Is there any technical advantage to using ...

[Eric Rose]

Is there any technical advantage to using an 8x10 or 11x14 film camera over scanning a 4x5 neg and producing an 8x10 or 11x14 digital neg for contact printing?

When I see those lovely wooden 8x10 cameras go up for sale it's all I can do to resist buying them. But at the end of the day it's about the print not the fondling.

Your collective wisdom is appreciated.

Eric

[BetterSense]

Larger formats give a different look than smaller ones. If you want the look, you have to use the larger format. It's just physics.

[thart2009]

But at the end of the day it's about the print not the fondling....

I don't know about that. I enjoy the fondling too!

[memorris]

I recently added an 8X10 and the comment about the look is true. Digital negatives are still digital negative, good quality but of all I have seen, a well done analog negative has a quality that is not available in a digital negative.

[Steven Barall]

An 8x10 original of a given scene looks completely different from a 4x5 original of that same scene. You can always tell the difference. Good luck.

[Ken Lee]

...producing an 8x10 or 11x14 digital neg for contact printing?

If you plan to make contact prints on either Silver or hand-coated paper, I doubt you'd see a difference between 4x5 and 8x10.

At the print size you mention, the advantages of 8x10 over 4x5 will be obscured by noise, one way or another.

Using inkjet negatives for prints on Silver paper, the limiting factor will be noise introduced by the printer.

Using inkjet negatives for contact prints on hand-coated paper (like for Pt/Pd and other traditional processes), the limiting factor will be noise introduced by the texture of the paper. (Before the advent of digital negatives, we needed big cameras for big negatives for large alt-process contact prints - but nowadays people make lovely Pt/Pd prints from point-and-shoot digital cameras and small format film, because the paper itself is so low-resolution by nature, that one can't often tell the difference).

[Jay DeFehr]

Eric,

I hope Sandy King replies. Sandy has made a lot of both kinds of negatives (film and digital), in a lot of different formats, and his insight is worth seeking out. I'd be interested in his views on the subject, as well.

For me, even if the digitally enlarged negative equaled the quality of an 8x10 original, I would opt for the original. There is very little of a practical nature in my preference, beyond my inexperience in making digital negatives. Mostly, I just like working with the big camera, and the big negative, in a simple, intuitive way. I don't think I'd enjoy the intermediate process of making a digital negative, for its own sake, the way I enjoy processing an 8x10 negative. But, your question is a technical one, not an emotional one. I'll follow, with interest.

[Heroique]

Hence Ansel's statement: "When asked what camera I use, I reply 'The heaviest one I can carry'."

This is a favorite photography quote of mine, by anybody.

It’s rich enough to mean more than it says.

One of its “meanings” that might address your question (beyond technical advantages) is: the extra handling and deliberation that come w/ using heavier gear can encourage superior visualization, better image making.

Remember to consider whether this trumps the “technical advantages” you seek.

[Jay DeFehr]

Ken,

My post was composed before I saw yours. I don't want my post to read as if I'm discounting your point of view in favor of Sandy's; I value yours very highly, as well.

[Bill_1856]

The only significant advantages come when making humongous sized prints, or contact printing.