Format for 60x75 inch Gallery Prints - 4x5 or 8x10?

[Ivan J. Eberle]

out of curiosity, why such problems stitching a few P1 MF shots together?

Because it's more fun to wind us up and let us go?

[el french]

Because it's more fun to wind us up and let us go?

And Photoshop is one of the poorest stitchers on the market. I use Microsoft ICE for 99% of my stitches and PTAssembler when I want more control of the stitching process.

[bglick]

what version PS has a poor stitching operation? I found CS4 very effective?

[venchka]

Perfect! Go for it! By all means share your results. I for one am eager to see your monumental prints. I hope they will be displayed in North America.

I was wondering if you had considered 6x12 or 6x17 roll film? Either scanning and printing individual frames or stiching pairs together horizontally.

Good luck!

Being toyed with? Don't kid yourself.

You underestimate the MF digital stitching process.

If you are up for the challenge, rent a P45+/P40+/P65+ with a Cambo Digital Wide DS and go through the process to get the 4-6 files required for a stitched image that would result in a print similar to a single 8x10 image (60x75). Only after you import to PS (or whatever software you can get) and actually attempt to stitch the 4-6 frames together will you experience my frustration. I guarantee you this is as tedious as anything and the exposures will be very tricky to blend. It will take you hours to get the image looking as you want, if you are lucky. You may have to go take more shots.

The appeal of 4x5 or 8x10 to me is (1) ability to see the entire image on the ground glass before capture and (2) only having one file to deal with in PS.

I know I am naive about LF film as a medium. And I know there are many trade offs. Don't you see that is why I am on here asking questions and wanting to try for myself? I can accept that 4x5/8x10 is difficult and time consuming in its own ways, and more so in general, than MF digital...maybe I will sell the 8x10 after I try, maybe not.

In a few years, after Phase One has produced a p85+++ that produces a file from one shot that equals 8x10, then I will forget about film.

[e2aa]

Very helpful explanation, thanks.

> On one hand, many 4x5 shooters on here seem to complain about 8x10 DOF. On the other hand, most fine art photographers seem to like the DOF and tonality of 8x10.


for the non technical photographer, this can be confusing.... in a nut shell, it comes down to aperture diffraction, i.e. the higher the f stop, the lower the aerial lens resolution, hence the lower the recorded resolution on film. Jumping up 2x in a format size, requires double the f stop to achieve the same DOF.... which means, the same composure and the same resolution on the same final size print. Now, this effect varies between formats, I will try to summarize....

For considerable DOF shots... such as
35mm f8,
MF f16,
4x5 f32,
8x10 f64.

35mm to MF..... very marginal loss (nature of short fl lenses)...this means even with relatively long DOF, MF will come close to 2x the recorded resolution.

MF to 45 ...... significant loss, resolution gain down to about 1.5x

45 to 810 ...... very significant loss, resolution gain down to 1.3x

Now, if there is shallow DOF, or no DOF, such as infinity or 2d plane (brick wall mural), then each jump up on format will provide about 1.8x the resolution as the previous format.

This is why you should pick your formats carefully.... sometimes bigger is only marginally better. However, there is other things to consider such as film type and film grain, as well as enlargement factor. In this digital age, if the film is scanned, grain is less of an issue today vs. when film was optically enlarged for a print.... grain removal software does an excellent job.....

That's as simplified as I can make it...

Now you see the value of stitching.... assuming the subject is cooperative, it can't be beat.... the digital post processing tools today are amazing... the capture can be digital or film, it doesn't matter...

[Ben Syverson]

So at 10" print view distance, one degree = 4.5mm of horizontal print. (simple trig).

Are you trying to be funny? 10" is not a reasonable viewing distance for a 6.25 x 5' print. Neither is 20".

Reasonable is 60".

[Jeff Keller]

A handy diffraction calculator is at the bottom of:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm

A 75" print created from a 4x5 viewed at 1m will start to diffraction limit at f16. (An 8x10 at f32)

The 15x enlargement viewed at 1m would show similar detail as viewing a 15" x 22" print from a 35mm camera at 1m. If you really want an image that stands out as being sharp, you probably want to think about the 8x10.

Jeff Keller

[Carsten Wolff]

...in other words: Get a 5x7 camera and any modern 210mm offering (Sironar-S, if you must).....with that set-up you can add a 4x5 reduction back and a 6x17 back as well. I even managed to get a Canham 617 back on an old Arca 5x7, by making a simple 5x7 Graflok type back for it. choice of film emulsions is not that high, but its enough.

[venchka]

Carston makes a point that crossed my mind as well. The OP stated that 5x7 was out for aspect ratio purposes. However, lurking within the confines of a 5x7 negative, or positive, is an infinite number of 4x5 images. In case you got the framing a bit off. Also there is a 5x6 image on the 5x7 negative. 5x6 = 4x5 aspect ratio only bigger. 50% bigger. 30 sq. in. versus 20 sq. in. Before enlarging.

Add the 6x17 benefit and 5x7 starts to look attractive. Add the 5x7 aspect ratio and 5x7 looks very very attractive.

Film selection is the downside.

[bglick]

> Are you trying to be funny? 10" is not a reasonable viewing distance for a 6.25 x 5' print. Neither is 20". Reasonable is 60".



If everyone viewed prints at their diagonal distance, we could all shoot 35mm film..... No reason for more IQ. If you follow many of these posts, they mention how they want the print to stand up to close scrutiny, as so many people walk right up to a 80" print. I never suggested 10" is reasonable.....(that was you suggested it) I provided the math so you can back-up the person to any distance that satisfies your requirements, get it? It doesn't get any easier....



> A 75" print created from a 4x5 viewed at 1m will start to diffraction limit at f16. (An 8x10 at f32)


And this does not take into account the viewing conditions, the viewers acuity and most importantly printing efficiency losses.... So it only gets worse, not better vs. what the calc. spews out...