Scanning 11x14 BW Negatives

[Joseph Kashi]

I am looking for suggestions about scanning 11x14 negatives to make very large digital prints. We will be moving into a smaller space and I will not have room for a full-scale silver-gelatine darkroom, just JOBO drum processing of 11x14 negatives and contact prints. I will still have room for my large format Epson 7590 printer, just no large darkroom.

I do have an HP 7612 multifunction device that can scan up to 11x17 but is set up to scan only reflective media like plats and prints. Is there any reasonable approach to using it with tranmissive media like negatives that works well?

Alternatively, is anyone aware of "affordable" scans that can do 11x14 negatives in one pass?

Thanks

[Oren Grad]

The Epson 12000XL has gotten crazy-expensive, alas; if you get really lucky it might be possible to find a used 10000XL or 11000XL for a price within reason. Microtek at one point had some transparency scanners that could accommodate at least the 11-inch dimension, allowing for stitching of only two exposures, though I think they've more or less withdrawn from the US market and used ones will probably have iffy reliability.

[domaz]

Back your negative with a piece of white paper and then put a piece of glass over the backing and negative to make sure it's snug. Then try the reflective scanner, it might not give great results but it might be something to play with. Otherwise I would pursue doing Digicam "Scanning", i.e. take a few pictures of the negative over a light source and stitch them. Requires much less room in general than a scanner and can be setup and broken down requiring no permanent home.

[Oren Grad]

OK, just for the record, the Microtek tabloid-size scanners on this page are the 3200XL, 1000XL Plus, and 9800XL Plus:

https://microtek.com/en/applications/classify/54

[nolindan]

Make a contact print and scan the print?

[rawitz]

I am looking for suggestions about scanning 11x14 negatives to make very large digital prints. We will be moving into a smaller space and I will not have room for a full-scale silver-gelatine darkroom, just JOBO drum processing of 11x14 negatives and contact prints. I will still have room for my large format Epson 7590 printer, just no large darkroom.

I do have an HP 7612 multifunction device that can scan up to 11x17 but is set up to scan only reflective media like plats and prints. Is there any reasonable approach to using it with tranmissive media like negatives that works well?

Alternatively, is anyone aware of "affordable" scans that can do 11x14 negatives in one pass?

Thanks

If 11x14 negative scans with a Epson 12000XL is "affordable" for you, do it.
I scan my 9x15 colornegatives on an Epson 850 on groundglass in 2 halfes and stitch them (with my old AutopanoGiga or in Photoshop or else) or on wetmounting-filmholder in 3 parts (with hardware dust-cleaning!). It works perfectly.
I also do my own color-development with Jobo CPE, earlier Atl 2 but I myself have no more "room" today. It works perfectly too!
Forget all these approaches of scanning prints or digital-camera repro-scan, no digital back can handle 11x14 film in resolution.
With 2400 dpi (netto) scanning on Epson 850 I get every detail from the film and have room in the digital post for color and density and ...

regards
Rainer

[Tin Can]

I don's scan much on V700

I vastly prefer wet prints

if I need a snap of a print I use DIGI

No endless 'cleanups'

My wet prints show no evil

I wish I knew 25 years ago scans are a mistake

[bmikiten]

What is the size for your final print? How many will you make? Creo and other brands are available used (obviously not new) and can handle large high quality scans. If your scan quantity is low, use a service bureau.

[Larry Gebhardt]

If this black and white I would use camera scanning of the negative. I do this with a macro lens and a Sony A7RIV and the results are better than my scanmate 5000 drum scanner. I use an old Chromega color head for the light source and I can scan up to 4x5 in one shot for smaller prints. For higher res and larger negs I stitch in photoshop.

[Corran]

Regarding the big Epsons, check your local libraries or universities. I know my old university had a 10000XL in their library that anyone could use (hardly anyone touched it).

[Tin Can]

Just before SHITF I was about to get access to one at the big Jr College 3 miles away

been so long I forgot

I will check and report to myself....


Regarding the big Epsons, check your local libraries or universities. I know my old university had a 10000XL in their library that anyone could use (hardly anyone touched it).

[cuypers1807]

I scan mine on a V700 in four scans and then merge in PS.

[Sal Santamaura]

A downside to my Epson V850 (as well as, I suspect, its sibling and their predecessors) is an apparently complete lack of attention to dissipating static electricity. The plastic case builds and retains a charge that is then transferred to its glass surfaces as well as negatives/transparencies being scanned. I intend to open it up and tape some cut up pieces of anti-static bags onto the interior surfaces to mitigate this issue, but haven't gotten around to doing that yet. I'm anxious to avoid extensive work on image files cleaning up dust.

Does anyone here own a 12000XL? If so, did Epson design anything into it to control static? Thanks in advance for whatever feedback you can share.

[Roger Beck]

Epson 12000XL is perfect for that.

[Oren Grad]

Epson 12000XL is perfect for that.

...except that the version with transparency unit now costs $4400. The Epson website very occasionally offers refurbished units at a substantial discount, but still well over $2000 when equipped with the transparency unit.

[Peter De Smidt]

I like Bryan's advice. Check for a local university (or maybe even a public library) that might let you use a scanner. Otherwise, if you have a good digital camera, then making a scanner isn't that hard. Once setup, scanning that way would be much faster than a traditional scanner.

[Tin Can]

Never had your problem 10 years V700 mostly left 'on'

No internal dust, never cleaned

Location perhaps



A downside to my Epson V850 (as well as, I suspect, its sibling and their predecessors) is an apparently complete lack of attention to dissipating static electricity. The plastic case builds and retains a charge that is then transferred to its glass surfaces as well as negatives/transparencies being scanned. I intend to open it up and tape some cut up pieces of anti-static bags onto the interior surfaces to mitigate this issue, but haven't gotten around to doing that yet. I'm anxious to avoid extensive work on image files cleaning up dust.

Does anyone here own a 12000XL? If so, did Epson design anything into it to control static? Thanks in advance for whatever feedback you can share.

[Joseph Kashi]

The Epson 12000XL has gotten crazy-expensive, alas; if you get really lucky it might be possible to find a used 10000XL or 11000XL for a price within reason. Microtek at one point had some transparency scanners that could accommodate at least the 11-inch dimension, allowing for stitching of only two exposures, though I think they've more or less withdrawn from the US market and used ones will probably have iffy reliability.

Thanks, Oren, for your suggestion.

I bought a used but clean Epson 10000XL scanner with the A3 transparency unit for an affordable price. That seemed like the cleanest solution for my anticipated circumstances.

Thank you, everyone, for the many helpful suggestions.

[Joseph Kashi]

I like Bryan's advice. Check for a local university (or maybe even a public library) that might let you use a scanner. Otherwise, if you have a good digital camera, then making a scanner isn't that hard. Once setup, scanning that way would be much faster than a traditional scanner.

Thank you all for this very practical idea - this would be a very workable approach except that I set up the local college's digital photo gear and know that the 11x17 Microtek scanner that I donated to them does not have a transparency unit, alas! <GG>

[Joseph Kashi]

Regarding the big Epsons, check your local libraries or universities. I know my old university had a 10000XL in their library that anyone could use (hardly anyone touched it).

I live in a small Alaska town 150 mountain highway miles from Anchorage. No one has a transparency scanner that big within driving distance - it's the sort of thing that I had to forego when I moved from Washington DC to the Kenai Peninsula. That and spending much of my weekend dealing with TMS - Too Much Snow. Buying a used 10000XL was the only ultimately practical approach.

Although I am contact printing the 11x14, I do have a large Epson 7590 printer at my office and the ability to make big digital prints if and when needed. No sense wasting any of that big negative.

[Alan Klein]

A downside to my Epson V850 (as well as, I suspect, its sibling and their predecessors) is an apparently complete lack of attention to dissipating static electricity. The plastic case builds and retains a charge that is then transferred to its glass surfaces as well as negatives/transparencies being scanned. I intend to open it up and tape some cut up pieces of anti-static bags onto the interior surfaces to mitigate this issue, but haven't gotten around to doing that yet. I'm anxious to avoid extensive work on image files cleaning up dust.

Does anyone here own a 12000XL? If so, did Epson design anything into it to control static? Thanks in advance for whatever feedback you can share.

What does the static do?

[Tin Can]

I bought 2--16x48" neg viewers for $20 early last decade

Same as used for years in Foto shops

I was on crutches, the seller loaded them in my van, he WANTED them gone, wife was watching...

I make negs up to 14X36" and use matt board to block excess light

Then to show you folk I shoot it with DIGI

I can now make contact prints up to that size

and hope to get my 14X36" camera into reality

[ghostcount]

A downside to my Epson V850 (as well as, I suspect, its sibling and their predecessors) is an apparently complete lack of attention to dissipating static electricity. The plastic case builds and retains a charge that is then transferred to its glass surfaces as well as negatives/transparencies being scanned. I intend to open it up and tape some cut up pieces of anti-static bags onto the interior surfaces to mitigate this issue, but haven't gotten around to doing that yet. I'm anxious to avoid extensive work on image files cleaning up dust.

Does anyone here own a 12000XL? If so, did Epson design anything into it to control static? Thanks in advance for whatever feedback you can share.

https://a.co/d/8VK9tQ9

[Sal Santamaura]

What does the static do?

Attracts maddening quantities of dust to the glass and negative. Despite use of anti-static devices on the glass, negative and scanner case. Charge builds back up almost immediately.


https://a.co/d/8VK9tQ9

See above.

[Alan Klein]

Attracts maddening quantities of dust to the glass and negative. Despite use of anti-static devices on the glass, negative and scanner case. Charge builds back up almost immediately.



See above.

I think my newer V850 collects more dust than my older V600 because the V850 has extra glass to hold the film flat on the holders. Two extra surfaces just collect more dust despite my best efforts to blow and sweep it off with a static brush. I spend a lot of time spotting in Lightroom afterwards. Lately I've been using ICE which help but not perfect and very slow.

[Roger Beck]

Joseph Kashi you can send them to me, happy to scan and return.

[Tin Can]

I think the V850 and ilk use LED and the older models like mine use fluorescent tubes

The dif may be heat

Since I believe most electronics last longer if left on

I leave mine on

YMMV






I think my newer V850 collects more dust than my older V600 because the V850 has extra glass to hold the film flat on the holders. Two extra surfaces just collect more dust despite my best efforts to blow and sweep it off with a static brush. I spend a lot of time spotting in Lightroom afterwards. Lately I've been using ICE which help but not perfect and very slow.

[Joseph Kashi]

Joseph Kashi you can send them to me, happy to scan and return.

Thank you, Roger, that's very kind. However, my lightly-used Epson 10000XL should be here in about two days.

Best regards

Joe Kashi

[Carl J]

Will beat the hell out of multiple scans on a smaller Epson (V750/850) and stitching, which I found to be a royal PITA. I work at a university and have access to a 12000XL, and previously a 10000XL which they got rid of without my knowing it (wish I could have gotten my hands on it) and it makes scanning 11x14 a relative pleasure.

[Joseph Kashi]

The Epson 10000XL and transparency unit was received in good working order and I have it up and running. It's a clean solution to scanning 11x14 and the used models are not TOO expensive.

However, what I've found though, is that 60MB JPEGs of 11x14 scans at the standard 2400dpi are "too big" for Lightroom to accept and further process and output.

Does anyone have any suggestions about decent post-processing programs that can handle the pixel dimensions and file size of an 11x14 scan?

[Corran]

To start with, I'd knock it down to 2000 or 1600 DPI. Unless you plan on making 100" enlargements, there is very little reason to do that. If you're worried about getting the "max" resolution from it, I would probably scan at 2400 DPI and then resize in Photoshop to half that size.

I don't know what Lightroom version you are using but 60 MB is not even that big of a file. I'm pretty sure RAW files are regularly larger than that these days. Lightroom claims max 65,000 pixels (length/width) so you shouldn't have issues in general unless you are running an old / underpowered machine.

[Joseph Kashi]

To start with, I'd knock it down to 2000 or 1600 DPI. Unless you plan on making 100" enlargements, there is very little reason to do that. If you're worried about getting the "max" resolution from it, I would probably scan at 2400 DPI and then resize in Photoshop to half that size.

I don't know what Lightroom version you are using but 60 MB is not even that big of a file. I'm pretty sure RAW files are regularly larger than that these days. Lightroom claims max 65,000 pixels (length/width) so you shouldn't have issues in general unless you are running an old / underpowered machine.

I agree - I've used bigger RAW files in Lightroom without a problem, which is why I am puzzled. the 2400dpi file is 26.4K x 34K pixels, which should be well within the dimensional limit of the Lightroom 6.14 version that I'm using.

The next stop is 1200dpi, which I agree should be sufficient resolution for the 24" wide digital prints that I can make. Although a bit more resolution would be nice for maximum micro-contrast, 1200 would be more than enough.

What prompted this inquiry is the puzzling "file too big" error message with 26Kx34K pixel dimensions that should be well within LR's native capability. I have had bigger files from Olympus Pen-F Hi-Res mode RAW images work fine in LR.

[rawitz]

However, what I've found though, is that 60MB JPEGs of 11x14 scans at the standard 2400dpi are "too big" for Lightroom to accept and further process and output.

Does anyone have any suggestions about decent post-processing programs that can handle the pixel dimensions and file size of an 11x14 scan?

In the stitching software of my 9x15`scans with 2400 dpi (with Epson 700) I get 20000x35000 files and have the choice between JPG-Format or PSB-Format. PSB is an extented lossless TIFF format for filessizes more than 30000x yyy pixels. I dont use Lightroom but Photoshop can easy handle these Formats and Sizes.
But I know the older Photoshop versions cannot handle JPGs with more than 30000 pixels one side.

What do you mean with " 60MB JPEGs of 11x14 scans at the standard 2400dpi"? My comparable JPEGs have 500 MB.

regards
Rainer

[nolindan]

...I believe most electronics last longer if left on...


Well, actually, electronics last longer if left off. Also, failure rate of electronics doubles for every 10C rise in temperature.

As to fluorescent lamps, see http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Documents/FL%20Life.htm Google for more, I just picked the first reference. There are lots and lots of studies of failure modes and lifetime prediction for fluorescent lamps. Large office & factory installations will go through preventative wholesale re-lampiing to prevent having to replace fluorescent lamps one at a time - so accurately predicting time-to-failure is of great interest.

[Alan Klein]

In the stitching software of my 9x15`scans with 2400 dpi (with Epson 700) I get 20000x35000 files and have the choice between JPG-Format or PSB-Format. PSB is an extented lossless TIFF format for filessizes more than 30000x yyy pixels. I dont use Lightroom but Photoshop can easy handle these Formats and Sizes.
But I know the older Photoshop versions cannot handle JPGs with more than 30000 pixels one side.

What do you mean with " 60MB JPEGs of 11x14 scans at the standard 2400dpi"? My comparable JPEGs have 500 MB.

regards
Rainer

Size of jpegs varies depending on what the compression setting is. You can set it so high (small file size) that you get banding and loads of artifacts. Or you can set the jpeg compression wih basically no compression and get a jpeg file larger than an original full resolution tiff file.

[Joseph Kashi]

In the stitching software of my 9x15`scans with 2400 dpi (with Epson 700) I get 20000x35000 files and have the choice between JPG-Format or PSB-Format. PSB is an extented lossless TIFF format for filessizes more than 30000x yyy pixels. I dont use Lightroom but Photoshop can easy handle these Formats and Sizes.
But I know the older Photoshop versions cannot handle JPGs with more than 30000 pixels one side.

What do you mean with " 60MB JPEGs of 11x14 scans at the standard 2400dpi"? My comparable JPEGs have 500 MB.

regards
Rainer

I did a highly compressed JPEG scan output for my functional test of the newly acquired scanner to avoid that possible variable affecting Lightroom input as I know that LR can handle files of that size or larger.

I might have a problem with the 30,000 pixel dimensional limit with the version of LR that I'm using. I'll be redoing the operational test at 1200 dpi later this evening.

[rawitz]

I did a highly compressed JPEG scan output for my functional test of the newly acquired scanner to avoid that possible variable affecting Lightroom input as I know that LR can handle files of that size or larger.

I might have a problem with the 30,000 pixel dimensional limit with the version of LR that I'm using. I'll be redoing the operational test at 1200 dpi later this evening.

You cannot bypass the 30000 pixel limit by higher JPG compression. Choose the highest JPG Quality and the maximum dpi resolution for scan sizes just under 30000 pixel; 2000 or 2200 dpi. With 1200 dpi scans the epson is completly underchallenged.

[Joseph Kashi]

You cannot bypass the 30000 pixel limit by higher JPG compression. Choose the highest JPG Quality and the maximum dpi resolution for scan sizes just under 30000 pixel; 2000 or 2200 dpi. With 1200 dpi scans the epson is completly underchallenged.

Yes, I understand that a JPEG file, inherently compressed, does not bypass the Lightroom dimernsional limits. That's which I used a JPEG rather than a TIFF. Using the relatively small 8-bit JPEG file would isolate the pixel dimensional limits as the likely cause of the problem, rather than having two possible variables in play at the same time.

Further experimentation demonstrated that scanning 11x14 negatives at 1800 dpi 16-bit TIFF produces a usable Lightroom file that does not trigger the "file too big" error message.

Oddly, though, given the published Lightroom 30,000 pixel limit, anything over about 28,000 =/- pixels on the long edge DOES trigger error message. Still, that's plentyof resolution for an 11x14 negative.

Thoughts and suggestions about the limits of later LR versions ( I use perpetually licensed LR 6.14) or similar programs with good local segment correction and decent printing capabilities??

[rawitz]

Further experimentation demonstrated that scanning 11x14 negatives at 1800 dpi 16-bit TIFF produces a usable Lightroom file that does not trigger the "file too big" error message.


1800 dpi scans for 11x14 is not too bad! The professional drum scan services (here in germany) do not offer scans 8x10 (and larger) for more than 2000 dpi (at heavy prices).
As said I dont use Lightroom, but my actual Photoshop overcomes the earlier size limits.
regards
Rainer

[Andrew O'Neill]

I sometimes multiple scans of my 14x17 negatives with an Epson 750V... then stitch them together in PS. Scanning an 11x14 negative would require few passes making it heaps easier than a 14x17!

[Tin Can]

Why do you scan?

[rawitz]

Why do you scan?

How do you get enlarged prints from your 11x14 film without scanning?

[Corran]

You could hack an 11x14 enlarger using your 11x14 camera, if you were so inclined. Or build one custom.

[rawitz]

You could hack an 11x14 enlarger using your 11x14 camera, if you were so inclined. Or build one custom.

You are right in theory!
But I never heard or saw anybody who had done so. I worked with an 8x10 enlarger Durst 1824-Color years ago, hard labour like a carpenter, but compared to a (non yet existing) 11x14 enlarger it is a childrens toy.

[Alan Klein]

Clyde Butcher has enlargers including 11x14 but also a 26x36" 16 foot horizontal enlarger that weighs a ton. Literally.
https://clydebutcher.com/about-the-artist/technical-information/

[Tin Can]

Clyde sells well

Glad to hear he also uses Elwoods!

[rawitz]

Okay,
but I do color photography, so show me anybody who does enlarged color-prints from 11x14 film.

[Corran]

Just my heathen opinion here, so take it with a few grains of salt. 11x14 color film is over the top and likely gets no better image than 4x5 enlarged to the same size once you normalize apertures used, especially considering you need to be actually rich to get fresh film at that size.

[Joseph Kashi]

Why do you scan?

The 11x14 is primarily used for BW contact printing on MG silver-gelatin paper.

I do have a fairly new, good quality Epson P7590 24" roll paper digital printer. Should I want a larger BW print than an 11x14 contact print, then a high-resolution 16-bit TIFF scan is the only practical way for me to do that. I do a fair number of fine-art photo solo exhibits and thus not uncommonly need larger prints..

I do not foresee using 11x14 for any color work - I have FF digital, 4x5, and 5x7 outfits for color. 11x14 would be massively impractical for color, as another commenter noted. As it stands now, I scan any 4x5 and 5x7 format color on a V850 and print that digitally on the P7590.

We are downsizing, and so the large darkroom with the 4x5 and 5x7 Omega enlargers will inevitably go away soon. Hence, finding different ways to process and print ULF images, such as JOBO drum processing ULF film and digitally printing larger-than-contact size prints is becoming necessary.

[rawitz]

11x14 color film is over the top and likely gets no better image than 4x5 enlarged to the same size once you normalize apertures used, especially considering you need to be actually rich to get fresh film at that size.

Say this to Clyde Butcher and his analog way of enlarging in BW.
My own highend scans with 2400 dpi net (= 50 lp/mm) from my 8x10 film have the visible double resolution and fourth the size to 4x5.
Unfortunately the prizes for LF color-photografie (and BW) go up quickly. But its for every format not only for ULF.
I´m not a rich man, but I happened to buy a stock of color-film some years ago at the reasonable prices then. Thats Afga Aviphot Color 9,5´ fitting my 9x15 camera and all smaller formats I do (mostly 8x10). There is a running chat about this type of film here.


We are downsizing, and so the large darkroom with the 4x5 and 5x7 Omega enlargers will inevitably go away soon. Hence, finding different ways to process and print ULF images, such as JOBO drum processing ULF film and digitally printing larger-than-contact size prints is becoming necessary.

I retired from my earlier professional studio and do all my photography at home now! A Jobo prozessor (CPE and CPA) can develop color-film (and BW and prints) up to 20x24`size in my bathroom. The Epson 700 Scanner is smaller than the DIN A2 printer on my desktop. After severe trial I got half of the wardrobe from my wife for my extented LF eqipment and for my bit clothing.

regards
Rainer

[Corran]

Say this to Clyde Butcher and his analog way of enlarging in BW.

I think it was pretty clear I was talking about color film, as were you. Clyde's ULF enlargements are obviously impressive but not relevant to the discussion of 11x14 color film and analog enlarging. BTW, as you may know, he no longer shoots film and is making digital images and digital prints for newer work. I got to meet him a couple of years ago and we chatted about ULF a lot as I shoot 12x20. Contact prints only.

As for your stock of color film, well good luck with old expired and ultimately finite film. I'm not much of a color printer but if I were to go color seriously and long-term I wouldn't shoot larger than 4x5 for a myriad of reasons. As for resolution, equivalent apertures for DOF between any format also have equivalent lp/mm resolution limits from diffraction, so the benefits of larger film area quickly become a diminishing return. Most seem to prefer larger formats for tonality reasons, and for the ability to contact print. Count me in there.

[rawitz]

I simply tried to explain, that in my workflow with my technic there is no difference between ULF 9x15 and smaller formats. I do the same as Kashi described for his BW work but in color ULF too.

Dont worry about my film stock, I bought it fresh from Agfa and stock it in permanent freezer. So maybe fresher than the today sold "fresh" film, which has circulated between several brands and then reconfectioned.

And dont worry, in my uwide and wide-angle (or medium and long distance) photography I seldom have to stop down more than f22, so diffraction is not an issue. And to obviate further claims against ULF, I do calibrate my cameras, solved film flatness issue, have sturdy tripods and not (yet) alzheimer.
Its the old "sour grape story".

regards
Rainer

[Corran]

No sour grapes here, you can do whatever you want, though I would say it'd be hard to fight physics of dof vs aperture. Hope to see you post some of your photos!

[rawitz]

DOF is only related to lens focal, not to filmformat.
My Symmar 210 on 4x5 has the same DOF as my (mostly used) SAngulon 210 on 9x15.

[Corran]

Come on now, you know exactly what I'm talking about - that for a given composition standing in the same place with a smaller format you'll use a wider lens, and use a commensurately wider aperture for an equivalent DOF. So unless one is shooting flat objects or specifically wanting a short DOF look, ULF likely will use smaller apertures. A 210mm on 4x5 is simply not comparable to on 9x15 because they are wildly different fields of view.

[Alan Klein]

Come on now, you know exactly what I'm talking about - that for a given composition standing in the same place with a smaller format you'll use a wider lens, and use a commensurately wider aperture for an equivalent DOF. So unless one is shooting flat objects or specifically wanting a short DOF look, ULF likely will use smaller apertures. A 210mm on 4x5 is simply not comparable to on 9x15 because they are wildly different fields of view.


I'm not an expert on this and I have a question. To get the same DOF from a 4x5 vs 8x10, you need a smaller aperture for the 8x10. Correct? So then you're saying that means there's a chance for more refraction. But doesn't the hole opening and refraction also have to do with the magnification of the final print. So since you don't have to magnify an 8x10 as much as a 4x5, than DoF and refraction should be the same. No? Yes?

[Peter De Smidt]

When comparing different formats, it's not just diffraction that matters. There's also film flatness, quality of lenses, resistance to vibration, ease of scanning, and a bunch of other things, as well. But in any case, what matters is that the photographer is having fun. There's no need to justify what you want to do.

[rawitz]

Its becoming a bit complicated:

DOF is only related to lens focal, not to filmformat.
My Symmar 210 on 4x5 has the same DOF as my (mostly used) SAngulon 210 on 9x15.
Thats physic law so no discussion


Come on now, you know exactly what I'm talking about - that for a given composition standing in the same place with a smaller format you'll use a wider lens, and use a commensurately wider aperture for an equivalent DOF.

Thats right. If you want to shoot the same (reality) picture with 4x5 or 8x10 format with the same (!) DOF , you have to double the lens focal (150mm to 300mm) and then you have to double (numerical) the f-stop. Practicaly spoken: a 4x5 film with lens 150mm and f-11 is the same in picture view and DOF (! thats the argument of corran) as in 8x10 film with 300mm lens and f-22, everything else in technic and optic being perfect. Only the resolution doubles, so you can make 4xsize prints with 2xresolution.


To get the same DOF from a 4x5 vs 8x10, you need a smaller aperture for the 8x10. Correct? So then you're saying that means there's a chance for more refraction. But doesn't the hole opening and refraction also have to do with the magnification of the final print. So since you don't have to magnify an 8x10 as much as a 4x5, than DoF and refraction should be the same. No? Yes?

We consent (with Corran I`m sure), that the only difference is in resolution. But Corran is right, that there is a physical law of optical diffraction (not refraction!), that from smaller as f-22 in film-photography (not for digital) the DOF and the optical sharpness over the whole picture field (to the extreme edges) improves , but the maximum sharpness (in the center) slowly detoriates by physical law.

[Alan Klein]

Its becoming a bit complicated:

Thats physic law so no discussion



Thats right. If you want to shoot the same (reality) picture with 4x5 or 8x10 format with the same (!) DOF , you have to double the lens focal (150mm to 300mm) and then you have to double (numerical) the f-stop. Practicaly spoken: a 4x5 film with lens 150mm and f-11 is the same in picture view and DOF (! thats the argument of corran) as in 8x10 film with 300mm lens and f-22, everything else in technic and optic being perfect. Only the resolution doubles, so you can make 4xsize prints with 2xresolution.



Not really. We consent (with Corran I`m sure), that the only difference is in resolution. But Corran is right, that there is a physical law of optical diffraction (not refraction!), that from smaller as f-22 in film-photography (not for digital) the optical sharpness over the whole (to the extreme edges) picture size improves by lens construction, but the maximum sharpness (in the center) slowly detoriates by physical law.

I'm not disagreeing with you. What I;m saying is that because enlargement is less on the 8x10, optical diffraction will not be seen. The picture will look just as sharp as the 4x5 that used a larger aperture. No? Yes?

[Corran]

Alan, check some diffraction charts and take a look at max resolution for given apertures. Then consider enlargement ratios and calculate it.

Of course all the math says is hypothetical but it's a baseline. Personally when I tried to get max resolution with the largest aperture possible for a needed DOF I was always disappointed and decided it was better to have slight diffraction than slight out of focus. Ymmv.

[rawitz]

I'm not disagreeing with you. What I;m saying is that because enlargement is less on the 8x10, optical diffraction will not be seen. The picture will look just as sharp as the 4x5 that used a larger aperture. No? Yes?

Yes and no. Your argument that for the same(!) final enlarged printsize every physical differences described here in DOF, resolution and diffraction (and film) will be equalilized, I myself cant calculate it mathematically, but in practice its the simple truth, the larger the filmformat following all technical rules as said here the better the result for the "possible largest analog or digital print" is. What you want as "largest" print is your personal decision not physical determined.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, check some diffraction charts and take a look at max resolution for given apertures. Then consider enlargement ratios and calculate it.

Of course all the math says is hypothetical but it's a baseline. Personally when I tried to get max resolution with the largest aperture possible for a needed DOF I was always disappointed and decided it was better to have slight diffraction than slight out of focus. Ymmv.

When I started shooting medium format landscapes 35 years ago, I would calculate the aperture I would need for the DOF I wanted in a particular scene. Then I would stop down one extra stop for good measure. I never thought about diffraction, right or wrong.

[Joseph Kashi]

sorry to ask this question everyone seems to be dancing around, but how large are you planning to make your prints? you really don't need to have gigantic scans to make big gargantuan prints ...
might be easier to curtail your scanning to fit your end image size. that is unless you are commissioned by your gallery because they already have buyers for your giant artworks.

It's possible that there's a larger than 24" wide printer in my future and I have a great deal of RAID hard disk space. So, there's no practical reason to limit my scans to only fit my current 24" digital printer, if not some third party's wider format printer. It's worth having higher resolution scans just in case I need to print larger than 24" wide at some future time and have the capability to do so.

[rawitz]

Thats right. If you want to shoot the same (reality) picture with 4x5 or 8x10 format with the same (!) DOF , you have to double the lens focal (150mm to 300mm) and then you have to double (numerical) the f-stop. Practicaly spoken: a 4x5 film with lens 150mm and f-11 is the same in picture view and DOF (! thats the argument of corran) as in 8x10 film with 300mm lens and f-22, everything else in technic and optic being perfect. Only the resolution doubles, so you can make 4xsize prints with 2xresolution.


This is valid for best sharpness and equal DOF on film!.
But in the conventional photografie DOF is defined and calculated for the (same) print-size!
For a 10x enlargment of a 4x5 you only have to enlarge a 8x10 5x, so for school photografie the 8x10 DOF tolerable unsharpness-circle doubles. The common DOF calculators set by convention (not by physic) an unsharp circle of 0,1mm as tolerable DOF limit for 4x5, for 8x10 its 0,2mm and for 11x14 is 0,3mm.
In my practical example above now a picture of 150mm lens and f-11 will be the same in DOF as a 300mm lens and f-11, because we only have to enlarge the 8x10 half.

But I for my LF photografie dont follow this rule. The DOF defined unsharp-circle for 4x5 is 0,1mm =5 lp/mm, for 8x10 is 0,2mm =3 lp/mm and 2lp/mm for 11x14 and so on. My limits are much more critical.
With modern film, modern lenses and modern scan technic I but can extract about 50 lp/mm from any filmformat.
So I better double the DOF calculaters f-stop, for example from f-11 to f-22.
But its your personal choice, if you make contact-prints and max. print sizes of 12x16, your personal DOF is much more tolerable than the conventional DOF, the opposite what I do and your are right too.

For the discussion here: DOF tolerable unsharp circle is not diffraction unsharp-circle!

regards
Rainer

[Alan Klein]

This is valid for best sharpness and equal DOF on film!.
But in the conventional photografie DOF is defined and calculated for the (same) print-size!
For a 10x enlargment of a 4x5 you only have to enlarge a 8x10 5x, so for school photografie the 8x10 DOF tolerable unsharpness-circle doubles. The common DOF calculators set by convention (not by physic) an unsharp circle of 0,1mm as tolerable DOF limit for 4x5, for 8x10 its 0,2mm and for 11x14 is 0,3mm.
In my practical example above now a picture of 150mm lens and f-11 will be the same in DOF as a 300mm lens and f-11, because we only have to enlarge the 8x10 half.

But I for my LF photografie dont follow this rule. The DOF defined unsharp-circle for 4x5 is 0,1mm =5 lp/mm, for 8x10 is 0,2mm =3 lp/mm and 2lp/mm for 11x14 and so on. My limits are much more critical.
With modern film, modern lenses and modern scan technic I but can extract about 50 lp/mm from any filmformat.
So I better double the DOF calculaters f-stop, for example from f-11 to f-22.
But its your personal choice, if you make contact-prints and max. print sizes of 12x16, your personal DOF is much more tolerable than the conventional DOF, the opposite what I do and your are right too.

For the discussion here: DOF tolerable unsharp circle is not diffraction unsharp-circle!

regards
Rainer

What does that mean? (For the discussion here: DOF tolerable unsharp circle is not diffraction unsharp-circle)

[rawitz]

What does that mean? (For the discussion here: DOF tolerable unsharp circle is not diffraction unsharp-circle)

In short: DOF sharpness increases by aperture stopping down. And lens sharpness increases by lens aberration minimizes. But opposite the physic diffraction of light at the aperture borders decreases overall sharpness by stopping down aperture. The f-stop, where lens sharpness gain and diffraction sharpness loss are equivalent, is called the "critical aperture".

For analog film-photography (20lp/mm) the math calculation give the critical f-stop 22, no matter what film format or lens is used. This is why lens brands publish there MTV lens-specs for f-22 as optimal aperture.

But for best DOF you sometimes/often stop down to more than f-22. The larger the filmformat (4x5 to 8x10) the more you have to stop down for equal DOF (f-22 to f-45). This is the argument of Corran against ULF 11x14 above.

But the second step is: how much diffraction is tolerable by stopping down for DOF before is gets visible on film in general unsharpness?
The school-photography calls this the "beneficial aperture". And while the "critical aperture" is physic, the "beneficial aperture" is convention based on photographic experience.

For LF-film-photography the recommended "beneficial aperture" is f-32 to f-64 relative to filmformat. If you calculate the "beneficial aperture" with the "conventional DOF values" its even much smaller.

regards
Rainer

[Tin Can]

How Many Megapixels Do You Need to Print a Billboard?

https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239

Not FOV or Depth of field

Viewing distance

[Corran]

Alan - consider this:

4x5 film
96mm x 120mm
Theoretical diffraction limit at f/22 is 70 lp/mm
This would be 8400 lp on the long side
5-6 lp/mm is considered good print definition at normal viewing distances. Let's choose 6.
8400 / 6 gives max print size, so 1400mm = 55 inches on the long side

Now consider 8x10
200mm x 250mm
Theoretical diffraction limit at f/45 is 35 lp/mm
This would be 8750 lp on the long side
Again, 5-6 lp/mm is good print definition. Let's choose 6.
8750 / 6 gives max print size, so 1458mm = 57 inches on the long side

This is just the math that I was referring to. You can extrapolate this to any format and find similar results, but what you'll find is once you go to 35mm you are talking about apertures of f/4 and the need to put 400 lp/mm down on the film to get "equivalent resolution." But that isn't going to happen, either due to lens limits or film limits. Within this framework 4x5 seems to be at a real sweet-spot in terms of actual results, with larger formats quickly becoming a diminishing return, and that was my original point. Others obviously may disagree. However I would also point out that one quirk here is scanning - 4x5 scans on typical flatbeds can only get so much information due to the limitations of the scanner, about 70% at best from my estimate based on Epson's roughly 2200 DPI rating that others have tested. Once you get up to 5x7 and larger the scanner is no longer the limiting factor, so to be fair there will be a modest improvement just from that.

Ultimately just do whatever you want, this is all mostly irrelevant in actual practice. I do like numbers though.

[nolindan]

Viewing distance

Properly, pixels per degree of arc, which does correlate with viewing distance but may be easier to deal with for calculations.

Google sez ~0.5 arc-minutes/0.008 degrees is the limit of a young healthy eye of distant memory. So, one pixel per 0.008 degrees would seem a reasonable criteria.

Simple trig leads to:

PPI = 1 / (viewing distance in inches * 0.00014)

Where 0.00014 is the tan of 0.008 degrees - at small angles sin = tan = "close enough for government work."

Something 30 inches away would need 240 pixels/inch

A billboard 50ft / 600" away would only need 12 pixels/inch

But that is for well delineated square pixels - which most printed pixels aren't.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I never get the whole sharpness resolution stuff that a lot of people who love to use LF (or any kind of camera/lens system) get zero'ed in on.
reality isn't sharp, and there isn't extreme DOF...

On the contrary, assuming a fully functioning human eye-brain system, extreme depth of field with everything sharp perfectly replicates reality. Our eyes scan what's before us and focus ("accommodate") to every part of the scene at all distances. We continuously move our gaze to elements of interest and the center of our eye renders them in sharp detail. The only way a photograph can simulate reality is to ensure that, regardless of what part of it we look closely at, it's in focus and detailed.

Of course, those with uncorrected vision defects might have an alternative concept of "reality." Whether optical or other aspects of perception. :)

[rawitz]

Alan - consider this:
4x5 film
96mm x 120mm
Theoretical diffraction limit at f/22 is 70 lp/mm


Hm, please give us the formula for these results. And do you calculate the "critical aperture" or the "beneficial aperture" here?
As I can reconstruct, you give us the convential "beneficial aperture" f22 for 4x5 (diffraction unsharp circle 0,1mm or 5lp/mm for 4x5) but calculate further for 8x10 with the "critical aperture". Thats fully unlogical.
For the "critical aperture" calculation of 70 lp/mm on film I must calcule a f=4 stop, this is a 3600 dpi scan or corresponding a 200 Mp-camera.
No LF can work with f-4 in practice.

regards
Rainer

[Corran]

I have no idea how you arrived at the discussion of f/4 for LF photography. In practice it doesn't matter what the theoretical diffraction limit is at f/22, it will be half as much at f/45 due to the physics, and the calculations end up in the same vicinity as above with similar max print sizes from the given formats. The 70 and 35 lp/mm figures are just what I've seen calculated for the highest possible resolution at those apertures and of course will be generally affected by other considerations like lens quality, film flatness, etc.

The online "DOF Calculator" shows exactly the same DOF for the two formats of 4x5 and 8x10, when equalizing lens choice and aperture and using a larger CoC for 8x10 due to needing less enlargement to make the same print size.

236546

If you don't need as much DOF and can keep f/22 on both 4x5 and 8x10 (flat subjects or some other reason) then yes 8x10 will yield "sharper" enlargements. In practice some photographers may need more or less DOF. My subjects tend to need as much DOF as possible even given the ability of tailoring DOF with movements - when trying to optimize apertures for resolution I would often have softness from the lack of DOF, more so than diffraction effects would've shown at smaller apertures. I did try this, after some criticized the apertures I used with ULF, and found I was absolutely correct in my need for DOF.

When in doubt, stop down!

[Sal Santamaura]

On the contrary, assuming a fully functioning human eye-brain system, extreme depth of field with everything sharp perfectly replicates reality. Our eyes scan what's before us and focus ("accommodate") to every part of the scene at all distances. We continuously move our gaze to elements of interest and the center of our eye renders them in sharp detail. The only way a photograph can simulate reality is to ensure that, regardless of what part of it we look closely at, it's in focus and detailed.

Of course, those with uncorrected vision defects might have an alternative concept of "reality." Whether optical or other aspects of perception. :)


...the normal human eye does not have infinite DOF from 2" from their nose to infinity in focus, all the time (not when you turn your head and scan and focus on different things that's not what I was talking about)...

Of course the human eye doesn't have infinite depth of field. I never claimed it does. That's not what I was talking about. As I wrote, the only way a photograph can simulate reality is to ensure that, regardless of what part of it we look closely at, it's in focus and detailed.


...I guess this sort of "hyper reality" (not only extreme DOF but vivid saturated saccharine colors &c ) is what most LF photographer's "go for"...

Exaggeration of contrast in black and white and saturation in color are things that some large format photographers do to attract attention from the easily impressed. The proverbial "pop." I don't do them, and am not sure one can even conclude that "most" large format photographers do.


...extreme DOF all at once is an alternative concept of reality ... a photograph it's a thing, it's not reality...

Everything-in-focus is neither an alternative concept of reality nor reality itself. As I wrote, it's an effective way to simulate the reality of how humans view the world, using their eyes (including accommodation) and, sometimes, necks. Note that within a limited field of view, such as one photographed with a long focal length lens, humans can often completely scan the real-world scene without turning their heads at all.