4x5 on Flatbed vs 6x7 on film scanner

[Scott Kathe]

I recently picked up a Mamiya RZ67 with the 110mm lens. I really like the camera and the cost of film and processing is a lot less per image compared to 4x5. I have seen this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.in...=coolscan+9000 but I have the 4990 not the 4870. I would probably send the 6x7s out for scans on the Nikon Coolscan 9000 at $7/scan.

My maximum print size would most likely be 16x20, with most prints being 8x10 or 11x14. I sure do miss the movements and perspective control with the RZ67 but I'm not sweating bullets with every 6x7 exposure compared to 4x5 exposure. I'm not actually sweating bullets but cost/image is always on my mind. I think I experiment less with 4x5 when I should be experimenting more to learn. So, for my output size are the 4x5 scans I make on the Epson 4990 going to give me the same image quality as 6x7 scans done on the Coolscan 9000?

I'm supposed to be doing this for fun

Scott

[Oren Grad]

Scott, you may find this discussion of interest:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=38064

[Tom T]

Scott, you might want to try a 612 back for your camera. Film is cheaper, bracket faster, no loading film in motels/truck stops, 120 is far more available in camera stores, Nikon 9000 scanner does a great job when stitched, and if you have a viewfinder for the camera (Horseman FA or Techinica) then it becomes even easier....no need for darckcloth, magnifier, groundglass focusing for many shots (especially 90/150 lenses). You will still get your tilts, and for when you need full frame 4x5 just use quickloads. I switched to 612 for my FA and with a Fotoman 617 camera I have moved away from sheet film for many of my shots. Of course it depends on your style and what you shoot. If your doing David Muench stuff with a strong foreground of flowers/etc, then tilts become mandatory (back to groundglass focusing). So large format can become fast and convenient and less expensive.

[Bruce Watson]

So, for my output size are the 4x5 scans I make on the Epson 4990 going to give me the same image quality as 6x7 scans done on the Coolscan 9000?

Assuming we are talking about scanning for the same print size, then my answer is "probably." They should be comparable.

What you could do maybe is use the smaller format for happy snaps and other misc. hand-held work, and scouting. When your scouting turns up something that you think worthy of the bigger camera, or something that needs movements, then bring it out. Would perhaps be the best of both worlds for you. Maybe.

[Daniel_Buck]

for 8x10 and 11x14, consumer flatbed 4x5's are no problem! 16x20 is good as well, just not quite as sharp as an 8x10 or 11x14. From what I've seen anyway :-)

I agree with Tom, why not get a roll back for the 4x5! Best of both worlds, no? :-)

[Scott Kathe]

Oren-Thanks, I had forgotten about the thread you started.
Tom-I have definitely thought about a 6x12 back for my Shen Hao
Bruce-I picked up the RZ for the very reason you stated and I am thinking about investing in a used 65mm lens with a floating element but the darn thing is more expensive than any of my used 4x5 lenses or my Shen-Hao for that matter.

I truly believe that 'less is more' or it could be that I'm just too cheap to buy a lot of stuff I like the idea of using the RZ67 as a 'scouting camera' but the kit would end up weighing almost as much as a large format kit. On the plus side are the ergonomics of film handling, cost of film and ability to compose and shoot quickly. But all that comes with the loss of adjusting development time for each image, ie the zone system, the loss of perspective control, tilts and the loss of image quality at large print sizes. I'm sure we all know these things, I'm just trying to find out what will work best for me. I know there are a lot of people out there that have gone through the same decision making process and I'm trying to tap into that wisdom.

Thanks for your time.

Scott

[Tom T]

"So, for my output size are the 4x5 scans I make on the Epson 4990 going to give me the same image quality as 6x7 scans done on the Coolscan 9000?"

The epson is good for a 3x enlargement. Your pushing it at 16x20 (4x) using 4x5. On the other hand I have done a nice 40inch print with the 9000 (6x7 film). For 6x7 the Epson does a good job at 8x10 print size. I suggest you rent time on an Imacon 848, at $35-45/hr it is worth it for most of your best work(when needed go for drum). They are easy to use if you have some scanning experience, and they will help you set up the first one. I use the Epson for editing through my images.

[Scott Kathe]

The epson is good for a 3x enlargement. Your pushing it at 16x20 (4x) using 4x5.

I feel that way too, I have one 16x20 that I made from a 4x5 velvia scan that is ok but not great. It seems to be very subjective though because some people think the 16x20s they made from scans on the 4990 are fantastic. I think everyone has different quality standards, some are perfectionists and some aren't.

Scott

[Frank Petronio]

I got beat up for saying 4x5/Epson beat 120 on a Coolscan, so it must be true. Not having a Coolscan I can't know for sure but I trust the consensus on this.

Which starts one to thinking... shouldn't most of us be using Mamiya 7s and Coolscans?

Oh, $4-5,000 investment to get up to speed, damn!

[Scott Kathe]

I got beat up for saying 4x5/Epson beat 120 on a Coolscan, so it must be true. Not having a Coolscan I can't know for sure but I trust the consensus on this.

Which starts one to thinking... shouldn't most of us be using Mamiya 7s and Coolscans?

Oh, $4-5,000 investment to get up to speed, damn!

Frank,

Isn't that about what a Nikon D3 costs I know, I know-not large format.

Scott