Image/Photo Presentation

[Scott Knowles]

This is probably one of those really obvious (ie., stupid?) questions, but I don't have the problem thinking out loud with a dumb look on my face. And the question?

Well, I've scanned my 4x5 sheets and processed them into print images (8x10 to learn). But to show them on the Web I have to reduce them to Web versions which almost eliminates all the advantages of a 4x5 image. So how can you present a 4x5 image decently on the Web without people saying, "Gee, it looks a lot like a digital image. So, what's the advantage to 4x5 now?"

Or as usual, am I missing something?

[Marko]

Well, you can't. There is indeed no advantage to LF if Web is your primary target, quite to the contrary, there are many disadvantages.

You can't really show any photograph on the Web, regardless of the camera and medium used for capture, because of the difference in the image size and resolution.

The best you can hope for is to successfully approximate them on the Web. And even that will take some skill and work. Web is not an appendage to print, it is a different medium with its own rules. Just like the reproduction in a book or a magazine differs from the photographic paper, so does the image on the screen, regardless of the source.

A question: why is this thread in the Lounge?

[Rory_5244]

Well, I've scanned my 4x5 sheets and processed them into print images (8x10 to learn). But to show them on the Web I have to reduce them to Web versions which almost eliminates all the advantages of a 4x5 image. So how can you present a 4x5 image decently on the Web without people saying, "Gee, it looks a lot like a digital image. So, what's the advantage to 4x5 now?"

None, of course. You're dead on.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I suppose it depends on what you shoot. If you photograph subjects that benefit from the movements of a view camera and relatively distortion-free lenses typically used in large format, then that comes through on the web. If you are using classic lenses to create particular out-of-focus effects, then that comes through on the web version pretty well.

If your images specifically show off the ability of LF to render fine detail, then indeed, there not be much advantage over small format digital in presenting them on the web.

If you want to give a sense, though, of what an LF neg can show, you might post one or two large files or detail images. I have one such demo page on my website--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/imviaduct.htm

[Rory_5244]

Uh, yeah I thought that too about lens movements. But I've been digging around in CS3 (I've finally decided it's time to try and learn how to use Photoshop), and it's amazing what can be done. Looking over at Photo.net makes me fairly certain that the look of any vintage format can be reproduced, at least at web sizes. But, naturally, you can add, "enlargements to 5x6 feet available" under your web pics.

[Gordon Moat]

You could always use Zoomify on one or more of your large format images. That way visitors to your website could at least get a feel for the greater resolution.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Scott Knowles]

Thanks for the responses. My goal isn't Web display, it's simply the easiest way to share images/photos. I am working on enlarging some areas to show comparisons with 35mm (full frame) digital but it's still not fair as the 4x5 relies on the quality of the scan (Epson V750 standard scan).

And I'm still learning 4x5 and the initial two dozens images were to see if I have the process correct and the exposure close. And my initial attempts at front movement control didn't come out as well (too much tilt), so it's on to new lesson to learn more. It's the never ending learning curve with 4x5 and photography.

I don't know why I put in the lounge except it's more of a thinking out loud post. The moderators are free to move it.

[Gordon Moat]

If you own an okay somewhat recent D-SLR, then one thing you can do is set-up a macro shot of the 4x5 film. In other words, you would attempt to use the D-SLR to capture a portion (maybe 24mm by 36mm in size) of the 4x5 film.

Search for the thread on photographing 4x5 transparencies on a lightbox. That might give you an idea of how to proceed with this. While not the best way to capture a 4x5 image, it seemed to be better than using a low cost flatbed.

Seems that 4x5 hits near 60 lp/mm on average (C. Perez, et al tests of lenses). The best of D-SLRs is from 40 lp/mm to just over 60 lp/mm in capability (DPReview, et al). So in theory a fairly recent D-SLR should be able to capture all that is on a 24mm by 36mm slice of 4x5 film. You could verify that with a loupe, then compare to the image capture on a computer monitor.

So the 4x5 would not be higher resolution per film area, though it would be a larger film area. There are a few other threads in LF Forum about comparing 4x5 resolution on large prints, and enlarging (interpolating) digital captures. The advantage in these comparisons for 4x5 film is the larger capture area.

Just wanted to also add that you might want to read some of the stitching threads of a few months ago. The idea was that an APS sized digital sensor could be used with overlap to match the film area of a 4x5. If I recall correctly, it was something like 20 shots in a grid pattern to have the same capture area.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Ralph Barker]

I moved it to "Digital Processing" as the underlying question deals with scanning and Web presentation. Hope that's OK, Scott.

As others have said, once an image is resized to Web-acceptable dimensions, most of the 4x5 advantages are masked - other than perspective/geometry correction, perhaps. If you scan the entire neg, so that the border shows, those in the know will recognize it as LF (either 4x5 or 8x10 based on the aspect ratio).

Another alternative is to "present" the entire image at the appropriate Web size, and then have a separate link for a detail clip. But, that gets laborious, and may actually detract from the presentation.

[Ken Lee]

Use some words that the average person understands.

Perhaps you can point out that your actual prints are XXX megapixels or megabytes - and that the quality is therefore "awesome", "wonderful", or "gotta be seen to be believed", or whatever.

Or, you could say that you employ a hybrid process that combines analog and digital, resulting in images of extremely high fidelity - beyond what can be attained with typical equipment.