Large prints from 4x5

[David Richhart]

I will soon be making large color prints and would like to know how well 4x5 chr omes and negatives hold up under enlargement.

Am I correct in assuming 24x30 prints will remain smooth and sharp??? Are 32x40 prints ok? At what size do you think I should consider 8x10 format? Would I be b etter off to photograph everything in 8x10, even though there is a budget to con sider

Many thanks for all help...and thanks for the great forum!!! -Dave

[Doug Paramore]

Dave: I don't see any problem if you have good negs. A 32x40 is eight times linear enlargement, or about the same as an 8x10 off 35mm negs. The largest I have personally made is 24x30 from color negs, but it looked good.

Regards, Doug.

[Joseph Dickerson]

Dave,

It's been a long time but I have had 4x5 negatives printed as large as 30x40 inches and the prints were tack sharp with little or no noticeable grain.

That was with Kodak cps neg film, with today's film you should be able to go even bigger if need be.

[Pete Caluori]

Hi Dave,

It really depends on the film your shooting. Shoot something grainy like Kodak High Speed Infrared and you'll see grain on 8x10's which is only 2x from a 4x5 negative. OTOH, I have a 30x40 print from a 4x5 Delta 100 negative that is grainless. Films have gotten really good, so unless you're aiming for really big murals or truly grainy film a 4x5 should be more than adequate.

Regards,

[Bruce M. Herman]

Dave,

I've made a few 24x30 prints from 4x5 Velvia, and they turned out fine. One note of caution - tiny silhouettes from dust specks on the film at the time of exposure, which you may not notice during casual examination with a 4x loupe, become quite evident in the print. If you're doing a big enlargement, you might want to consider having it done digitally so that these flaws can be removed.

Best of luck, Bruce

[fred_1006]

Be sure and keep your viewing distance in mind. I have printed a 35mm Kodachrome to 14 feet (via interneg) and have taken an 8x10 negative to 12 feet by 20 feet. I was amazed at just how well both looked, both were for display purposes (the largest in a museum), but you must keep in mind that these prints were not meant to be viewed from a distance of inches, but rather from a distance of several feet at least.

[Pete Andrews]

The grain and definition of Fuji's negative films are incredibly good these days. Kodak's a little bit behind in the fine-grain stakes IMHO. I still prefer Kodak's colour rendering from negatives.