The advantage apply to 8x10 as well, but when applied to 4x5, they are sufficient to produce the prints at the size envisioned by him, while before 4x5 was not sufficient.
Linda Butler expressed this same story to me when I asked her why she had used 8x10 for her work on Shaker villages but had used 4x5 (and medium format) for her work from Japan and Italy - that the improvement in film and optics had made 4x5 sufficient for work where before she felt 8x10 was required.
I have shot some 8x10, but mostly 4x5 with a view camera to enlarge. The times I used the 8x10 the final outcome is always a contact print, which is obviously more detail rich than any enlargement that I have made. I probably would shoot more 8x10 if my camera was a smaller and less cumbersome (a cambo monorail).
It would seem to me that if your workflow is scanning to a 100mb file and printing from a computer than I don't see how 8x10 would be a huge step up, unless of course you just get a kick out of the process of working with a large camera and seeing the image on the larger groundglass. All three cameras you use seem to be tools that can be used for different ends and different kinds of images. Even though the print size is smaller, an 8x10 contact can be hugely powerful because of the amount of detail and information contained in the negative.
"If it's the same brand of film, wouldn't it be the same emulsion on both the 4x5 and 8x10?"
Not necessarily. The boxes have different emulsion numbers to let you know the film has been cut from a different master roll. Black and white film emulsion is also a recipe (I assume color is also, but don’t know) and the most minute difference will produce a different result. Also used to be that the emulsion was "fermented," so to speak, before coating thus allowing nature to work her magic.
Another thought on the comparisons that began this thread, because of the physical difference in the size of an 8x10 bellows compared to a 4x5 and the difference in optics used, the same scene shot with different equipment will likely produce a different exposure. You may want to try taping 4x5 film to an 8x10 holder, using the same lens as on the 8x10 version and moving the tripod to minimize variations. Again: different is not the same.
Check those emulsion numbers on the end of the box, Calamity Jane.
Mike
“You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?”
Mark,
For the additional testing, why don't you get a 300-400 Mb scan of the 8X10 and then compare it to the 100Mb scan of the 4X5.
It seems that was the main concern with the digital workflow you presented.
Of course, please come back with any results.
Scott,
A 1200 dpi scan would be sufficient to yield 600 dpi on a 16x20 and weigh in around 345MB. I agree, 100MB is just too light.
A 100 meg scan of a color image is not getting the most out of the 4x5, much less the 8x10. If it is an 8 bit file, you are scanning at about 1400 DPI, if I calculate correctly, for the 4x5. If it is 16 bit, for better dynamic range, then it is more like 1000 DPI. That does not begin to get the data out of the 4x5. You also do not mention sharpening, which is a necessary part of the digital workflow - since sharpening will affect the 8x10 scans differently from the 4x5 scans, you cannot just skip sharpening and get a valid comparison.
I would like to see this done with a 400 meg scan of both - I suspect you would not see any difference in the prints between the two 400 meg scans, but would see a difference compared to the 100 meg scans.
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
Calamity Jane > WOAH NELLIE!
If it's the same brand of film, wouldn't it be the same emulsion on both the 4x5 and 8x10???
Why in blazes would it look different under a loupe??
If both shots used the EXACT same fl lens, then you would be 100% correct. However, the poster used 2x the fl on the 810 shot, therefore the 810 shot, of the same crop, would have 2x the resolution of the 4x5 shot. When comparing formats, its always assumed you have the same composure which means you have 2x the magnification of any given part of the scene.
For a 16x20 digital print, I can't see how moving from 4x5 to 8x10 is going to gain you anything other than possible a hernia from carrying the camera. If you were printing large, you'd find the difference, but I have no idea how large as I have no interest in printing large.
8x10 gains you 4x the resolution as 4x5 if you handle the focus and movements properly and use equivalent glass. Scanning them both to the same final resolution means that you're throwing away detail in the 8x10. If you want a fair test of the film, then either enlarge them to the same size in a darkroom or scan them at the same resolution and look at the resulting files. But making a 16x20 inkjet print probably won't gain you anything worth worrying about...it's just not that much of an enlargement for a scan from a 4x5 color slide.
An 8x10 contact print of a B&W negative looks, to my eye, better than an 8x10 enlargement from 4x5. Others have said that they see no difference between the two, and I'm sure that's true, but in my work I definately see the advantage to taking the extra optical step out of the process (even though I use top-end enlarging lenses, have my enlarger perfectly aligned, and have done everything that I can to get the best enlargements that I can.)
If you measure the size of your prints in feet or perhaps yards, then you'll see a difference between 8x10 and 4x5 assuming that you use equal quality equipment for both and treat them both the same. Whether or not the difference you see matters to you is another thing entirely, and one that's definately a personal choice. If the 4x5 works for what you want to do, then use it and save yourself some trouble and some money. I can't imagine that an inkjet print at 16x20 is going to stress a 4x5 negative that much. But again, it's a personal choice.
Speaking of personal choices: Jorge, I absolutely love that image. It's why I shoot film...my heart and my eyes always love the look of a well made grainy image...and that one is gorgeous. (A note to those of you who shoot digital: Good for you. But it's not for me, and no amount of argument about what's "better" is going to change my opinion on what I find attractive. I've seen the smooth, grainless skies, and they all look awful to me. But it's a matter of taste, not of fact. Arguing taste is like teaching a pig to sing: It wastes your time and it annoys the pig. So if you love grainless skies, shoot what makes you happy. If you love grain, shoot what gives you that look. Saying that grain "breaks down tonality" is an argument based in taste and opinion, not in fact. The tonalities in Jorge's image are fabulous to those of us who enjoy that kind of image, but will always look bad to those who like grainlessness. Do what makes you happy.)
Matthew.... yes, there is always a resolution vs. grain issue with all film. This is often not discussed as most LF shooters use low speed film. In the case with higher speed film, the grain quite often becomes the limiting factor in a scan, assuming you find it objectionable. But since color film resolves very little to begin with, maybe with the exception of Velvia, if one uses lower speed 100 ISO or lower, most often grain is not the limiting factor. Although there is many issues with film, when enlarged appear as grain, mainly bubbles within the emulstion. Fuji had this problem for many years, and I still wonder if they ever corrected it.... but anyway, just how deep does the scan need to be to grab all the detail? This is dependent on MANY factors....
MTF of the film (chrome much higher then neg film)
MTF of the lens
fstop of lens (diffraction effects)
Near / far of subjects (defocus effects)
Fiilm flatness
AT the point of exact focus, here is the resolvability of 3 films with decent contrast ratios.....
B&W neg- 120 lp/mm
Color Chrome - 60 lp/mm
Color neg. - 40 lp/mm
Quite a range, huh? Backtracking to ppi,
B&W = 120 x 25.4 x 2 = 6070 dpi x 1.5 overscan factor = 9,100 dpi
Color Chrome = 4500 dpi
color neg film = 3000 dpi.
As you can see, the scan there is quite a huge range of scanning dpi required, based on what you are starting with. The overscan factor is required to "grab" the actual detail, it is dependent on the subject matter to some extent and is more critical with XY scanners vs. drum scanners, but applies to both. Now, extreme LF example, shot at f45.... so diffraction effects...
1500/45 = 33 lp/mm (max. theoretical resolution, at point of exact focus)
Considering some defocus factor for DOF, you can scan at 20 lp/mm and grab 90% of all the rez in the film.... .so....
20 lp/mm = 1500 dpi. (w/1.5 overscan factor)
Quite the range, huh..... so, scanning at arbitrary ppi is sensless.... one should always start with the variables of the film and work backwards to the scan ppi required. The numbers above only demonstrate the scan ppi to record ALL the detail potential of the film.... But this is not always required, so next you must consider the print size and the resolvablity of the printing process, in such cases where print size is not being pushed, you can scan at even lower ppi then above....
The overscan factor is a big variable.... in very high end drum scanners, this value can be as low as 1.2x, whereas in lower end flatbeds can be as high as 2.5x. This is why shooting 810 film with a lower end flatbed scanner can produce amazing results if the print sizes are not too big.... the key being, pay a little more for film and processing, and save a bundle on scanning hardware / software.
Dave....
> 8x10 gains you 4x the resolution as 4x5 if you handle the focus and movements properly and use equivalent glass.
810 has 4x the area, but only 2x the resolution.
> Scanning them both to the same final resolution means that you're throwing away detail in the 8x10.
I think what you meant is..... scanning them at lower then optimum resolution, means you're throwing away detail in the 8x10. Meaning if they were both scanned at say 3000 dpi, (same final resolution) then 810 would surely demonstrate its better resolution.
> An 8x10 contact print of a B&W negative looks, to my eye, better than an 8x10 enlargement from 4x5. Others have said that they see no difference between the two, and I'm sure that's true, but in my work I definately see the advantage to taking the extra optical step out of the process (even though I use top-end enlarging lenses, have my enlarger perfectly aligned, and have done everything that I can to get the best enlargements that I can.)
There is two variables here, outside of the basic resolvability of the two formats, which I described in my last post. But assuming they are both equal...then...
the resolvability of the printing process is a key consideration....if the paper can't hold it, you can't see it, even if the extra rez existed in the film.
If the paper can hold it, and it exceeds your eyes ability to resolve, then you can't see it. This is why you mention, some people see no difference, whereas other do. Human vision, un aided, can range from 1 lp/mm to as high as 6 lp/mm. I used to see at 5 lp/mm but in the past 5 years my eyes have degraded to 2 - 3 lp/mm, which is considered average.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks