan 8x10 at all?

    Some of us can only afford one format so if I were shooting exclusively 8X10, ( hey, It could happen) and printing B&W traditionally or contact printing, I might occasionally feel like doing some colour work. For colour digital seems the way to go, so scanning 8X10 transparencies would not be unreasonable. I wouldn't get better results than a 4X5 but I wouldn't have a 4X5 either. Does that argument make any sense Frank?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,506

    Why scan 8x10 at all?

    I routinely scan negatives in sizes from 5X7" to 7X17" and even 12X20" for printing with alternative processes such as carbon, kallitype and palladium. There are several reasons I sometimes chose to scan and print with a digital negative rather than directly with the in-camera negative, including: 1) printing at a size, either smaller or larger, than the in-camera negative, 2) doing all of the tonal corrections neeced in Photoshop so none are necessary in printing, and 3) correcting for minor flaws in the original negative, such as dust spots in cloud areas, etc. And finally , negatives that are slightly over-exposed take a long time to print with UV sensitive processes. Digital negatives made from scans always print at about the same time and contrast so one can develolp a better work flow than when printing with in-camera negatives that tend to vary a lot in density and contrast.
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

  4. #4
    Whatever David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    4,658

    Why scan 8x10 at all?

    I can see the attraction for those who want the look of classic lenses and selective focus in 8x10". A 14.5" Verito on 8x10" just looks different from a 7.5" Verito on 4x5", for instance.

  5. #5
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,362

    Why scan 8x10 at all?

    You scan film, from Minox to ULF, because it's part of the workflow to get you to the final print. For example, if I needed a 1.5x1.88 m print from an 8x10 negative, I'd scan it and get it printed on an inkjet printer.

    Otherwise, what Sandy says.

    Bruce Watson

  6. #6
    Moderator Ralph Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Posts
    5,034

    Why scan 8x10 at all?

    At the tech magazine I used to work for, we used 8x10 for the cover shots of the high-end computer gear we were reviewing each month. Even when "dumbed down" to 266 DPI output in the scanning, the 8x10 original provided richly-detailed images which became one of the magazine's hallmarks. Our covers looked better than everyone else's, and the gear took on a certain sexiness as a result. Additionally, 8x10 was just easier to work with at the cover shoot and during production, as we could actually see everything. No surprises at press time due to having missed something with the loupe on a 4x5.

    Personally, I now use 8x10 B&W to make contact prints, but don't have an 8x10 enlarger. So, I often scan the 8x10 negs on my old Epson Expression 800 Pro (800 DPI max optical resolution) to make small digital enlargements with an Epson 2200, taking advantage of the ease of digital retouching of dust spots and such. If I wanted to make large digital prints, I'd likely have individual negs drum scanned by a service. But, I haven't actually done that yet, and would have to upgrade my computer to handle the larger scan files.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Why scan 8x10 at all?

    I thought that the real reason why commerical work used to be done on larger formats was so that lazy or half-blind art directors could edit the film easier, and sloppy people in the pre-press room had a huge margin of error to cover their mistakes. The classic example is the typical 4x5 catalog shot that needed to be REDUCED for reproduction.

    So, is anyone scanning 8x10 film to make really super huge digital prints that are clearly better than 4x5?

    The root question is, will a 200mb 4x5 scan equal (the same file size) 200mb 8x10 scan? Simply because you scan something to be a 1GB plus file, does that mean that you'd really want to deal with working on it or printing it?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    444

    Why scan 8x10 at all?

    Frank, according to WCI a 200mb 8X10 scan will produce a better image than a 200mb 4X5 scan.


    http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/images/formatcompare.jpg

  9. #9

    Why scan 8x10 at all?

    I've been using 8X10 format for 35+ years, so I have many negatives filed away. Over time I have also accumulated a fair sized collection of 5x7 and 8x10 glass negatives, the c. 100 year old work of other photographers who died many years ago.

    The images were produced looong before digital was an option. I cannot go back and reproduce the images. If I want digital copies (for the usual reasons), I suppose I could photograph the old negatives and plates with 4x5, but scanning the originals seems to be simpler.

  10. #10
    tim atherton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1998
    Posts
    3,697

    Why scan 8x10 at all?

    "So, is anyone scanning 8x10 film to make really super huge digital prints that are clearly better than 4x5? "

    Chris Jordan? Maybe Thomas Struth? Gursky uses 5x7, which shows in the prints sometimes from the dozen or so I've seen. Burtynsky (I think he's basically dropped 8x10 because it's just such a pain to travel witht hese days)

    "I do see a difference between 4x5 and 8x10 in traditional C-prints and Ilfochromes, but when you can scan a 4x5 to 300mb, why would you want an even bigger file? "

    In my case, such bigger file sizes when occasionally needed, to make prints 60" or 70" wide printed @ 300dpi - four or five such prints scheduled for this spring
    You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn

    www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog

Similar Threads

  1. Will Epson 4990 Scan 8X10?
    By Brian Vuillemenot in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 25-Feb-2006, 09:02
  2. My 2nd exposure / my first scan
    By Ellen Stoune Duralia in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 18-Mar-2005, 19:33
  3. CannoScan 9900F... Preview Scan vs Final Scan
    By Scott Rosenberg in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 30-Oct-2004, 04:19
  4. Scan a 4x5 Transparency?
    By Matthew Kim in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28-Aug-2001, 01:27
  5. How to scan 4x5?
    By Thomas A. Castelberg in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 4-May-2000, 23:02

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •