4x5 vs 8x10

[agregov]

To the OPs questions:

would predominantly be used for still life (with speed lights and strobes) in colour.

If you’re going to be using artificial in studio lighting, digital is probably the way to go. The flexibility of adjusting your ISO on the fly and instant feedback after shots, a traditional film based workflow will have difficulty competing.

Would a 4x5 be sufficient for a 48x65 inch print?

Depends how you scan and print it. If you scan with a high end scanner (drum, Hasselblad) and make digital C or inkjet prints, then yes you can make great prints that big. If you print optically under an enlarger, making prints that big look super is tough (that’s when you’d benefit from an 8x10 neg). But hardly anyone does optical mural printing that large (at least in color). Last Fall, I saw an Anthony Hernandez show at SFMOM. He shoots medium format color transparencies and he had inkjet murals that large that were spectacular. The key is finding a top notch pro printmaker. They’ll have the skills to scan your negs correctly and then print to either digital C or inkjets that large.

BTW, 4x5 and 8x10 are great. Lots of reasons mentioned by others in the thread may lead you to give it a try. But to make great looking murals, I’d stick to medium format (at least initially) and work with a great printer when you want to go big and just make workprints with your own inkjet. For studio shooting, I’d pick up a full frame 35mm digital camera and and stick to a pure digital workflow. It will be far less costly and faster feedback loop than working with film. When you nail your lighting skills, if you really want to move back to film it should be simple.

[kcombublate]

Finished print size alone should not be the prime factor to format size or imagining system (film or digital). Essentially bigger is not better, it is far more complex than that. Subject, viewing distance, print size, print longevity, print color rendition-accuracy, print contrast ratio-tonal range, print viewing conditions-lighting and much more all figure into what could be the ideal imagining system of choice.

If the viewing distance is great enough, a modest sensor digital camera can work surprisingly well. This is due to the human eye's way of putting structures like dots together to create an image within the brain. There was a time not too long ago when 35mm color slides were commonly projected to far greater than 20x on to a screen with very good visual results. Similar applies to cinema images where cine 35mm is projected to very large sizes with very acceptable image quality. This works due to viewing distance.

IMO, the days of widely available high quality film based color prints is mostly gone due to lack of materials and related. Digital printing has mostly taken over as the principal means to produce a color digital print. Given this reality, why not consider using a medium format digital camera with the appropriate lenses to achieve the large color print as needed?

Moving into a sheet film camera from roll films is not as simple as it appears, there is a significant learning curve involved. It is highly recommended to learn and try using a 4x5 first before diving into a larger sheet film format. Expect to burn and waste a LOT of film with a LOT of camera time before getting far up enough on the learning curve to gain the ability to used this imaging system to it's fullest capability.

8x10 makes GOOD contact prints, even larger sheets of film can produce larger GOOD contact prints. But when it comes to enlarging the 8x10 or larger sheet of film, it become a significant technical and physical challenge due to the sheer size if devices involved. The idea of scanning to produce a large size image data file has it's own set of difficulties that should not be taken for granted.


Camera, optics, film, processing choices for 4x5 is GOOD, for 8x10 these same choices are much less coupled with essentially an imaging system that is often four times the size, weight and more.

The often forgotten format is 5x7 which is pretty much the ideal trade-off between the two if one were to keep the entire image making process film base, not scanned.


Image "sharpness" or resolution alone does not make an emotionally expressive print as the emotionally expressive image is far more complex than simply "sharp".



Bernice

Hey, what MF cameras would you recommend...

[Pere Casals]

Hey, what MF cameras would you recommend...

Let me say may opinion.

It depends on your shooting needs/subject, the format, budget.

For wedings, Jose Villa made a fortune with Contax 645 and Fuji 400H film : http://www.josevilla.com/ (ask him why not going digital... )



Sebastiao Slagado shot first half of Genesis with a Pentax 645. (Later he used Canon DSLRs, he said why...)


Refinement is Hasselblad, this is 6x6, a very pro way, you frame wider and later you decide if it is a vertical, horizontal or square shot.


Then with 6x7, the format I like the more, I shot venerable Mamiya RB67, this is a unit focus brick, and Pentax 67II.

For shooting people I love Pentax 67II, the 105 f/2.4 is a dream lens, and it is a very agile system.

Mamiya RZ67 also it is superb gear.

For traveling a Mamiya 7 is a camera with hot wheels.

Regards

[Ari]

Interesting that you suggest sticking with MF. Would a MF really yield fantastic mural-size enlargements? At 48x65", I assume the original poster wants a fine art print, perhaps to be viewed at a gallery or as a statement piece in homes, would it print nicely?

I shoot 35mm and am considering MF or LF because I would like to make larger prints for exhibitions...

I think MF can make some great mural-size prints.
As stated earlier, the key is good technique and drum scans, or high-quality flatbed scans.
The GX680 system has excellent optics, front movements, and can shoot as large as 6cmx8cm.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, you'll need a far more serious tripod if you get into 8x10. That's just the tip of the iceberg. It can decades of experience and tens of thousands of dollars to master this stuff. Do you have any idea of what it costs merely to decently mount and frame color prints this big?

[Bernice Loui]

Film or Digital ?

IMO, Hasselblad and their Zeiss lenses are over rated. They are good, but not THAT good. Having owned or used nearly every lens in their 500CM and 2000FCM/FCW series, except the 105mm UV sonnar, 300mm F2.8 Tele-Superachromat, IMO their best optic offerings 100mm Planar, 135mm planar, 50mm f2.8 Distagon, 40mm FLE, 60mm f4, chrome, 30mm Fish eye, 250mm Superachromat. 38mm SWC. Focal plane shutter in body cameras are IMO better than leaf shutter only bodies. All cost more than they are worth as image making tools and the native square format (yes there are 645 film backs) as there are far better lower cost alternatives depending on imaging needs, like Fujinon GX 680, Fujinon fixed lens rangefinders, Mamiya 7, Rolli and many others.


There are 6x9 - 2x3 field (press cameras) and view cameras like Horseman, Linhof, Arca Swiss 6x9 and others. These can be used with film or digital backs. They can offer movements common to view cameras mixed with roll film or digital back. Know there will be trade offs due to being a more generalized imaging tool.


Modern MF digital is expensive, previous generation MF digital is less expensive but no less effective at image making. Phase One, Hasselblad and others including the new Fuji MF digital. IMO, if one is using digital as their back end work flow, it maybe better to start with a digital file and remain in the digital domain for the entire process.

As for macro. Most of the stuff done is past 1:1, often begins at 2x or more. The best modern image making tool for this IMO, Wild-Leica M420 or the current offering Leica Z6 series. Image of the M420 with a Canon M3 digital. This system solves the problem of lighting, camera stability and support, magnification and more.





Bernice

Hey, what MF cameras would you recommend...

[Drew Wiley]

Oh gosh, folks. He could just use a cellphone camera and have a billboard company print it, Even MF is going to be utter mush that big unless you're viewing the image from a long ways away. That might be fine for some applications, not for others.

[Alan Gales]

I've read on here where Lenny Eiger claimed that he could get just as good a drum scan from a 4x5 as an 8x10. Of course using a traditional enlarger would be a different story.

Lenny is a member here. In the past he has done traditional enlargements for Richard Avedon. He is also well respected for his drum scanning. He knows his stuff and isn't just somebody. Before I invested any money, I would talk to him. Ask him what to expect from medium format and large format 4x5 and 8x10 film scans.

http://eigerstudios.com/contact/

There is nothing like talking to an expert who does it every day!

[Alan Gales]

Do you have any idea of what it costs merely to decently mount and frame color prints this big?

But Drew, my friend. You promised me that you would print, double matte and frame my color 8x10's that size for a buck 99!

Just watch. Drew will ignore me like he always does.

[Jim Andrada]

You can get really excellent results with a Mamiya RB67 or RZ67. I use an RB67 with a 140mm Mamiya Macro lens and a set of extension tubes. I also often shoot multiple photos and use image stacking in Photoshop. I have cameras for just about every film size from 8 x 11mm up to 8 x 10" and if I were to do Macro work in LF it would probably be with a Linhof Technika and a roll film adapter like the Sinar Vario which has incredibly good film flatness and can produce images from 6 x 4.5mm up to 6 x 12mm (nominal size of course.) And for larger objects the option to use 4 x 5 is there. The camera is very stable. For film, Ektar 100 is hard to beat.

Of course it all depends on what you're shooting. If you have an object half an inch on a side and you want a 2X photo, anything larger than roll film would just be a waste of film since the 2x image would be smaller than the film size. As others have said using really large cameras for macro work will prove to be a logistics challenge of the first order.

The Fuji GX680 that Ari suggested is also an outstanding camera - maybe one day I can convince myself that I need one!!!