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

[QT Luong]

> where on earth are you obtaining inkjets sharper than Lightjet
from large format files?

Right out of my studio. The lightjets were from Calypso and WCI.

[don mills]

Regarding the OP's questions/requirements, 8x10 may yield creamier results at long exposures. 360mm lens is good.

Many fine artists today are using MF digital backs on their LF equipment to obtain great depth and tonality. The digital LF lenses today are outstanding.

Those on the cusp seem to experimenting with digital and software.

[don mills]

Yes, I know many also who are getting great results from new Inkjet printers. Superb!

QT, how large are you printing?

> where on earth are you obtaining inkjets sharper than Lightjet
from large format files?

Right out of my studio. The lightjets were from Calypso and WCI.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

OP's already been satisfactorily shooting 5 second exposures on digital sensors and stitching, albeit the workflow is slow? Realize that bumping up the format size and switching to film, he/she will now encounter reciprocity failure in addition to working at lower ISOs, smaller apertures. Captures that were a series of 5 second exposures could suddenly and easily run to many minutes in 4x5, perhaps an hour or more in 8x10.

Already has a MF digital back (and necessary pano equipment, presumably). Digitally optimized lenses at small focal lengths present great opportunities for extreme resolution. Perfect scenario to recommend sucking it up and dealing with the pain of stitching panos in Photoshop versus shooting film.

[Ron Marshall]

You might consider an 8x10 camera that has the option of a 4x5 reducing back; that way you can do test prints of an image from both formats and decide for yourself.

[Drew Wiley]

QT - right out of your studio? Well, home-cookin' is always the best! The sharpest
digital prints I have ever personally seen were some 20x24 lightjets printed on Fuji
supergloss, and were actually being falsely sold as Ilfochromes! The polyester stock
could certainly fool people if they didn't look closely. I didn't take the
photographer to task because he probably didn't know the difference himself, and was providing his clients with a superior product at a reasonable price. But comparing apples to apples, I've never seen an optical enlargement equal a good
home-cooked one either! Amazing where this is all going. The last time I visited
Ctein he was printing the same batch of portraits on inkjet side by side with dye transfers for a British museum. These were all MF shots so not extremely detailed, but as far as gamut is concerned, about 60% of the inkjets were equal in quality
to the DT, or nearly indistinguishable! (The other 40% - well that's a whole other
story!)

[Ivan J. Eberle]

OP specified 60x75", non-negotiable. Every spec I've ever seen or heard on LightJet printers says they're limited to a maximum width of 50".

While LightJets don't win in absolute resolution-- it's fixed at an input resolution of 304.5 dpi-- what they do have going for them is they're essentially big film recorders that use wet-chemistry darkroom papers like Fuji Crystal Archive. (Which means no potential for later outgassing as with inkjets).

[Drew Wiley]

Ivan - as far as resolution is concerned, straight optical printing would win hands-down direct from 8x10 film. Could be either negative or chrome, depending on the
paper type. Long exposures are not a problem with chromes like Astia or dupe films
under tungsten lighting. But optical printing is a different skill set with different
equipment, and this is a pretty big paper size. Fuji Crystal Archive directly printed from a relatively saturated negative like Provia VC would be a little on the soft side
at this degree of enlargement, so in this case, looks like inkjet might indeed be the only commonly available option. The last guy around here that made Cibas that big
has retired, and ruined his lungs long before by having 200 gallons of that damn
bleach in his lab! Nowadays we save our own lungs and poison people in other
countries with our hi-tech recyling!

[venchka]

Drew,

Thank you for your response. My answers to your questions/comments:

- I have access to a friend's drum scanner where 8x10 or 4x5 will cost the same.
- Lightjet, as most fine art photographers use these days for extra large prints.
- Longer exposures are no problem with my subject matter.
- I can address reciprocity correction issues in PS.
How would you print this large?

Shakes his head..........

One more person who thinks that bad exposure can be fixed in Photoshop.

[Ben Syverson]

Any "process" lens made since 1950 on 8x10 combined with good technique will give you wonderful gigantic exhibition prints. There's no magic bullet.

It doesn't have to be expensive either. A B&J 8x10 just sold in the For Sale section for $120. Combine that with a cheap process lens in the 300mm range. Since you're working in the field, I'd choose a f/9 Copal 1 lens over a f/5.6 Copal 3 boat anchor. Spend no more than $600 on the lens, and do not spend too any time trying to find the "best" lens. Leave that to the DSLR crowd -- any old process lenses will give you the sharpness you need.

Shoot at f/11, f/16 or f/22 instead of f/64, so you're not needlessly throwing away resolution. That will give you faster shutter speeds, which means you don't have to worry about wind and stability as much. Hopefully you can use tilt to give you the DOF you need. Otherwise, since it sounds like you're comfortable with Photoshop, you can do what Crewdson does: shoot multiple sheets of the same subject, each focused at a different point, and PS them together.

Portra 160NC will give you the best results in C41. In E6 I like Astia, but even that is too contrasty for me. C41 gives you the most options once you get into Photoshop. Any theoretical sharpness difference between C41 and E6 will be erased due to limitations of the scanner.

You will be forced into inkjet because no one (that I know of) can do 60x75" digital C prints. The machines just aren't that big. But that's fine -- honestly, if there is any sharpness difference one way or the other between inkjet and lightjet, you won't see it at 60x75. No one looks at exhibition prints through loupes.