ULF: What Increase in Image Quality Over 8x10?

[Willie]

Take a good look at images of the same final size from 6x6 and 6x7 negatives. Scale it up and you will get an approximation of 8x10 to your 12x whatever.

You won't see a lot of difference. Careful technique and better lenses will make more difference using your 8x10 than going to a larger negative - as a general practice.

Pick the format that gives you the image you like and work with it. That will give you quality worth having.

As has been stated, getting ever larger gear makes for many more tradeoffs in the field.

A good resource would be Michael A. Smith at http:www.michaelandpaula.com as he shoots with 8x10, 8x20 and 17x22 film sizes. He contact prints the negatives. For publication he has scans done so he does have real world experience that might help you.

As an academic discussion all this is fine but in the final print go for the size that looks good to you and get the equipment that will give you that size negative to work with.

[Carl J]

Or, in my case, a good scanner.
Building another darkroom isn't in the cards for me, but I could see myself printing large format on something like an Epson 9880 one day.
But the scanner alone takes 8x10 to another level, as I'm no longer futzing with a v750 just to get optimal sharpness; scanning is now easier than ever, and of a very high quality.
So, like you, until I find that 8x10 can't cut it, I'll stick with it. I'd prefer to invest money in upgrading the 8x10 gear and accessories.

Ari, what scanner are you using now (that replaced the v750)?

[Ari]

Hi Carl,
I picked up an Eversmart Pro last month; I'm still a beginner with the software, but the scans I'm getting now are vastly superior to those I was getting from the v750.
And set-up is a breeze; a very well-conceived and executed piece of machinery.

[e]

imo..7x17 is the sweet spot for me..ULF..at 8x10 weight..
But M&P's 18x22 contacts..are really something to behold..
I have a 16x20..but haven't used that beast much..yet..

[Theodoros]

Dear ULF shooters,

I've been contemplating a move to ULF for several years, and I've toyed with getting into various ULF formats: 10x12, 14x17, 8x20, etc.
Given that I finally have a good scanner, and it can scan up to 12"x17", I'm looking into shooting 12x15.
The dimensions are the same as 8x10, which I like.

My question is: is there an appreciable difference in image quality between 8x10 and a ULF format such as 12x15?
Or is it a negligible difference?

Some of you shoot ULF because you like to contact print, others because you like extreme panoramic formats, and carbon printing is also a practical consideration.
Those are valid reasons for adopting a ULF workflow, so maybe you haven't considered IQ as your prime motivation in using ULF. But why would anyone get into ULF if the dimensions are the same as 8x10 (or 4x5)?
I'm just trying to gauge the difference in image quality between 8x10 and larger formats; at what size does the difference in IQ become really noticeable?

My logical brain tells me 8x10 is the optimal format; that the trade-off of carrying larger cameras, film holders and lenses is not worth the small increase in IQ.

What say you, commentariat?
Thanks in advance

What format is the optimum for image quality, depends on many different factors... The scanner you use and how much it can resolve is one (the smaller the size of the film, the more demanding the scanner's job is), the lens resolution with respect to its image circle projection is another...

To make a long story short, I've continued to decrease the image area I shoot over the years vastly, yet by improving the quality of my images for the same size prints... I now shoot up to 6x8 on 120 film, scan it by using a Sinarback 54H MFDB in 16x multishot mode by stitching four 16x multishots (so that I shoot equal area of film as the sensor size) and using mostly the previous series Rodenstock Apo Sironar digital lenses.... Won't go back to larger image areas for anything...

[Ari]

Thanks, e and Theodoros; it just goes to show how personal and subjective is this process.
Regardless of image quality, I like using the 8x10, so I'll be sticking with it. I get a kick out of using it, even if the film holders are empty.
And since I've decided to make it my mainstay, I've upgraded the peripherals (lenses, scanner) to maximize IQ.
Viva the difference!

[John Jarosz]

Either enlarging 8x10 (2x) or contact printing ULF results in wonderful prints. Trouble is that you become much more discriminating. Once you get addicted to the resolution and 'feel' of a print made as described, when you slightly miss best focus or if there's there's the tiniest bit of camera shake you will toss the neg. You will put much more emphasis on getting that 'look'. It's a double edged sword

[Theodoros]

Thanks, e and Theodoros; it just goes to show how personal and subjective is this process.
Regardless of image quality, I like using the 8x10, so I'll be sticking with it. I get a kick out of using it, even if the film holders are empty.
And since I've decided to make it my mainstay, I've upgraded the peripherals (lenses, scanner) to maximize IQ.
Viva the difference!

8x10's biggest advantage (IMO) is that it is easy to get High Quality out of it, even with inferior scanning methods and with modest resolution lenses... However, if one uses the highest possible resolving lens with the format and then scans to the best there is, he may be surprised to find that the scanning exposes the lens handicap with respect to top quality lenses meant for smaller image areas and thus the advantage of the image area size disappears in favor to the higher resolving lens...

Of course, if the scanning method is not one that can resolve the absolute maximum out of smaller image areas, lens resolution handicap seems to be hidden in favor of the larger image area, so one needs to be careful on how he compares things as he can easily be fooled by the scanning method used and come to the wrong conclusions because of that...

If I may suggest, do try all the possible scanning methods suggested to you and decide which is the best one first... before you want to try different lenses for different image areas and let the optimum image area used as to be your last decision...

The scanning method I use (shooting the image area with a multishot MFDB at 1:1 magnification and stitching for the final image) is a real PINA to do... but I do it because I found the results to be far better than using even the better of drum scanners... OTOH, 120 film (by shooting a 6x8 image area) is far easier to develop and handle and far less costly too and as such it compensates for the difficulty of the scanning method... That said, one can get a super high quality scan by shooting the whole image area with only one 16x multishot capture... The result will still be impressive (better than drum scanning IMO) and thus, one may use that as to judge which prints he will repeat the scanning for maximum resolution and which he'll let pass...

[Luis-F-S]

Gee and here I thought the real reason to shoot 8x10 or larger was to enlarge or contact print!

[tgtaylor]

I shoot 8x10 for contact printing. But the same subject shot on a larger sheet of film will display a greater tonal separation than on the smaller sheet - everything else being equal.

Thomas