please advise.. 4x5 or 8x10 for big prints on handmade paper?

[Pere Casals]

Years ago I tried this. All I ended up with were greasy pictures I couldn't sell.... So now I put all my photos behind glass -- but the cost of Windex is killing me!

There is a good glass for that, https://tru-vue.com/ , the anti reflective version it is impressive... but perhaps it is cheaper printing it again than preserving it with museum glass

[Drew Wiley]

I like my LF prints to function as an effective composition when taken as a whole, but also to yield interesting fine details upon closer inspection as the years go by. In this respect, I generally don't like to print larger than 4X, even with the best lenses. Small camera work is a different subject.

[consummate_fritterer]

I must admit, this conversation is a bit depressing to me. I sold my 8x10 gear to raise funds and because the monorail I had was too heavy and cumbersome for me to operate with any safety. I want to make huge prints too, though this is increasingly less likely to happen, and was thinking 4x5 would be good enough to make 10-20x prints with extreme detail even at nose-rubbing distance. I could probably afford a lightweight, easy-to-use 8x10 with 3-4 good lenses if I sold everything else I have in 4x5. Finding a good 8x10 enlarger that I can afford and setting it up... highly unlikely.

[xkaes]

I've made lots of 20X+ prints from 4x5 with great detail -- in my opinion -- but then I usually don't examine my prints from two inches away with a magnifying glass. Mea Culpa.

[Pere Casals]

I must admit, this conversation is a bit depressing to me. I sold my 8x10 gear to raise funds and because the monorail I had was too heavy and cumbersome for me to operate with any safety. I want to make huge prints too, though this is increasingly less likely to happen, and was thinking 4x5 would be good enough to make 10-20x prints with extreme detail even at nose-rubbing distance. I could probably afford a lightweight, easy-to-use 8x10 with 3-4 good lenses if I sold everything else I have in 4x5. Finding a good 8x10 enlarger that I can afford and setting it up... highly unlikely.

I like my LF prints to function as an effective composition when taken as a whole, but also to yield interesting fine details upon closer inspection as the years go by. In this respect, I generally don't like to print larger than 4X, even with the best lenses. Small camera work is a different subject.

If using a very sharp BW film and a very sharp lens, and shot is very good (no shake, perfect focus, best aperture) you can make perfect 70" prints from 4x5.

Joe Cornish measured 461 MPix dfrom a 4x5 Delta 100 sheet, this is 19200 optical pixels, se table here: https://www.onla19200ndscape.co.uk/2...ra-comparison/

8x10 resolves slightly more in that test, 627Mpix (optical) . But don't think you are to feel a difference from 461 to 627 Mpix, a real difference is detected when you have x2 the amount of "optical pixels" or x1.4 more total Line Pairs in a row.


A 4x5 lens (normally) resolves more Lp/mm than an equivalent lens covering 8x10, at the end an 8x10 sheet resolves more than 4x5, but this is not proportional to surface.


In the color case film resolving power is a limitating factor for 4x5 max enlargement, but with BW it is another war, CMS 20 (a difficult film to shot...) resolves 800Lp/mm.


What I mean is that (IMHO) most of the times limitation comes more from photographer's technique than from format size.

[Drew Wiley]

Believe me (or not). All this number crunching means very little unless you've optimized your technique step by step to control all the variables. For example, a 4x5 enlargement might easily be more detailed than an 8X10 one if you allowed your film to sag in a conventional holder, or if you don't understand that image plane management and depth of field is quite a different game in 8X10 than 4x5. There is indeed a much bigger payoff with 8X10 in terms of print quality once you master it. But at some point you have to weigh the logistical pros and cons. I shoot both formats.