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.
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.
a most interesting thread indeed, though not entirely free from the sophomoric mud slinging that has become a real deterrent from this forum of late.
it would seem to me that mark's DOE is sound, as long as the prints he made mirrors the process he would employ when making any other print. this will only tell him, however, the relative gains in the larger format for his particular workflow, and nothing at all of the potential overall gain in image quality made possible with larger film.
the 8x10 original has more detail, as is evidence by his statement "On the light box the 8x10 looked a country mile better, particularly through a loupe"
so, the question i would like to see answered by some of the more expert folks on the forum, is how to make a print from the 8x10 original that also looks a country mile better than that of a 4x5 original.
---Scott
www.srosenberg.com
> so, the question i would like to see answered by some of the more expert folks on the forum, is how to make a print from the 8x10 original that also looks a country mile better than that of a 4x5 original.
Scott, the difference can be seen in one or two ways..... first, scan them at max. dpi, or take chromes to darkroom.... make prints 50" + and the differences will be obvious. Or, use a printing method that can hold very high resolution, say 5 - 6 lp/mm, and the differences will become evident at much smaller print sizes. If your not printing BIG or making contact prints, 810 offers NO benefits over 45, but certainly has many drawbacks. You pay a heavy price, for the ability to print extra big...i.e. price paid = size, weight, cost of gear, cost of film/processing/scanning, 2 stops shutter speed, lack of movements due often to limited image circles, film flatness, more vulnerable to wind, etc.
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.
Agreed, but I see this as a persona choice more than proof that 4x5 either scanned or traditionally printed is better than 8x10 or "just as good"....no?
When I was doing some testing, I compared an 8x10 contact print with an 8x10 inkjet print of a scan. From 4 feet or so there was no discernible difference in sharpness, and tones and character were just fine for both.
But when you come in, especially with a loupe, you can see raster marks in the inkjet print. I decided to do all my prints the wet way just for this extra sharpness, which isn't seen at normal viewing distance.
I think the strength of using 8x10 is the contact print, and if you enlarge at all the quality goes down. Contrast as well as sharpness. I thnk it has something to do with the directness of the light rays vs. bent light rays. Yes we pay a price for that, but it's that no-compromise attitude that distinguishes large format photographers.
Doing it on the computer may mean there's no advantage to 8x10, but that would be true if you were using a small digital sensor rather than film. Call me crazy, but I think the larger lenses are sharper, too.
Wow, thanks for your responses.
I'll try and respond to a few questions marks about my test.
I own all the camera equipment so there's absolutely no favouring for any of the formats.
I conducted the test because the prints I was getting back from my 8x10 shoots weren't looking as amazing as I hoped. I do, like the rest of you have obsessive standards in quality.
The original scans (of each format) yielded an image size of around 22"x18" wide at 300dpi (8 bit). One may argue that it should be at 600 dpi but I have also tested this and found that there was the most minute fraction of difference in quality which isn't translated to a more detailed looking print. Michael Reichmann also talks about this somewhere on his site.
The files were both 103MB in size. This doesn't mean that they'll look the same because they're the same file size?? - they were produced from two different sources. If I had thrown in a 35mm chrome and scanned it to the same size it would look vastly different to the 4x5 and 8x10 files. I would have thought the 8x10 would have produced a more detailed file, it didn't. Even when viewed on the monitor at 100% the difference between the 2 is negligible.
Remember the finishing line is a 16x20 print, not a chrome on the light box being viewed through a loupe. I'm sure there would be a more noticeable difference if the print was around 6' wide but unfortunately people viewing my portfolio don't have 6' of desk space, nor does the House of Portfolios make a 6' wide portfolio book.
This urban scene has minute detail to it. This is where large format shines. It can resolve detail so much better than digital (P25 included, I have tested this as well - that one saved me £20,000!). The 1Ds Mk II print just doesn't yield the detail that the LF prints do. If I was just interested in photographing skies for instance then I think there would be no noticeable difference between an 8x10 and 1Ds Mk II print.
I think I have saved myself a whole lot of trouble and money by doing this test. I still don't quite believe it myself so before the 8x10 gets ebay'd I'm going to do a few more tests. I would love someone to disprove me with a similar test of his or her own.
Dave Luttmann All I'm saying Dan is that people notice grain and accutance before they notice the slightly less detail at 16x20. The complete lack of grain improves tonality
Certain subjects are susceptible to higher acutance when the grain is just below an objectionable level - that is, not quite apparent. The same susceptible subject without any grain will look softer.
Jorge's example doesn't work because the grain is mushy, probably due to the scanner (if from a negative) or unfortunate enlargement technique.
Grain is my friend.
"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."
I think that pretty much sums it up: sufficient. If that’s all you need, so be it. I have no interest in sufficient; my experience, interest, goals and tastes are in line with Jorge on this.
Again as QT hinted, if you limit the scan output, you are wasting the additional content from the original 8x10. It’s the functional equivalent of an enlargement from 4x5 to 8x10 and printing an 8x10 to 8x10 through an enlarger. (Its easier in reality for people to compare a 4x5 same size enlargement to a 4x5 contact print, if you call that a comparison. Try it.) You miss the benefit of the additional information in the larger negative.
Finally, as someone else once said: different is not the same. How can you get the same results from different equipment? You get different results from different equipment. The only standardization here is the final size. That brings me back to QT's statement: … sufficient to produce the prints at the size envisioned by him.
mike
“You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?”
JJ,
I like grain as well....for certain subjects....and only when I want it. I agree. The grain is mushy. Sharp grain would have changed little though. The point I made on tonality was simply to state the obvious. There are many reasons people move from smaller film sizes to large format. These would include movements, better resolution, more accurate color, better tonality and lack of grain. For me, it was not so much the higher resolution I was after, but a lack of grain and better color. I believe Matt above described it as a creamy tonality.
There is a reason that tonality and color is better on LF.....it's because sheet film needs to be enlarged less for a given print size than smaller formats. This enlarging less means that the image is degraded less by grain. It is grain that breaks down the accuracy of the color and tonality. That is why people describe the color or tonality from 8x10 or digital to be creamy in texture. It is in fact, a complete lack of noise/grain that does it. Or better put....what else could it be? Given the same film is used in 35mm, MF, and LF, color and tonality will be better with the larger format.
WOAH NELLIE!The film was Provia processed at normal. On the light box the 8x10 looked a country mile better, particularly through a loupe.
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??
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks