Into the 4x5 world

[davidwrogers]

I've shot B&W 35mm along time ago, and spent 4 years shooting on crappy-but-affordable APS-c sensors from any of the Big Three (nikon/canon/sony). Got incredibly frustrated with my inability to make Gursky-sized prints out of 13mp images...so here I am.

I just bought a Cambo 4x5 used, off ebay. I don't know what model it is, and it comes with a lens board whose size will hopefully be revealed to me by the seller soon.

My plan is to get a Polaroid 550 back and load Fujifilm Instant Color into it. Does anyone here know of any previous threads relating to scanning / scanners of negatives and prints? I'm curious about how much information is available in a single 4x5 polaroid. With a good scanner (6000 dpi?) my number processing device has informed me that I'll basically have a 120mp camera available to me...

Anyone have some examples of full-size RAW file scans of 4x5 polaroids? I promise not to pilfer, steal, plagiarize or otherwise abuse the things.

[Leigh]

I've scanned some of my 4x5 B&W negatives @ 6400 dpi and 16 bits.

The resulting file is 1.32 GigaBytes, so I'm not likely to post it online.

A scan of a color positive at that resolution and depth would be about 4 GigaBytes.

- Leigh

[mdm]

except fuji instant film only resolves about 7 lp/mm if my memory serves me. So basicly you've got a 4x5 print. They are beautiful little jems.

[davidwrogers]

A roughly 4gb image size sounds pretty ill...and justifies purchasing a computer with a 64-bit chipset and 16gb of RAM. I would like my photographs to reveal, upon enlargement, the cellular structure of my portrait subject's face. But from a distance of 'across town' or so, it'll just be a person.

Anywho. Scanners beyond the Epson V750 include...? Anyone?

[sully75]

if you scan a 4x5 polaroid, you'll have basically 4x5 of information to play with. You'll have to shoot film to beat your DSLR in resolution.

If your desire is to make gigantic monster prints, you may need more than a flatbed scanner, even a good one. I've made really nice 13x19 prints with a flatbed scanner and an inkjet printer, and I think I could probably do a bit better than that if I needed to. But generally you are talking having something drum scanned to make an awesome super large print.

At least...that's what I'm told.

[stevebrot]

A roughly 4gb image size sounds pretty ill...and justifies purchasing a computer with a 64-bit chipset and 16gb of RAM. I would like my photographs to reveal, upon enlargement, the cellular structure of my portrait subject's face. But from a distance of 'across town' or so, it'll just be a person.

Anywho. Scanners beyond the Epson V750 include...? Anyone?

The V750 is a nice scanner, but the actual resolution is somewhat below the advertised 6400 dpi. I have the similarly-spec'd V700 and it will only deliver about 2400 dpi best case. For 4x5 this is a very acceptable number, however. More capable options exist, but with the possible exception of retired reprographic scanners, be prepared to lay out some serious money to get better than 2400 dpi with support for a 4x5 negative.

You might also wish to consider that even with hot hardware, management and manipulation of large scanned images is tedious at best and may not even be possible with your usual choice of software.


Steve

[goodfood]

Why not shoot B/W film and go to wet darkroom?

[Brian C. Miller]

David, the Fujiroid film will give you a print, and you will have to go through some effort to recover the negative from it. I've done it a few times, but I'd rather work with film.

Scanning a Fujiroid print will not give you what you want. The print is designed to be the final product, and while it's good for making a proof, the negative is better.

[Ash]

The Fujiroids are terrible resolution. I tried to scan on my V700 and enlarge for printing and it wasn't worth the time or effort.

[Noah A]

I assume you're exaggerating a bit when you mention "Gursky-sized prints". Or maybe not. I also recently transitioned back to film after being unhappy with the quality of small-format digital at large print sizes.

As you may know Gursky composites many large-format (or medium-format digital) frames into each final print. This stitching method allows him to make really, really huge prints. The ones I've seen are a bit grainy close-up, but they still maintain a high level of detail.

There's absolutely no way you'll get sharp, good quality enlargements from Fuji instant film. The fuji-roid films are great for proofing, which is why I use them, and you can create nice little one-of-a-kind prints. They have something of a soft look that can be quite beautiful but is very different from the look of the prints by contemporary color photographers like Gursky. I've never tried to recover the negative but I don't think it's worth the trouble.

If you're shooting color, you'll probably want to start with a color negative film like the new Portra 160. And if you're printing any bigger than 16x20, the Epson scanner won't cut it. You'll need a drum scan or at the very least an Imacon scan.

A lot of folks here will say that you shouldn't make a 40x50 inch print from 4x5, but I do so all the time with great results. The biggest print size I make from 4x5 is 48x60. At that size, if you stick your nose to the print you definitely see some grain, but the grain is sharp, the image is sharp and the grain isn't objectionable from the normal viewing distance for that size print. To me 48x60 represents the biggest size I would print from 4x5, and only then if you use good technique, have an excellent drum scan and use sharp, modern lenses, a really solid tripod and a good film.

If you truly want to make gursky-sized prints, which can be far bigger than 60 inches, I'd say you need to either stitch your images together or consider 8x10 instead.