5x7 vs. 4x5 scanning help

[mikossant]

I am really wanting to get into large format photography and want to know if 5x7 scanned on an epson v750 will display more detail than a 4x5 scanned by a top of the line drum scanner when printed at 40x50.
Thank you

[Don Hutton]

I haven't done a direct comparison with 4x5 and 5x7, but I have done a B&W comparison with 4x5 and 8x10 - drum scan of the 4x5 at 4000DPI on a Howtek 4500 and the 8x10 scanned on an Epson 4990 at 2400DPI (I believe that the V750 is maybe just slightly better). Actual resolution was not that different - however, the drum scan delivers far more microcontrast and overall a much better file - and that's on a 4x5 to 8x10 comparison. I've made 16x20 prints from scans of 8x10 negs on the Epson and then made the same 16x20 prints from a drum scan and there are very visible differences in the final prints - mostly related to microcontrast. In color, I would expect these differences to be even greater, especially from chromes.

Most people I have spoken to about the relative merits of consumer flatbed vs drum scans of large format film presume that the differences will be all about resolution - that's only a small part of it - microcontrast, dynamic range and lack of any noise are probably bigger factors to consider. If you have any doubts, I'd highly recommend that you spring for a drum scan from a reputable operator (like Lenny Eiger) and make up your own mind. I'd suggest it won't take long.

[Ron Marshall]

5x7 is only 25% wider than 4x5, so not much of an advantage in terms of enlargement potential.

It really depends on your personal standard. Some people are happy with a 20x24 from a consumer flatbed scan of 4x5, others will only go as high as 11x14.

The largest I would be happy with from a consumer scan of a 5x7 would be either a 16x20 or a 20x24, depending on the subject, the importance of detail, and viewing distance.

[Ken Lee]

If detail and huge prints is of primary concern, don't fiddle around with 4x5 or 5x7. Consider 8x10, because of some simple arithmetic:

From 8x10, a 40x50 print is only an enlargement of 5x, so with a high-end lens that delivers 60 l/mm, you will end up with 12 lines/mm - which is still critically sharp. Starting out with smaller film, you have to enlarge by 8x or 10x, and you have reached the critical point of 8 lines per mm, where things look mushy - and that's presuming you have a perfect scanner. But you don't, even with a drum scanner. With a consumer flatbed, you can't get anywhere near that. Maybe 5x. If you need to crop your image, then, as they say... forgetaboutit.

With an 8x10 negative, and a consumer flatbed scanner, you can get away with a 5x enlargement. Of course, you will need a rather hefty computer to perform corrections on the file, especially if it's in 48-bit color

That being said, what you may deem acceptable, another may not. It's best to make a test for yourself, with your equipment and your criteria. The money and exasperation you save, will be... your own.

[Lenny Eiger]

5x7 is only 25% wider than 4x5, so not much of an advantage in terms of enlargement potential.

I think this math is a little faulty. I used to think that way as well. However, 4x5=20 and 5x7=35, it's actually almost double the area (1.75 actually). Quite a bit more than 25%.

As I have said too many times, I have been very disappointed with the Epson scanners in comparison. I am sure there are some that can clean it up better than others. However, what about a third possibility - a great drum scan from a 5x7? ;-)

Lenny

[Don Hutton]

From 8x10, a 40x50 print is only an enlargement of 5x, so with a high-end lens that delivers 60 l/mm, you will end up with 12 lines/mm - which is still critically sharp.

And if you're working at typical 8x10 apertures to maintain necessary depth of field - i.e. f32 and smaller, you will never even get 50LP/mm....

[Walter Calahan]

Personally, I'd worry more about the content of the image then whether 4x5 or 5x7 has the technical specs. Content will carry an image more than lines per millimeter, etc.

[Don Hutton]

Personally, I'd worry more about the content of the image then whether 4x5 or 5x7 has the technical specs. Content will carry an image more than lines per millimeter, etc.

I'd agree 100% with that Walter, but the question is really a technical one, where I presume, there is a assumption that the content is going to make a 40x50inch print worthwhile anyway...

[audioexcels]

I'd agree 100% with that Walter, but the question is really a technical one, where I presume, there is a assumption that the content is going to make a 40x50inch print worthwhile anyway...

Don,

Are you doing wet or dry scans of the larger sheet film on the scanner bed and would you say that your expertise with the scanner is to the extent that you are getting the absolute most you can out of it?

Makes one have to consider why to bother with anything larger than 4X5 other than to print out of camera negs or if the person simply doesn't like 4X5 format (they can shoot 5X7 as an option for the OP to have the different ratio) glass as well as a 5X7/8X10 piece of GG.

In other words, if one cannot get the results even out of a Howtek 4500 which is a nice scanner, but not as nice as some of the better scanners that can be used to to (drum/pro-flatbed) scan the film, but cannot even match them with an 8X10 neg on a consumer flatbed, the 8X10 or larger is strictly for out of camera silver prints only since most will not be enlarging 40X50" prints, let alone anything larger than 20X24 as a maximum size.

[Don Hutton]

Don,

Are you doing wet or dry scans of the larger sheet film on the scanner bed and would you say that your expertise with the scanner is to the extent that you are getting the absolute most you can out of it?

I don't presume that I can get the "absolute most possible out of the scanner". I have about 8 years of experience scanning and have used various flatbeds for scanning LF film for about 6 years. I don't believe my scanning experience with the Epson is a severely limiting factor in the final file. For the tests, I used a dry scan as I have no way of conveniently doing a wet scan of an 8x10 on the 4990 - IMO, the bed size is too limiting and you are looking for a scanner full of scanning fluid. Personally, having done a fair bit of wet scanning of 4x5 negs on the same scanner, I don't believe wet scans on the 4990 are a "dramatic" improvement - whatever advantages they offer, are, IMO, pretty small.

Makes one have to consider why to bother with anything larger than 4X5 other than to print out of camera negs or if the person simply doesn't like 4X5 format (they can shoot 5X7 as an option for the OP to have the different ratio) glass as well as a 5X7/8X10 piece of GG.

I wondered about this - so a couple of weeks ago, I shot an identical scene with very similar lenses on both 4x5 (with a Fujinon A 180) and on 8x10 (with a Fujinon A 360); color neg (Fuji Pro 160S) and B&W (Tmax100) and drum scanned the negs and made prints, and crops from "very large" prints. On a 24x30 some differences become visible - subtle, but there. On a 40x50, the advantages of the 8x10 become quite apparent - finer details, tonal transitions etc are just better. Standards of print quality are highly subjective and it's almost pointless trying to ascertain what others perceptions of quality are - you have to define these things for yourself.

In other words, if one cannot get the results even out of a Howtek 4500 which is a nice scanner, but not as nice as some of the better scanners that can be used to to (drum/pro-flatbed) scan the film, but cannot even match them with an 8X10 neg on a consumer flatbed, the 8X10 or larger is strictly for out of camera silver prints only since most will not be enlarging 40X50" prints, let alone anything larger than 20X24 as a maximum size.

I'm not sure what you mean here - my results suggested that the 4x5 scanned on the Howtek was way better than an 8x10 scanned on the Epson 4990. And FWIW, I think the Howtek is an excellent scanner - I'd choose it over any flatbed at any price and I'm not sure there are not many drum scanners out there I would swap it for except perhaps an Aztek Premiere. I'd take it over a Tango anytime. I've yet to see a flatbed scan which is as good as the best drum scans I've seen and I appreciate the control of the variable aperture on a drum scanner which is not available on any flatbed.