PDA

View Full Version : Huge Prints From 4X5 Film



Brian Vuillemenot
10-Jan-2006, 12:31
Hello all,

I'm thinking about getting some very large prints made from 4X5 transparency film (30X40, 40X50, and/or 50X60). The transparencies will be drum scanned and digitally printed. I have two questions aboout this:



1) How large can a digital print be made from a 4X5 transparency without considerable loss of quality? I understand that "considerable loss of quality" is open to a lot of interpretation and personal preference, so I'd just like to hear how large a print you made or had printed and what you though of it.



2) At what size enlargement does 8X10 begin to surpass the quality attainable from 4X5? Let's imagine one were to make two identical exposures on 4X5 and 8X10 inch film, with the same angle of view (150 on 4X5 vs. 300 on 8X10) high quality, modern multi-coated lens, the same fine grain film (Velvia), shot at the optimal f stop on comparable cameras, and have prints made. In other words, the only thing limiting quality would be the size of the film. Would a considerable difference be noticable comparing 30X40 inch prints? How about at 20 X 24? What about really large prints? (50X60)?



Thanks for your input!

Eric Woodbury
10-Jan-2006, 12:43
Brian,

I saw Yann Arthus-Betrand prints from his book "Earth from Above" in London. The prints were outside and huge, 40x60 at least. I think he used 35mm, for sure it was roll film. They were very impressive and loss of quality was not a bit issue when viewing them. So, not only does it depend on what you mean by 'consideralbe loss of quality', but also what quality it is you are trying to preserve. If it is definition and smoothness, then the bigger negative is always better, always, unless you are shooting on a shaky tripod or on a windy day. Look at gigapxl.org for a big camera, big prints, and good analysis.

Remember, you take different pictures with different cameras.

Kevin Crisp
10-Jan-2006, 12:58
Brian: I haven't personally done this and pretty much shoot exclusively B&W. I have, however, been to the Mountain Light gallery in Bishop and saw prints much larger than you are talking about made off scans of Galen Rowell's 35 mm negatives. They looked incredible. You don't look at something that big by sticking your nose up to it. From a reasonable viewing distance the end result was fabulous to my eye. I think making the most of a 4X5 negative you shouldn't have any trouble at all in the sizes you are talking about.

Bruce Watson
10-Jan-2006, 13:18
Largely (pun intended) it depends on the image.

For reference, I have made a number of approx. 10x enlargements of 5x4 Tri-X -- 125 x 100 cm prints. I drum scan the negatives, then print on an inkjet printer using PiezoTone inks onto canvas. The print is then varnished and stretched over stretcher bars like you would an oil painting. The prints are excellent. They have no visible grain and are nose sharp. I can clearly enlarge a little more without much degradation of the images, but that's as big as I can conveniently print them. If it makes you feel any better, I've sold a few this size also, so apparently customers like them too.

For color tranny film, you should be fine at your 50" size (that would be roughly 50 x 62.5 inches, or 12.5x enlargement). At that level, there's no pressing need to go to 10x8 originals.

That said, all other things being equal, I think you'll see a difference in quality from prints made from 5x4 originals and 10x8 originals fairly quickly. Say about 6-8x enlargement for 5x4, which is about 3-4x enlargement for 10x8. You'll get better tonality, smoother transitions, somewhat better sharpness -- all the things you would expect from having four times the film area.

Sadly, you will be limited not by film size but by current computer and scanner technology. You can't scan a 10x8 original at 4000ppi because the resulting file is way too big for 32bit OSes to handle. From a practical standpoint, you top out at around 1.5GB file size these days. Photoshop is dying at that level, and you can spend lots of time waiting (I'm talking go-down-stairs-and-eat-a-snack wait times) between operations on even the fastest hardware. So eventhough you have more information on your 10x8 film, you can't access it all digitally.

All I'm saying is, 10x8 is not all that much better than 5x4 film when you are running a digital printing workflow. Some better? Yes. But do you get the full benefit of the 4x more film area? No.

Ed K.
10-Jan-2006, 13:43
Depends on the viewing distance and subject matter. Photos of people can usually be enlarged a great deal yet still look great. Architectural shots fall apart quickly with a great deal of enlargement.

I too saw the shots at Mountain Light in Bishop. IMHO they were enlarged far too much, and did not hold up well at all. Colors were rough looking, juiced yet muddy and there were strange halo effects around edges in a lot of them. From a longer distance they would have looked great. I found it disturbing to look at them from a distance of 10-15 feet. On the other hand, the photos that could not have been taken any other way than smaller format were very successful and great - so again, subject matter really makes a big difference. Many truly excellent photos there, breathtaking photos some of them, but just too big for quality. Believe me, I'm not knocking the outstanding work shown at Mountain Light. Lightjets do a fair amount of sharpening and interpolation - so be sure not to oversharpen your work.

If you want the best overall print from your MF and LF chromes, consider having an Ilfochrome made instead. Without the artifacts of scanning, or a scanner trying to approximate the grain information on the film, things come out much, much better in a larger print. If you are lucky, you can have John Weldon make you a print that will be truly first rate, and one that will probably look smoother and more alive than the typical lightjet. All-analog prints, done with great skill, seem to show qualities that far surpass the lightjet prints. The best part is that if your shot does not need fixing in Photoshop, you can skip all that time and trouble.

A flip-side example is the common billboard. When viewed from across the street, they can seem to have amazing clarity. The actual images on them are very very low resolution. Chances are good that even a 35mm would do for many billboard applications.

Eric Leppanen
10-Jan-2006, 14:06
The largest color digital print (drum scanned, printed on Lightjet) I've had made from 4x5 was approximately 26 x 35", and I wasn't happy with it. It was a landscape shot with mountains, a lake, and lots of vegetation; the neg was sharp, but the print tonality was mediocre and fine detail was lacking (pine needles on a foreground pine tree looked soft, distant shrubs looked like poofballs, etc.). It looked like it had been enlarged too much.

Currently I have four 16x20" drum scanned 4x5-based color digital prints, and one 20x25" drum scanned 8x10-based color digital print mounted on my living room wall. While the quality of the compositions (all landscapes) is comparable, everyone immediately ooo's and ahh's over the 8x10-based print, saying it looks much sharper, three-dimensional, and "real."

Personally, I think 8x10 significantly outperforms 4x5 at print sizes of 20x24" and larger. Chris Jordan if I recall correctly has said he starts seeing differences between 4x5 and 8x10 at a 16x20" print size. So at the print sizes you are talking about, you will definitely see a difference. How much will depend on subject matter. Landscapes (particularly with vegetation) are very resolution-intensive, and quickly benefit from the larger format. Other subjects are less sensitive. You may want to consider making 8x10" test prints at the enlargement factors you are considering, and see how much of a difference 4x5 vs. 8x10 will make in your particular application.

paulr
10-Jan-2006, 14:41
I've only made one big print (40x50 inches) from 4x5. It was done traditionally on black and white photo paper. I don't think your results would be significantly different from this doing it digitally, assuming you got a good scan. A 3600 dpi scan would very easily capture all the detail visible in this print.

As far as how good the print looks, as others said, it depends on how close you get. People naturally stand back from a mural (in my case it helps that a couch is in the way ;) From a few feet back it sparkles. Looking at it the way you would an 8x10 it's very soft.

One advantage to digital is that you'd be able to sharpen it. Done well, this would imporve the visual quality, but obviously won't add detail that isn't there.

bglick
10-Jan-2006, 14:45
Brian, a ton of variables...... To show the extremes......

Worst case 4x5 scenario, huge DOF, high f stop, f32, color neg film, mid to old vintage lens, wind, color neg film, camera / film alignment issues, mediocre scan quality, mediocre digital sharpening..... largest print deemed sharp ? 16x20" (4x enlargement)

Best case scenario from above, using high resolving B&W film, shallow DOF, modern lens, tight camera, great scan, great digital sharpening, etc. etc. This image can surely withstand up to 16x enlargement as deemed as sharp as the one above, or 64 x 80".

As for the differences between 4x5 and 810, if both cameras are tight, and all things being equal, and focussed at infinity, you will gain almost 2x the sharpness, the only losses is the fact the lenses are less sharp with such a large image circle. so 1.7x would be fair. now, if you have lots of DOF in the image, the improvement can be reduced to barely noticeable to the eye.

You gotta pin down the variables a bit better to get the answers you are looking for, and the answer can vary from image to image based on the variables.... A good starting point is using a loupe and examine at different magnfication if its "after the fact" and next, take the scan and print small crops.

Brian Vuillemenot
10-Jan-2006, 16:06
Thanks everyone for your answers,



As I thought, individual opinions and experiences vary widely, so it looks like I'll just have to try it out for myself and see if I like the results!

Harley Goldman
10-Jan-2006, 16:51
I would agree with your conclusion, you have to try it yourself and see if it meets your standards.

I have been to the Mountain Light gallery in Bishop many times and seen Galen Rowell's prints. They look great from a distance, but if I get anywhere close to them (and I don't mean inches), to my eye they look pretty bad. They sell well, but we all bring our own criteria to viewing them and they are not to my tastes. Much too large for the chromes.

John_4185
10-Jan-2006, 16:55
So what is the bottom line?

Say I have a 4gb file. Who will print it a real 300 or 360ppi at 40"x40"?

Anyone?

Brett Deacon
10-Jan-2006, 18:42
From the few examples I've seen, drum scanned 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies can make very nice 40x50 prints, even when viewed from up close. In fact, the awe I felt viewing upon viewing such prints was critical in my decision to take up LF photography. I'd love to make a few 40x50 prints myself someday. However, other than spending hours staring at them in my office or hanging them in my living room I'm not exactly sure what one does with 40x50 prints. From those of you who make such large prints, I'd be interested to hear what you do with them. In particular, how/where do you sell them? Who buys them? Are there special issues regarding handling or mounting/framing that make prints of this size a particular problem relative to smaller prints?

Ben Chase
10-Jan-2006, 18:44
I am not a large format shooter yet, but keep a close eye on this forum to snatch the tasty tidbits of information that arise.

I shoot 6x7 exclusively on an RZ Pro II. When a customer orders a print from me, it is printed on the ZBE Chromira, which is very similar to the Lightjet. It uses LED light vice laser light to print the image at 300dpi. All of my originals are scanned at 4000 DPI on a Nikon 9000 with the glass-mounted holder (keeps things flat). I have never been all that impressed with upres'd images from smaller formats (I've tried it with 35mm, and files from a 20D).

I have had nothing but absolute success when printing at 20x30 inches. I think that the most important things to ensure the best quality output from your prints is to have a color-calibrated monitor (I use Optix XR Pro), employ a quality printer (I use West Coast Imaging), and start with the best transparency that you can.

When I move to 4x5, I certainly hope to get up to 40x50 inch enlargements.

Gregory Gomez
10-Jan-2006, 19:18
Keeping all the previous comments in mind, then would it be safe to assume that the quality difference between 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 inch film, when all variables are held constant, would be minimal if only 11 x 14-inch optical prints are made and viewed at about 18 inches (one-half meter) in good light? What do you all think?

Brian Vuillemenot
10-Jan-2006, 19:27
Well, I guess there would be no difference between 40X50 inch prints made from 8X10 or a digital cell phone camera if they were viewed from 1/2 a mile away. ;)

Glenn Kroeger
10-Jan-2006, 19:44
I routinely do 24x30" prints on LightJets from drum scanned transparencies with exceptional sharpness and no apparent grain... I don't mind viewing these from 18" so I suspect you can make 30x40's with no issues and 40x50's that look fine from a few feet.

paulr
10-Jan-2006, 21:18
"I guess there would be no difference between 40X50 inch prints made from 8X10 or a digital cell phone camera if they were viewed from 1/2 a mile away"

closer than that ... think about what looks sharp to us in a movie theater. that's a 400 X or 500 X enlargement, but from several rows back it looks pretty great.

RDKirk
11-Jan-2006, 13:52
>>However, other than spending hours staring at them in my office or hanging them in my living room I'm not exactly sure what one does with 40x50 prints. From those of you who make such large prints, I'd be interested to hear what you do with them. In particular, how/where do you sell them? Who buys them? Are there special issues regarding handling or mounting/framing that make prints of this size a particular problem relative to smaller prints?<<

In my case, high-end formal portraits.

No other studio in my vicinity is using a 4x5 for formal portraits, and the clients who can afford them can't resist getting one after seeing a 40x50 made from a drums-scanned 4x5 negative. It's like owning a Ferrari--but cheaper. "Look at what's hanging in MY family room. Go ahead, get up close! Ever see that kind of detail?"

Even the camera itself gives them gratification--setting up a 4x5 view camera is a much more impressive process (for something they're going to pay several thousand dollars for) than a photographer pulling out what looks like a normal SLR.

Doug Dolde
14-Oct-2006, 23:24
Gotta agree about Galen Rowell's big prints from 35mm.

I was in the Mountain Light gallery today and. with all due respect to Galen, a 24x36 print shows an incredible lack of detail when looked at from a few feet away, and even worse when examined closely. Most are stunning except for that lack of fine detail

He did get a lot of shots that would have been difficult to capture on 4x5 though, mostly wildlife stuff.

adrian tyler
15-Oct-2006, 02:00
i saw burtinsky 50x60 prints from both 4x5 and 8x10, there is a difference, but you have to get closer than 2 feet to see it. they both look great from the distance you would look at a 50x60 print from unless you are a nit-picker, he has a lab... saw some huge paul graham prints off 4x5, say 70x90, and they were just amazing right up to the glass, he did them at laumont and we can assume that his production budget was not a major concern.

if the original is good and the scan is good, and you can do a few proofs, 4x5 or 8x10 will look good at 50x60, the difference will be noticable to a proffesional from 3 feet or less.

Jim Rice
15-Oct-2006, 07:48
Hello all,

At what size enlargement does 8X10 begin to surpass the quality attainable from 4X5?

Um......8x10.

Jim Jones
16-Oct-2006, 10:32
Kodak's 18x60 foot Colorama http://www.museeniepce.com/expositions/expositions_right.php?code_expo=kodakcolor&lang=us in New Yorks Grand Central Station was an example of super-size enlargements, although in that display environment there was no need for fine image detail. At least some of the images were shot with less than ULF formats.

Lenny Eiger
26-Dec-2006, 19:58
So what is the bottom line?

Say I have a 4gb file. Who will print it a real 300 or 360ppi at 40"x40"?

Anyone?

I do it all day long....

tim atherton
26-Dec-2006, 20:04
i saw burtinsky 50x60 prints from both 4x5 and 8x10, there is a difference, but you have to get closer than 2 feet to see it. they both look great from the distance you would look at a 50x60 print from unless you are a nit-picker, he has a lab... saw some huge paul graham prints off 4x5, say 70x90, and they were just amazing right up to the glass, he did them at laumont and we can assume that his production budget was not a major concern.

if the original is good and the scan is good, and you can do a few proofs, 4x5 or 8x10 will look good at 50x60, the difference will be noticable to a proffesional from 3 feet or less.

Paul Graham always used to shoot 6x7..?

tim atherton
26-Dec-2006, 20:08
i saw burtinsky 50x60 prints from both 4x5 and 8x10, there is a difference, but you have to get closer than 2 feet to see it. they both look great from the distance you would look at a 50x60 print from unless you are a nit-picker, he has a lab... .

as someone else mentioned, in part it's about the variables. Burtynsky was finding 8x10 to much to lug around overseas everywhere. He found he could get 40x50 prints that were 98% as good from 4x5 - BUT he only uses the best super XL/apo whatever lenses.

The other thing he does is shoot Polaroid negs and then takes a 10x loupe to them so he can tell on the spot pretty well how a 10x enlargement is going to look...

That said, the big 40x50 prints I've seen here from 4x5 film look as sharp as anything. Not much point in them being sharper unless you were sticking your own 10x loupe up against the glass in the frame....

Frank Petronio
26-Dec-2006, 20:42
After a point, I don't think detail has much to do with the quality of the image. I'd shoot 8x10 for the quality of the out of focus areas, the way it describes the 3-D quality, the reaction of the subject to the larger camera... the possibility of extra resolution is way down the list. And when you factor things like wind, depth of field, and the like, shooting 8x10 because you want more resolution can actually be counter productive in some instances.

The whole notion puts you in the same company as that self-promoting whats-his-name who built the world's highest resolution camera ladeedah and all that happy BS.

Shoot 8x10 because it is cool, not to win some silly resolution game.

Jack Brauer
26-Dec-2006, 23:02
I've printed several 44"x55"ers from drum-scanned 4x5s... they look great. It was a real satisfaction for me to see the first big print; it really validated shooting LF in my mind (yes I've had my doubts, especially when I was first starting out).

Ed K.
27-Dec-2006, 00:08
The subject matter makes a difference too. It doesn't take a whole lot of sharpness to portray people. Architecture is another matter. The film and processing, as well as exposure make a difference too. I've seen some 4x5s blow up really well to large sizes, and well, some that should have enlarged very well kind of fall flat.

If you look at your scanned 4x5 at 50% of its printed size on a large monitor and it looks great, chances are pretty good that it will also look great as a large print. Another thing you can do is print an inkjet proof of a section of your print - the part that would show details you are concerned about. If the inkjet proof looks good, again, the Lightjet would (IMO) usually look fantastic. Most Lightjet setups do sharpen a bit, so go easy on the sharpening.

As you said, Dr. V., you'll ultimately have to decide for yourself.

Ric Bower
27-Dec-2006, 01:49
In reply to the original post- IT DEPENDS! on a number of issues....
1. Subject matter, as has been pointed out, is key- the reason DC manufacturers use faces close up in their ads to demostrate res is because it is forgiving subject matter, a crowd scene or cityscape would not blow up as big. they demand much more res inherantly.
2. 'Apparrent sharpness' when depth of field is shallow will make the subject in focus appear very sharp when all about is blurry and make the whole thing good for a big ger print than if the depth of field had been large. (another reason to shoot LF)
3. Viewing distance as has been pointed out- Chuck Close's recent portrait paintings illustrate this principle.
4. Most importantly it depends on your creative intentions and this over rides issues 1,2 &3! If you are Thomas Demand, or Andreas Gursky then resolution is essential to make your artistic point- Frank Giaccobetti's portraits of Francis Bacon could have been done on a phone camera without any problem and they are FANTASTIC!

Greg Lockrey
27-Dec-2006, 01:55
"I guess there would be no difference between 40X50 inch prints made from 8X10 or a digital cell phone camera if they were viewed from 1/2 a mile away"

closer than that ... think about what looks sharp to us in a movie theater. that's a 400 X or 500 X enlargement, but from several rows back it looks pretty great.

Yes, but the frames are constantly changing and your eyes don't have the time to focus on the faux paux.

Greg Lockrey
27-Dec-2006, 06:49
I do it all day long....

Me too.

Adamphotoman
27-Dec-2006, 10:39
Hi Brian,
I am brand new to the forum but not new to photography. I have printed Ciba/now called Ilfochrome for decades and I agree that a properly printed Ilfochrome has a unique quality unmatched by any other process.

Drum Scans are the absolute best if you want a digital workflow. Personally I do not like Light Jet if you mean the Digital exposure on a RA Chemical Process. If you look real close they are not sharp at all. Kind of blurry--no grain.

Lately I switched to large Glossy Varnished Canvas and although they will never match an Ilfochrome the Varnish adds a beautiful depth. I now use a 4X5 Betterlight scanning back on a Sinar. It is wickedly sharp and the color is wonderfull, but you have to use modern Apo Multicoated lenses and you will not want to stop down to the point that lens diffraction sets in.

As a test I scanned a 35mm slide and printed it to 44x66 with an incredible result.

As a note the main reason to use an 8x10 instead of a 4X5 is to reduce grain. This is where a drum scanned image will shine---less grain. My betterlight scans will have more grain to deal with but for the few i need done they are more than satisfactory.

Grant Kernan

Brian Vuillemenot
27-Dec-2006, 13:41
Holiday greetings, gentlemen,

I love on the new forum interface when old threads that were posted months (or years) ago get resurected, and fresh opinions are voiced! In the time since I asked the original question, I had two 30X40 inch Chromira prints made for me from drum scans by West Coast Imaging, one from a 4X5 Velvia transparency and the other from an 8X10 one. Although far from a scientific test, I can't tell the difference in resolution between the two- they are both very sharp and detailed. This pretty much settled the issue for me- it may be possible to get a slight edge using 8X10 for very large enlargements, but the differences are minor and other factors can have just as much, if not more, of an effect on print sharpness and overall quality.