I think he was just a tourist and we respond with a lot of practical advice because many of us have considered shooting nicely produced 8x10 color too. Nothing wrong with engaging idle speculation but I wouldn't expect this to actually come to fruition, otherwise the OP would be more engaged.
It's still useful to others and entertaining. Sometimes these threads show up in search results but I think the way search engines handle forum threads is often wacky and the best info is lost.
I agree about the tourist assessment - I can't imagine a forum thread pushing me one way or another about what to pursue. The only reason I sort of 'leapt in' to defend 5x7 is because I recently decided on it over 8x10, mainly due to the option of cutting 8x10 stock down if I decided to pursue color more. That, and I've been snowed in for a week and am bored out of my mind.Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
The nly thing better than seeing a aerial image on an 8x10 ground glass is seeing an 11x14 or large aerial image projected on a ground glass. Certainly MF is an option, but its not the same as woring with 8x10
Chromes are a non-issue for me, but I admit that good 8x10 chromes are incredible to look at. Have you seen any up close & personal? Color sheet film is a tough one to call. Fuji may have a monopoly on the market very soon. Do you like Fuji chromes?
8x10 holders, even used are very expensive I think the most I've had at one time is 20 loaded holders (for 40 exposures) If you have an assistant, I'd put him/her to work loading for you if the shoot requires lots and lots of film.
A suitable tripod is a neccesity. Really. With big negatives every defect is going to be annoyingly obvious so a rock solid camera is imperative.
I hope this helps!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
thanks guys, I'm very engaged, just absorbing this all, and doing a lot of research. I had a black and white dark room since 11 yrs old.
Anyway, Frank, I'll send you an email.
BTW I was at the LA contemporary art show a couple of days ago at the SM airport hanger and one guy who has been in the fine art world 35 years had a booth. He has a huge print up of one of his artists it was 67" x47". He said it was a Lamda print. He said it was taken for sure with a Canon 5D. And it was a 1/2 body shot of a fat guy with tattoos etc. The body --chest hairs -- was surprising crisp. It was only in the the face that the resolution was not so good. He said he takes the digital file and then gets that drum scanned for higher quality. I never heard of that idea. Still not as good as medium or large format, but surprising to see. Still going LF.
Sorry about spelling, not my strong point.
Sorry guy but this makes 0 sense. You may have heard him wrong. You can't scan a digital file. Maybe he said uprez? Either way it won't come anywhere close to a drum scanned 8x10-not even in the same ballpark.He said he takes the digital file and then gets that drum scanned for higher quality. I never heard of that idea. Still not as good as medium or large format, but surprising to see. Still going LF.
I use a 5DII and would not try and make a fine art print from it anywhere near that large. I had a museum print a file from a 3x stitch about 8x12' that looked good at a distance but IMO was far from a fine print quality. It was more "poster" quality.
Last edited by Kirk Gittings; 23-Jan-2012 at 18:42.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Kev verified to me that he is a real professional photographer so apologies for hazing.... anyway it sounds like he has some good, earnest questions so let's see if we can set him on the righteous path to salvation.
OK cool, sorry for hazing, Kev. I think a lot of people here (myself included) are like Linux nerds ... i.e., ask us questions, but RTFM first to show that you are not wasting time -- that way, people aren't bored by the time you get to the hard questions. Linux isn't as cool as 8x10, though, so we will try.
I think the original suggestion was best: Rent a Sinar P2 8x10, take some test shots, take a shot of them on a lightbox with a DSLR, invert in photoshop, choose the best one, send to one of our fine-art drum scanning forum members like Lenny to scan and print. If you like the results, then continue. Beyond that, the more specific and detailed the question, the better.
Kirk, thanks, I'll take your word for it. He really said that. He said it was definitely 35mm as he bought the camera for his artist. Again, the body was very crisp, but the face was the tell tell sign, it was not optimal. But who knows, maybe it had a lot of sharpening or maybe was not 35....
Urs)polar, it's ok, I understand, you got a lot of goofballs who just got out of art school coming on here. I really wish I had mastered this stuff years ago, but I always love the looseness of 35, so I never bothered with laborious LF. Now that I'm getting more into fine art it's quite appealing. I more of a buyer than renter, provided it's not prohibitive, so I leaning towards buying.
There was a thread on another site with apples to apples comparison with 8x10, 4x5, medium digital, 35, and the 8x10 samples just killed the 4x5. Still I did see some huge edgy interiors at Photo LA, last week that were shot 4x5 that looked flawless...
You guys way more in the know, have you shot 8x10, printed large and known for sure it was bringing you better result than 4x5? Obviously, that would require a real thorough and intuitive knowledge of the two sizes.
thanks Frank!
It depends on the situation. Sometimes a smaller format will produce great sharpness/resolution when you want to carry greater depth of field or need a faster shutter speed to compensate for wind/vibration.
An extreme example would be using an 8x10 in a Helicopter - a smaller format may be better because you could shoot at a higher shutter speed.
With all of these types of situations, the real answer is to test ahead of time.
I think that some of the top landscape/environmental photographers are using 4x5 with the best lenses, etc. while their peers are using 8x10 and other guys are using the better medium format digital backs. They all have pros and cons, and are only as good as the weakest "link" in the workflow "chain". For example, with 4x5 you'd want to be sure to use the best scanning service and technician.
As someone who has shot shed loads of both, then the truth is 10x8 is miles better, particuarly if you do decide to shoot neg (Which might be wise), I find 10x8 a lot easier to use as you can see what you are doing and if you are going to hump around a load of kit the weight is not a large amount of difference . As for scanning , a good drum scan will allow printing to any practical size .And on the hire, buy front then I would suggest that buying will allow you to get to know the kit without worrying about the endless hire costs
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks