Is bigger better?

[Duane Polcou]

Get a 137" by 219". It took twelve years but I finally found an Apo-Rogaine El-Camino 2000mm F256, which squeaks out just enough coverage for two Scheimphlugs and a partial front Auf Wiederzein. I believe it's a symbiotic Tesla design, but it might be a Hasselhoff.

[Gary Smith]

I want to thank everyone for the numerous and thoughtful replies. I need to think a little bit more, but I am inclined to keep my current setup, and then add a 8x10 or something larger a little later. It just seems like it may be the best route to take.

Thanx Again!

Gary

[Caroline Matthews]

I have an acquaintance who doesn't have a darkroom. He photographs on 4x5 Type 55 film for the negative, scans the negatives, and makes beautiful ink jet prints. He can do all his work in the kitchen and in his "computer lab." For a lot of the reasons given above (carry weight, lens availability, gear cost, film cost, etc.), I'd stick with 4x5 and find alternative ways of printing.

[archivue]

i keep on receiving spam every single day, that say... size does matter ;-)

[Gary Smith]

I have an acquaintance who doesn't have a darkroom. He photographs on 4x5 Type 55 film for the negative, scans the negatives, and makes beautiful ink jet prints. He can do all his work in the kitchen and in his "computer lab." For a lot of the reasons given above (carry weight, lens availability, gear cost, film cost, etc.), I'd stick with 4x5 and find alternative ways of printing.

I am doing that now, except using different types of film. I am really trying to get away from the computer as much as possible. Especially since I have to use it all day for work. Also I really am not fond of the inkjet BW prints I have seen or made. But thank you for the advice!

Gary

[Michael S. Briggs]

Sorry Brian but I agree with Daniel.

............

But, the 8x10 has limited depth of field compared to a 4x5. Correct me if I am wrong but as the focal length of the lens doubles, the depth of field is reduced by a factor of four, requiring two additional f-stops to obtain the same depth of sharp focus. Thus, if f22 were required to obtain sharp focus with a 150mm lens on a 4x5 camera, then f45 would be required for a 300mm lens on an 8x10. In this case, the additional f-stops may not be a big problem, but if f45 were used for the 150mm lens, then f90 would be required for the 300mm optic. In this situation, defraction could be a problem if a sizeable enlargement was being considered.

.........

The diffraction issue has been raised by at least two people. I think the appropriate comparision is identical size prints made by the two different formats. In this case, diffraction is not an issue in going up in formats. It is true that you have to stop down to achieve the same depth of field for the larger format (e.g., X2 for 4x5 --> 8x10) for the longer focal length lens with the same view of the scene. This does make more diffraction blurring on the film. But to get the same size print, less enlargement is needed, which compensates for the increased diffraction on the film. The true cost of stopping down is increased exposure times.

[Frank Petronio]

If you are trying to acheive "maximum quality" however that may be defined, then each scene and situation you photograph will require a different camera set-up. While photographing 1 to 1 flat paintings in a studio setting might use an ULF camera to make contract prints (which is what the ultra large Polaroid cameras were built to do - document paintings) you would hardly expect to use the same set-up outdoors. The wind, depth-of-field, subject movement, diffraction, etc. all come into play.

If you wanted to photograph wildlife or action sports, which would give you a "sharper" better end result? A dSLR with a long, fast telephoto used at realtively high ISOs? Or an equivilant focal length large format camera -- with a ~1600mm lens?

I think the choice of cameras - between 4x5 and larger formats - is more driven by the act of performance (people expect more from a larger camera), and contact printing concerns.

And a large part of it is just showing off!

Note that several higher end fashion photographers are using 8x10s to shoot what could easily be done with a dSLR and a fast 85mm lens... and the magazines hardly care from a quality point of view. But the photographer and the models work differently with the slow LF workflow.

[Gregory Gomez]

Emre Yildirim, my eyes are good enough to tell the difference between the output from a 4x5 and an 8x10, scanned or not. So maybe you have trouble, right?

[Emre Yildirim]

My vision is fine; last time I checked (which was in february of this year) I had 20/20 vision.

If you seriously think that there is a noticable difference between an 8x10 contact print and a 8x10 print from a drum scanned 4x5 negative (that was printed on glossy fuji crystal archive paper using a printer like the Chromira or Fuji Frontier), by all means continue shooting with that giant camera.

But really, I see no advantage in shooting 8x10 unless you plan on making giant prints (100 inches+) or contact prints. 4x5 has the most choices in film, lenses and cameras. The weight and processing costs are much lower, and that means I can take my camera to more places and take more shots for the same cost. In the end, it's just a matter of taste...

[Hugo Zhang]

I used an Arca-Swiss Discovery before I took a Pt/Pd workshop with Kerik a few years ago. For people doing AZO or Platinum, contact printing is the only way to go. Yes, bigger IS better. Generally speaking, for makers of contact prints, enlargement seems less "true", less "real", thus less appealing. My Arca-Swiss is still a beauty to behold and a wonder to use, but it's been sitting in my closet with that incredibly sharp Super Symmar 110mm XL for the last 5 years.