How big from 5x4?

[Jon Warwick]

This is a subjective question, but I will try to convey what quality keeps me happy to help you answer.

I've spent the last decade using a medium format 6x7 camera (specifially, a Mamiya 7 that has about the sharpest medium format lenses around), and I've always had traditional darkroom prints made to 24"x20".

I'm new to LF, and also new to digital printing.

I've started using an Ebony 5x4 with a Super Symmar 110 XL lens.

I will get a pro lab to drum scan the Acros 100 negative, and get them to digitally print the image using their Lambda printer (likely onto Harman-Ilford fibre paper).

Using the Mamiya 6x7 medium format camera, I am very pleased with the sharpness and grain of prints up to 24"x20" from the traditional darkroom -- the Mamiya 6x7 seems to achieve pretty pin-sharp ("nose-to-print sharp") images up to that print size if my technique has been flawless, in my view.

I'm now looking to achieve the same equivalent "image quality" (mainly in terms of sharpness & grain) that I've enjoyed from the Mamiya's 24"x20" analogue prints, but now in a much bigger print size from the 5x4 and using a digital darkroom.

Taking into account the above parameters, is their any indication what digital print size I can achieve from the 5x4 negatives, whilst achieving an "image quality" that matches the Mamiya's 24"x20" analogue prints??

Many thanks.

[Bruce Watson]

A 24 inch print from a 7 cm long film is about an 8.7x enlargement. You can go larger than this and still get acceptably sharp prints. Especially from Acros.

But assuming that 8.7x enlargement is the maximum you are comfortable with, then from a 5 inch long film you can go about 43.5 inches. IOW, a 30x40 inch print is more or less the equivalent print size from your 5x4 negative.

That said, I've made a number of 125 x 100 cm (about 50 x 40 inch) prints from drum scanned Tri-X. The prints are "nose sharp" and grainless to my eyes. Sharp and smooth; what's not to like? To get there I make an 11x scan (accounts for some cropping and the fact that the image area isn't really 5x4 because of the rails in the film holder) which is considerably more enlargement than you are talking about. I expect to be able to go even larger with a finer grain film such as Acros, 100Tmax, or even 400Tmax.

But then the problem becomes what to print the file on because it takes an inkjet printer bigger than the now standard 44 inch wide printers, and they are somewhat harder to find, and harder still to find set up to do serious B&W work (that is, printing with state of the art grayscale inks). But there are service bureaus out there that can do this work for you, using wide format Roland printers and perhaps the new 64" wide Epson printer. You might want to do prints this big on inkjet because inkjet printers can print on canvas which you'd stretch over stretcher bars like you would an oil painting. One of the nicer presentation methods and considerably less expensive than the alternatives.

If OTOH you went with a print on RA-4 process photopaper from a LightJet or Chromira printer, IIRC the biggest print is something like 50 inches wide by however long. But how will you display it? Framing something that big by conventional means is very difficult indeed, and expensive too. Just the glazing can really set you back. For practical reasons then I typically limit myself to 40x30 inches for conventional chemical process prints.

Which is right back where we started. ;)

[Ken Lee]

For simplicity's sake, let's ignore the scanner, and ignore the film grain or dye clouds. Let's consider the lens, and how much we can enlarge the image, based on a simple measure like lp/mm.

Let's say that the Mamiya lenses, at their best, get somewhere around 80 lp/mm, or better. If we enlarge 10x, we end up with around 8 lp/mm, the lower limit that makes for a sharp image for the average human eye.

With a fine LF lens at its best, we get over 60 lp/mm. This allows us an enlargement of roughly 8x maximum. This means we can enlarge a 4x5 image to around 32x40 inches.

Some LF lenses get even better resolution. Some subjects look sharper than others, due to lighting and texture. Some images require cropping... so these are rules of thumb.

Of course, you could trade-in that humble 4x5 (at the low-end of large format), for a nice 5x7 or 8x10, and still find a good selection of superbly performing wide-angle lenses. With an 8x10 and good 210 lens, you're up to... 64x80 inches. Oops !

With large format, if you don't need that big an image, you can always print smaller, and gain in lp/mm. Now you're getting more lp/mm on the print. You're exceeding the resolving power of the eye, and the eye likes that. Your images start to look so sharp, it's... nuts !

[Walter Calahan]

As big as you want as long as the enlargement works with your vision.

I try not to think in formulas, lens resolutions, etc., 'cause they are simply formulaic rules that are helpful guidelines, but in the end can be broken.

[Don Hutton]

For simplicity's sake, let's ignore the scanner, and ignore the film grain or dye clouds. Let's consider the lens, and how much we can enlarge the image, based on a simple measure like lp/mm.

Let's say that the Mamiya lenses, at their best, get somewhere around 80 lp/mm, or better. If we enlarge 10x, we end up with around 8 lp/mm, the lower limit that makes for a sharp image for the average human eye.

With a fine LF lens at its best, we get over 60 lp/mm. This allows us an enlargement of roughly 8x maximum. This means we can enlarge a 4x5 image to around 32x40 inches.

Some LF lenses get even better resolution. Some subjects look sharper than others, due to lighting and texture. Some images require cropping... so these are rules of thumb.

Of course, you could trade-in that humble 4x5 (at the low-end of large format), for a nice 5x7 or 8x10, and still find a good selection of superbly performing wide-angle lenses. With an 8x10 and good 210 lens, you're up to... 64x80 inches. Oops !

With large format, if you don't need that big an image, you can always print smaller, and gain in lp/mm. Now you're getting more lp/mm on the print. You're exceeding the resolving power of the eye, and the eye likes that. Your images start to look so sharp, it's... nuts !Ken

In my experience, it's virtually impossible to get above 60lp/mm on a negative with most LF lenses in real world shooting - even with the very best optics, you only manage those sorts of numbers under "test" conditions. Anywhere over 50 in real world shooting is remarkable. There are good reasons for this too - film flatness, diffraction limits etc. as well as the fact that what constitutes real world subjects, tends to be at much lower contrast than test targets. With a Mamiya 7, you may be able to actually put 75-80lp/mm onto the film on a more regular basis. To counter this though, is the smoothness of tonality and sharper "transitions" which you do get from a bigger negative. A few months ago I compared a 4x5 shot with an 8x10 shot of the same scene - both shot with almost identical lenses (Fujinon A180 on 4x5 and Fujinon A360 on 8x10) on the same film (Tmax 100) and drum scanned. I didn't expect to see any real difference in a print until about 32x40 (both lenses resolved about 50lp/mm at f22 under the same real world test shoot conditions). At 24x30, you could start to see some subtle differences. Both appeared to be extremely sharp at that size, but there are other factors involved apart from sharpness.

I've made a 40x50 from a drum scan of a very good 4x5 Tmax100 negative and the print looks great - not what I'd call "grainless" though. Grain may or may not be a critical issue to the OP - it's not to me. Certainly, if I'd had a print that size in mind when I made the shot, I would have chosen to shoot 8x10 rather than 4x5. And there would be a significant improvement in the quality of the resulting print, although it would not be all related to perceived sharpness. Personally, I've never seen a "grainless" 40x50 made from a 4x5 negative, but I have seen some excellent prints depsite that small observation. I've also made 20x24s in the darkroom from Mamiya 7 negatives which I don't think would have been improved upon if I'd shot them on 4x5 instead. There are a lot of variables involved and most of them come down to personal preference of what is and what isn't acceptable/good/excellent.

The OP really needs to shoot a similar scene with both systems, have prints made (or just do crops) and then compare the results. A 4x5 and a Mamiya 7 have very different strenghs and weaknesses. I think it's probably more important to pick the right tools based on those strenghs and weaknesses rather than get obsessed about "print sizes" available from the results - if you have the wrong tool with you on the right day, you can miss the image all together and then print size is moot. It's very personal and ultimately only he can decide. After all the variance of opinion I've seen in "nose sharp" suggests that we must all have noses of dramatically different lengh.

[David_Senesac]

Your experience with 6x7 is much like mine Jon. In order for prints processed from drum scanned 6x7 Provia or older EPN100 to be reasonable close in sharpness to 4x5 prints from drum scanned Provia, I don't like to print more than 20x24. That is reflected in print sizes of the 21 each 6x7 images I market on my home page gallery. Before I shot 4x5 much, I would like many MF shooters, often print somewhat larger at 30x24 but later those larger sizes simply looked too soft compared to my 4x5 work so I downsized any such MF work. With 4x5 from the best color slide film, the 32x40 size is a good maximum target size. Actually most of my LF work is at about 30x37.5 in order to be able to use easily obtainable framing materials at the 40x60 standard board sizes. Above 40x60 framing material costs are horrible and that is especially true for oversized shipping costs. With 30x37.5, one can use 4 or 5 inch or so borders for matting that is about the minimal necessary. At 32x40 print size those borders becomes marginal.

[Ken Lee]

"The OP really needs to shoot a similar scene with both systems, have prints made (or just do crops) and then compare the results. A 4x5 and a Mamiya 7 have very different strenghs and weaknesses. I think it's probably more important to pick the right tools based on those strenghs and weaknesses rather than get obsessed about "print sizes" available from the results - if you have the wrong tool with you on the right day, you can miss the image all together and then print size is moot. It's very personal and ultimately only he can decide. After all the variance of opinion I've seen in "nose sharp" suggests that we must all have noses of dramatically different length."

That's several of the best pieces of advice I've seen here in a while. Very well stated !

[Lenny Eiger]

"Taking into account the above parameters, is their any indication what digital print size I can achieve from the 5x4 negatives, whilst achieving an "image quality" that matches the Mamiya's 24"x20" analogue prints??"

The image quality is based on a lot of variables. First of all, the drum scanner and the drum scan operator. Just any drum scanner isn't really it.... You want to work with someone to get what you really want, who is into scanning, has a great scanner and knows how to make it do somersaults...

The second set of variables is the numbers game. 4x5's ought to be scanned at 4000 or 8,000 ppi. None of this "by the megabyte" silliness, IMO. Printers like to print over 360 dpi for top quality. I think b&w can even go further than that, maybe to 500 or so. (That's conjecture at this point, however, pending any real testing.) If you divide the total number of pixels by 360, you get the number of inches wide you can print at top quality. If you scan at 4,000, 4000 x 5 = 20,000 pixels. Divide that by 360 and you get 55 1/2 inches. 300 dpi is also considered excellent and that would be... 66.6 inches.

You can also scan at 8,000 ppi - you can have a file that will be 40,000 pixels wide. Of course, the file will be about 6 Gigs in size before you reduce it to a manageable 2 Gigs for black and white... You also have to have a scanner that is capable of resolving to 8,000, of which there are only 2, the Aztek Premier, which I use, and possibly the ICG 380. And, as I mentioned before, you want someone who knows how to scan at that level.

That would yield print sizes of twice what the 4,000 would be, namely, 111 inches, or 133.3 inches. I have done prints at this size, and they are powerful at full resolution... if your aesthetic is supported by a large print...



But then the problem becomes what to print the file on because it takes an inkjet printer bigger than the now standard 44 inch wide printers, and they are somewhat harder to find, and harder still to find set up to do serious B&W work (that is, printing with state of the art grayscale inks). But there are service bureaus out there that can do this work for you, using wide format Roland printers and perhaps the new 64" wide Epson printer. You might want to do prints this big on inkjet because inkjet printers can print on canvas which you'd stretch over stretcher bars like you would an oil painting. One of the nicer presentation methods and considerably less expensive than the alternatives.


I agree wholeheartedly with printing with b&w inks. They are superb. I have just succeeded at something I have been working at for a long time - I filled a 12-slot, 54 inch Roland with two sets of b&w ink, a cold tone set, based on Piezotone Selenium and a warm set based on Piezo Carbon Sepia. Both of these sets are expanded out to 6 dilutions (from their original 4). A third set, which combines the two, using 11 inks in all, provides a beautiful neutral tone with just a hint of warmth. I can also swap out any channel and split tone in any direction I want. I print in a warm tone for my own work, and I have had a number of folks go elsewhere because they wanted a different tone of b&w. Now I can offer a whole range of tones. I'm excited...

Lenny

[Alan Davenport]

A decent scanner will let you make your 20x24 prints at 300dpi, no problem.

Keep in mind, when prints get large, people normally stand farther away to view them. Never mind the occasional pixel peeper, you really don't need 300 dpi at large sizes. With that in mind, there's really no definite limit to how much you can enlarge from LF film. A 40x50 print at 150dpi will pass most people's inspection with flying colors. Or black and whites....

[Lenny Eiger]

A decent scanner will let you make your 20x24 prints at 300dpi, no problem.

Keep in mind, when prints get large, people normally stand farther away to view them. Never mind the occasional pixel peeper, you really don't need 300 dpi at large sizes. With that in mind, there's really no definite limit to how much you can enlarge from LF film. A 40x50 print at 150dpi will pass most people's inspection with flying colors. Or black and whites....

I respectfully disagree. I have large prints in my little gallery here. We have open studios once a year and about 500-600 people come thru and take a look. Every single one of them goes up to the images, as close as they can focus. Then they pull back a couple of feet and stare for a while.

I believe the whole idea of "viewing distance" is a total sham, meant to lower our expectations. If you have a billboard, then usually folks can't get closer and one can adjust for viewing distance. However, if they could get closer, they probably would - especially if the billboard photo was of something or interest to them. How many of us have leaned over those ropes in the museums to get a closer look at something...

The OP began this post by specifically talking about the quality required to match or exceed a darkroom print from a medium format negative. Black and white is capable of far more delicacy than color, especially with the right inks.... and if one wants quality, then one can watch it increase with dpi...

Lenny

[willwilson]

I think one of the biggest points that often gets left out of these types of discussions is the subject matter. The subject matter is critically important to the amount of enlargement a particular photograph can handle. Tones, object relationship, line, texture, form, etc, all change dramatically when a photograph is presented at different enlargement sizes. These changes often occur independently of the amount of captured detail available in a negative or digital file.

If the subject does not support a 133.3 inch print then I don't care how many dpi your scanner can resolve. For some photographs things just start to break down in a very uncomfortable way past a certain point of enlargement. This can't always be corrected with more captured detail. I don't care how many dpi you scan or megapixels you have. This goes back to what Don said. Image size is just one of the many artistic decisions we must make as photographers, granted this decision may be made at times based on the level of captured detail on a negative, but this is just really one of many different factors. The only real way to know for certain is to make a print and see if it works.

[Lenny Eiger]

If the subject does not support a 133.3 inch print then I don't care how many dpi your scanner can resolve. For some photographs things just start to break down in a very uncomfortable way past a certain point of enlargement.

Absolutely. I think you are totally correct. I have found that some of my images go up to a larger size very well and others just don't translate past a certain size, say 16x20. I have some ideas about why, but nothing eloquent, or even clear. I still have to print them large and see..

Lenny

[Bruce Watson]

I respectfully disagree. I have large prints in my little gallery here. We have open studios once a year and about 500-600 people come thru and take a look. Every single one of them goes up to the images, as close as they can focus. Then they pull back a couple of feet and stare for a while.

That has been my experience as well. Especially if a print has lots of detail, people will walk right up to it and examine it from 30cm away or less. People really do want a nose sharp print.

I've done some experiments to find out how different output resolutions effect the final print (to clarify, when you hold your print size steady and vary output resolution you also vary scanner resolution -- I'm not talking about uprezing and downrezing files, but drum scanning at the correct resolution for the output size and output resolution). I made scans for 180, 240, 300, and 360 ppi from the same 5x4 film, then made prints from a 30 x 30 cm section of what would have been a 125 x 100 cm print (about 50 x 40 inches).

The 360 ppi print was beautifully smooth and detailed both from close and from correct viewing distance (CVD), about 1.5 m in this case. The 300 ppi print was good, but it showed a bit of lost detail and a bit of lost smoothness up close; this was easier to see then I thought it would be. I had trouble seeing the difference at CVD without really good lighting. The drop down from 300 ppi to 240 ppi was clearly visible however. I could easily see the loss of detail and visible coarsening up close and at CVD. The 180 ppi print I couldn't bear to look at; it was clearly unacceptable.

All that said, everyone sees differently and everyone values different things in a print. There really isn't a "one size fits all" definition of sufficient when it comes to output resolution for printing. But when in doubt opt for more rather than less.

[Bruce Watson]

I think one of the biggest points that often gets left out of these types of discussions is the subject matter. The subject matter is critically important to the amount of enlargement a particular photograph can handle. Tones, object relationship, line, texture, form, etc, all change dramatically when a photograph is presented at different enlargement sizes.

Absolutely. There have been several threads about just this idea alone on this website in the past few years.

My thought is that the image tells me how big it wants to be printed. Some want to go big, some want to go small. Print size should serve the image as much as is possible.

[Peter De Smidt]

My experience coincides with Bruce's: on an image with lots of fine detail, the move from 360 to lower resolutions (300, 240...) is clearly visible.