4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

[Jim collum]

hanging in our home, chosen by my wife are

www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_039.jpg

www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_033.jpg

www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_031.jpg

www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_036.jpg

www.jcollum.com/urban/images/collum_035.jpg

these images are platinum with pigment color.

all of these have sold to households, as well as to law offices for office decoration (represented by Susan Spiritus Gallery ... www.susanspiritusgallery.com/main.htm and choose James Collum

again, I stand by my words of that being a very narrow view of 'fine art'.. and i have put my money where my mouth is

jim

[Jim collum]

... and back on topic,

100Mb is too small a scan to demonstrate the difference in the formats.

If you're not certain there is a difference, then walk into a gallery and look at 20x24" prints hanging on the wall. It doesn't take much of an eye to pick out the 35mm, medium format, 4x5 and 8x10 produced images. It's there in the detail, lack of grain, and tonal quality.

There was a recent exhibit Burtensky's work at Stanford in California. Most images are 30x40, 40x50 or 50x60. It was obvious walking thru and looking at them (from about 6 feet away), which were 4x5 and which were 8x10 originals.

jim

[John_4185]

Vancamper's clarification of what is Fine Art has settled the matter for me. I shall avoid it for the disease it is.

[RJ Hicks]

Art need not be pretty or beautiful, sometimes its there to make you think.

[luis prado]

hello to all:
i used to do photographs with 4x5 and a year or so i moved to 8x10 . I only do negative colour film influeded by Misrach , Meyerowitz, Shore and Joel Sternfeld. can sound rare and strange but i have never had a enlarged negative from my 8x10 negatives , waiting to have a coherent work and enlarge to 20x24 and bigger, but in this interesting forum it sounds like if 4x5 is enought and 8x10 is a waste of time , effort and money, i would like to hear an expert or an user defined the advantages of 8x10, because i think there are . sorry to all for my bad spelling.

[bglick]

> B&W neg- 120 lp/mm Color Chrome - 60 lp/mm, Color neg. - 40 lp/mm
Quite a range, huh?"

> Bill, I am not sure that the differences between film types (of the same speed) are this large.
Here are some example figures from Fuji datasheets for low-contrast test charts, 1.6:1. (I think the low-contrast measurements are more representative of real-world subjects than 1000:1 test charts.)
Across 100: 60 lines/mm, Provia 100F: 60 lines/mm, Fujicolor Pro 160S: 63 lines/mm. (Fuji must mean line pairs per mm.)



Michael..... As for B&W film, check out Chris Perez test results, using B&W with Mamiya 7 camera system he acheived 120 lp/mm, so have others. Color chrome film, we agree upon, and color negative film, I have tested and well as many others, and 1/3 less sharpness is very common. Granted, for B&W, it was shot using test charts which are high contrast.....anyway, the only point I was trying to demonstrate is the huge range of "on film" resolution that one must deal with, when considering "on print" resolution, and scanning resolution needs.... a 300% swing is quite large.

Also, one of the issues I failed to mention earlier when comparing 4x5 and 8x10... something which I recently came to grips with as another good 45/810 strategy, specially for infinity or low DOF shots, is the ability to switch from chrome film to negative film, as you can gain much more image exposure lattitude with neg film... while not paying much of a penalty for grain (using 810 color neg) since you use 1/2 less enlargement factor...of course, a gain in resolution is quite often negated. But for scenes that have a need for greater exposure lattitude, and large print requirements, often color neg on 810 is the perfect fit.

[bglick]

> but in this interesting forum it sounds like if 4x5 is enought and 8x10 is a waste of time ,

Quite the opposite..... I think this discussion has demonstrated "in what situations" 8x10 earns its full merits. At the same time, it has become more clear where 4x5 is quite often sufficient.... A dump truck is not always better then a race car....horses for courses!

[Mark_5974]

Okay, it seems the consensus is that 100Mb is "too light." I can understand the theory and I will get the shots re-scanned. So for a 16"x20" print size output what should the dpi be for the 8x10 and the 4x5, or should they both be the same? Should they also scanned at 16bit instead of 8bit?

[bglick]

Mark, if you are paying for scans, then to save a few bucks for the experiment, if the composure is the same on both formats, then take a small crop of the same area for each and do a deep scan, say 45 lp/mm (3000 ppi) at the point of exact focus (to assure you see the differences)..... then view the two crops on the monitor or print em.... remember, the equal size crop of the 810 will have 4x the area as the same on the 45, as that is how 810 gains its sharpness, i.e. no more sharpness per say, just more area..... make sense?

[Mark_5974]

I'm not paying for the scans so they can be enormous if need be. I just want to compare 2 prints at their full size. So 16x20" at 3000 dpi? That's an 8G file. Should be a doddle to work with...