4x5 or 8x10

**dsimaging** · 31-May-2009, 20:27

gregory crewdson uses inkjet to print his terrific work. And no one argues when they're dropping something like $10,000+ for one of his prints.

I heard from a friend the other day that he has recently converted over to using a phase one p65+ di$it@l back. I'm not sure what system he is on for it though. It would be safe to assume something to maximize the resolution of that chip.

He used to shoot 8x10 color neg (some think transparency), but he would go and shoot 40-50 sheets plus of 8x10. Just for ONE photograph.

Then he would drum scan and piece every little thing piece by piece.

Inkjet is terrific! I've never seen or used a Roland, but my Canon IPF5100 does some tremendous things on Hahnemuhle Rag 308, or Torchon.

the hybrid process is tremendous, even though I still like the traditional darkroom. I'm 21 years old, and all the "old photo dogs" I know have pretty much all converted over to the digi-side-of-life. Good for them.

I like Efke 25 and T-Max 400 in 4x5 and 8x10. And 400nc for color in both. Digital hasn't grasped these young bones

!

But something I've come to realize that in the art world, many collectors, or buyers don't care what the surface is or how many "huffs and puffs" it took you to get that shot on the windy day and braving a huge storm front looming over you.

They only care about the image hanging on their wall, while sipping some fine wine that has been rotting in a barrel for the last 30 years.

just my 2 cents

**vwizz** · 1-Jun-2009, 08:47

Originally Posted by dsimaging

They only care about the image hanging on their wall,

I tend to have a slightly different view.
I myself did not buy a very large (approx 60x45 inches) and expensive print of a photo I really liked, even though it was only a limited series (7 If remember correctly). The fact that is was a lambda print blocked me somehow.
I felt like I was buying a "super poster" and that did not feel correct for the price...
Instead I went in another gallery and bought (for a similar price) a considerably smaller (approximately 7x7inches) B&W image from one of my favorite photographers, knowing that he had done it himself in his dark room. The fact that each of the 5 he made were different (he was dropping acid on a part of the paper) reinforced the feelingf of having a genuine piece of art.

Yet I know this has nothing to do with logic or rationnality, it is purely emotional

Nevertheless the owner of the art gallery confessed me that he had difficulties selling inkjet prints, and that he had to sell them for approximately 30% less than the traditional photos.

Currently I mostly work with inkjet and I am more than happy of the results, but I guess all this is why I will soon try collodion wet plate for some of my images.

Best Regards,
V

**mccormickstudio** · 1-Jun-2009, 13:02

A few things which deserve to be cleared up:

You likely won't be happy with prints bigger than 40x50 from 8x10 negs scanned on an epson v700 or v750. The scanner just can't deliver the sharpness or color saturation. To go bigger you need to drum scan or work on an Aztek or Creo flatbed which cost much more. I regularly fluid scan 8x10 negs on a v700 and won't enlarge those more than 32x40" where they still look very good.

The investment in time and money is significantly greater with 8x10. Each sheet of 8x10 film with processing & shipping costs me about $15+; 4x5 is about $5. Post-production takes 3-4x as long to edit (4x as much film, right?). If you pay for scanning this also costs 3x as much (more data).

Bottom line: with good workflow, 4x5 doesn't compare to 8x10 when enlarged to the sizes you've mentioned. If you can afford the investment, by all means step up.

I do wonder if there is a trend happening back toward smaller prints to encourage accessibility of work and sales in a dire economy. Brian Ulrich hung some 11x14's at his recent opening in NY and commented on the small vs. large prints. It is interesting how we view the same image in different sizes.