PDA

View Full Version : 4x5 or 8x10



don mills
27-May-2009, 15:35
having been a 4x5 user for a while, i am curious to learn why those of you who have converted to 8x10 prefer 8x10. any input would be helpful. my end product will continue to be 40x50 inch to 80x100 inch prints.

for "atmospheric" landscape imagery (think elger esser), does 8x10 have an advantage over 4x5? i'm hoping the answer is yes in that the tonality and texture of 8x10 is MORE pleasing than 4x5.

my usual process has been to drum scan 4x5s and modify in PS before digitally printing.

my big question:
if i were to move to 8x10 and flatbed scan the film (like with the epson v750, etc), modify in PS and then digitally print, will i be able to produce obviously richer, smoother looking end prints (to the above specs)? for example, will scanned 8x10 at something like 2000dpi (PS will only handle files up to 2GB) make a large digital print superior to drum scanned (much higher dpi) 4x5?

thanks so much.

Gene McCluney
27-May-2009, 15:58
The main purpose fo 8x10 and larger seems to be the contact print experience. If you are going to digitally scan your film, then probably 5x7 will give you everything you need.

You should remember you only need 300 ppi for digital prints. Any more is beyond the level of the inkjet printer resolution. An 8x10 scanned at 600 ppi will give you almost a 16x20 at 300 ppi. The limits are related to the print medium. You do not need to scan at higher resolution than your print medium can reproduce. Most flatbed consumer film scanners will scan 8x10 at up to 1200 ppi. That is enough resolution for a 32x40 digital print at the standard 300 ppi file size.

Drum scanners offer other features besides higher resolution. Whether these features, like higher dynamic range, better signal-to-noise, etc. are important to you may depend on your style of photography. It is not all about sharpness and resolution.

Gene McCluney
27-May-2009, 16:05
The "look" of 8x10 is influenced by the lenses, being longer focal length will have less depth-of-field for the same angle-of-view as 4x5. This gives 8x10 a different look, but that is not resolution related.

Ben Syverson
27-May-2009, 16:08
for example, will scanned 8x10 at something like 2000dpi (PS will only handle files up to 2GB) make a large digital print superior to drum scanned (much higher dpi) 4x5?

My guess is it would be pretty even. The drum scanned 4x5 might win on sharpness but lose on grain.

Either way, 8x10 could work out to be cheaper than 4x5, depending on how much you plan to drum scan. 8x10 film and development costs more, but doing a flatbed scan costs nothing!

Either way, I think you have to try it out to know if it's for you. I started with 4x5 but found it to be too small and fiddly. I can't see the corners of the GG very well with my loupe, and I feel like it's easier to make focusing errors. 8x10 has such a nice, big GG, so you can see image large, and I can use any old loupe all the way to the corners. If I fudge the focus a little, you'll never see it, because the area of the negative is so huge.

And of course, there's that creamy, creamy tonality. Like 4x5, but four times as nice.

Ben Syverson
27-May-2009, 16:11
If you are going to digitally scan your film, then probably 5x7 will give you everything you need.
...unless you want to shoot color! :(

Ken Lee
27-May-2009, 17:37
"... superior... ?"

How large do you intend to print ?

Below a certain print size (which only you can determine), the superiority may not be evident.

Rafael Garcia
27-May-2009, 17:43
I shoot all three, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. I agree with the difference being mainly the shorter focal length lenses possible with 4x5. Since I have to contact print my 8x10, but can enlarge the other two, I can get larger prints with the smaller formats, without apparent loss in quality when compared to the 8x10 contacts.

don mills
27-May-2009, 17:56
i don't understand why you have to contact print. can't you develop and scan the neg to get a larger end print with better quality?


Since I have to contact print my 8x10, but can enlarge the other two, I can get larger prints with the smaller formats, without apparent loss in quality when compared to the 8x10 contacts.

Charlie Strack
27-May-2009, 18:09
I recently acquired a 5x7, but haven't used it much. My rationale:

1. a 5x7 contact print is big enough, but a 4x5 isn't big enough (for me); contact prints can have an impact that no enlargment nor scan has (my opinion shared by many).

2. You can hold a sheet of 5x7 film by the edges in one hand. You cannot do this with 8x10 (maybe Andre the Giant could, but most people can't). This makes it easier to load and handle compared to 8x10. (About as easy as 4x5).

3. Most of my 4x5 lenses will cover 5x7.

4. I like the aspect ratio of 5x7.

True, there are not many films available in 5x7, but there are enough for me. I generally shoot black & white, though.

Charlie Strack

Mark Woods
27-May-2009, 18:24
I can enlarge my 8x10 negs and love the quality. That said, I use the different formats for different subjects. I use my dad's 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 Crown Graphic for some subjects too. I think of it as a sketch pad. But its images hold up quite well. I like them all and can enlarge them all. I guess I'm spoiled. (I just spent the day in the dark room making contact prints from 8x10 negs, and they're awesome).

Bruce Watson
27-May-2009, 18:43
my big questions:
if I were to move to 8x10 and flatbed scan the film (like with the epson v750, etc), modify in PS and then digitally print, will I be able to produce obviously richer, smoother looking end prints (to the above specs)?

If your question is will a 5x scan of a piece of 8x10 film on a consumer flatbed like the Epson technically equal a 10x scan of a comparable 4x5 film that's been drum scanned, I'd have to say not likely. The Epson scan won't be as sharp and it will perhaps be more blurry than smooth.

If you do this same test on a professional flatbed like a Kodak iQsmart 3, then yes, you'll exceed the drum scanned 4x5.

The unasked question is, will the 8x10 film be just a scaled up 4x5 film? The answer to that is no. The problem is that you have to use focal lengths that are twice as long to maintain a constant angle-of-view, then you'll have to stop down more to maintain the same DOF. The end result is that resolution does not scale well up from 4x5 because of diffraction. But there's more to a photograph than just resolution, yes?


For example, will scanned 8x10 at something like 2000dpi (PS will only handle files up to 2GB) make a large digital print superior to drum scanned (much higher dpi) 4x5?

First, Photoshop CS4 can handle considerably bigger files than 2GB, on a 64 bit OS (Vista 64, XP 64).

But to answer your specific question: a 2000 spi scan of an 8x10 would compare directly to a 4000 spi scan of a 4x5. All other things being equal (well neigh impossible, but say it's true for arguments sake), that would make a full sized print from 8x10 less grainy, but you may not see it in the final print unless the final print is glossy. If you print to canvas for example you may not see much difference in graininess because the texture of the print hides some of that graininess.

Comparing the same full sized prints for tonality might show difference you can see, with the print from 8x10 film being smoother. But again, if you print to a substrate with much texture this advantage may not be very visible.

From the sharpness stand point you may not see much difference either because of diffraction.

I've run this question from end to end several times myself. I've always concluded that if I'm going to be enlarging anyway, I don't gain much by going to 8x10 from 4x5, but I do loose a lot (portability, cost of film/processing, spending lots of time in reciprocity hell because of the slower shutter speed those smaller apertures cause, etc.). So I'm still shooting 4x5 myself. Clearly YMMV.

don mills
27-May-2009, 18:51
Thanks Bruce, very helpful.

You hit on my conundrum as well.

My final prints will be apprx 85x105 inches...

Up until now, I have been drum scanning 4x5s.

Maybe I should look into other ways to enlarging 8x10 than scanning.

Bruce Watson
27-May-2009, 19:00
Thanks Bruce, very helpful.

You hit on my conundrum as well.

My final prints will be apprx 85x105 inches...

Up until now, I have been drum scanning 4x5s.

Maybe I should look into other ways to enlarging 8x10 than scanning.

Well now, lets not be too hasty. For a print size that large (about 11x enlargement from 8x10) you might want to look into a really large scan. An Aztek Premier drum scanner with DPL software can get you that 6-24 GB file you've always wanted from a sheet of 8x10 film. An 8-core PC running Vista 64 and Photoshop CS4 can process that file without choking on it (so I hear).

The guy to talk to about this participates here from time to time -- Lenny Eiger can and apparently does on occasion do scans this size. Lenny? Where are you my man?

Stephen Fritz
27-May-2009, 19:26
You don't mention whether you're shooting in black and white or color, but I shoot 8x10 color negative, drum scan and blow up to 4 to 5 feet. I switched from 4x5 after having shot with it for 3 years. Here's why:

1.) For my subject matter, I do not care much for the color palette or the gray scale response of any of the color transparency films. (In my opinion, E100G is the best of the lot for my use.)

2.) However, when I switched to color negative, grain became somewhat apparent in 40-inch prints. Grain disappears with 8x10 in 5-foot prints and tonality improves.

The challenge (besides cost) will be to keep the equipment weight low and to be very careful with f/stop choice and lens tilts and swings to keep the focus manageable.

Hope that provides some perspective.

Colin Corneau
27-May-2009, 19:30
If you're hybrid anyway, why not get a digital back for your 4x5?

Ben Syverson
27-May-2009, 19:30
85x105 inches? There is no question. 8x10.

Worry about the best way to scan it later. For now, start looking for an 8x10 camera.

If your subject is motionless, you may want to skip film altogether and look at a Gigapan. (http://gigapansystems.com/) In terms of raw resolution, you can blow 8x10 out of the water.

Don Hutton
27-May-2009, 20:18
I've spent quite a bit of time comparing 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 with drum scans and prints from those scans. IMO, for just about everything, a good drum scan of a 5x7 is just about as good as a drum scan of 8x10 under normal circumstances - the smaller apertures and consequent diffraction limitations mean that often, a 5x7 of a similar scene will have about the same amount of usable information in it as an 8x10 shot of the same scene - this assumes fine grained film! With a optimal 5x7 neg shot at around f22 and scanned at 4000DPI, the native image will print at around 90x60 at 300DPI. If you're needing f45 on the 8x10 for the same shot, you will end up with a similar file, provided the lens on the 5x7 can do above 50LP/mm. 5x7 is considerably more convenient in the field in terms of size/weight etc. If you're interested in seeing a 4000DPI drum scan of 5x7, shoot me an email and I will FTP you a big Jpeg (100Megs) which will give you a pretty good idea of where you can go with 5x7. If you think you need more, 8x10 is the only game.... but you will need a perfect rig and a lot of care and skill when making the shot. For my purposes, I've decided that 8x10 is going to be reserved for contact prints on Lodima or Azo....

Attached is a test shot on 5x7 Portra 160NC - this was scanned at 4000DPI and produces a file which is 90x62 at 300DPI (which is 3gigs). The crops show 2 inch squares from that file of the circled areas... Print them at 2 inches square and decide if that's going to work for your 90x60s...

Jim Ewins
27-May-2009, 20:26
Because I can - that's why I also shoot 8x10. Does one need a reason?

Lenny Eiger
27-May-2009, 20:33
Well now, lets not be too hasty. For a print size that large (about 11x enlargement from 8x10) you might want to look into a really large scan. An Aztek Premier drum scanner with DPL software can get you that 6-24 GB file you've always wanted from a sheet of 8x10 film. An 8-core PC running Vista 64 and Photoshop CS4 can process that file without choking on it (so I hear).

The guy to talk to about this participates here from time to time -- Lenny Eiger can and apparently does on occasion do scans this size. Lenny? Where are you my man?

OK, since someone is going to mention my name.... I've done a lot of testing on this in the past few years. I racked my brain trying to understand this. It comes down to a couple of things. The first is screen real estate. If you have a square of film depicting a telephone pole on your 4x5 film that is 1/4 of an inch square, and you take the same photo with an 8x10, the same area of film used to define the tonalities of the pole is 1 inch square. An inch of film defining tonalities is a lot more than 1/4 of an inch. A lot more.

What this looks like in prints is the difference of what things look like vs what things feel like. Now, that's a very subjective statement. It depends on what kind of print you like. I happen to work primarily in b&w, which is much more difficult, and has much more resolution than color (especially given good inks - as in a b&w inkset). My print look more like platinum prints and I am going for the most 3-dimensional appearance that I can generate.

You mentioned the word "atmosphere" in your original post. If you want atmosphere, you will unquestionably have more of it than using a smaller format. If you want something that looks like Eiger Esser, 8x10 will get you closer.

A 105 inch scan would look good in a minimum of about 40,000 pixels. (In color, in b&w, maybe a little more. It isn't true that printer resolution tops out at 360.) I think you would do well to do a drum scan (yes, I'd be happy to do one for you). A 4,000 ppi scan will get you an amazing file. I have done this on occasion, and printed them for folks, and the results are truly amazing.

I hope this helps,

Lenny

don mills
28-May-2009, 06:14
Thank you everyone. I'm going with 8x10 and will need one of them Azteks...

Toyon
28-May-2009, 06:21
There is a special quality to an 8x10 negative, but 8x10 can be inhibiting in terms of your movement in an area. Ask yourself how many times do you shift and reset your rig on a typical shoot? How far do you walk? How many lenses and holders do you want to carry? You might lose more than you gain with 8x10 on that basis alone.

ic-racer
28-May-2009, 09:14
Looks like you have already made up your mind for the 8x10. My own experience is that close scrutiny of side-by-side 16x20 enlargements of 4x5 and 8x10 negatives always favor the 8x10. If not I'd stop using 8x10 :)

The difference in resolution in the enlargements is small, but there are other reasons I like 8x10. For example dust and imperfections are 2 times smaller. I find the 8x10 camera a joy to focus and the big negatives are fun and easy to work with.

Ken Lee
28-May-2009, 09:17
"My final prints will be apprx 85x105 inches..."

Just curious: What subjects to you intend to photograph ?

vwizz
28-May-2009, 14:33
Hi!
I'm currently asking myself the same question:
I am more than happy with my 4x5 Chamonix doing both B&W and color negatives.
Still i am tempted by both palladium print and collodion wet plate.

>> I fear 4x5 might be too small for these: what do you think?

Next week I'll be in Shanghai and there is the Shen Hao main store not so far from my hotel,.... I'm not likely to go back there any time soon, so i am really wondering if I should go for a Shen Hao 8x10.... ???

Best Regards,
V

don mills
28-May-2009, 14:56
i photography interiors and landscapes in color.

now that i've decided on 8x10, i need to figure out my workflow.

i'll probably settle on the nicest flatbed scanner i can find since i don't want to buy a drum scanner or outsource (for 40x50+ prints, the files are too expensive).

any input on top scanners for 8x10 that will yield great quality (small micron size) for color?

Ben Syverson
28-May-2009, 15:07
A really nice flatbed will cost more than a used drum scanner... My advice would be to go cheap and get an Epson V700 or something, since there doesn't really seem to be a world of difference between that and a "pro" flatbed.

One last thing -- for interiors/architecture, you might find yourself falling back on 4x5. In general, the wide-angle lenses for 4x5 have much more coverage than the wides for 8x10. You can't really go crazy like you can with a good 90mm on 4x5.

Rafael Garcia
28-May-2009, 16:40
i don't understand why you have to contact print. can't you develop and scan the neg to get a larger end print with better quality?

Been away...sorry for the late response. I don't own a negative scanner that scans beyond 35mm, so I have to print and scan the prints! I do own two enlargers that top out at 4x5 and at 5x7... so for 8x10 I contact print and scan the print.

Brian Ellis
29-May-2009, 09:38
I've used both 4x5 and 8x10. I enjoy 8x10 more, mostly because of the bigger screen but also it's just kind of fun handling all the bigger holders, lenses, etc. However, because of the weight involved I found that I was limited in what I'd photograph with the 8x10. I'd never take it on an all-day hike for example or on any mountain climbs. I tended to use it onlly in places I could easily get to. So I didn't like the fact that for me it was limiting what I photographed. But for what I did with it, it was a lot of fun, a good bit more plain old enjoyment than 4x5.

I don't know the answer to your question about 4x5 drum scan vs flatbed 8x10 scan. It strikes me that this is something you'd have to try in order to answer the question. I did a lot of scanning of my 8x10 negatives but never enlarged as big as you plan to. I've only had a few drum scans made, I stopped when I found that the minimal difference between a drum scan and what I could do on my Epson 4990/Silverfast Ai wasn't worth the trouble and cost of drum scans.

5x7 is a lovely format and I enjoyed using my 5x7 camera. However, at the time I wasn't into scanning and didn't have a 5x7 enlarger. I found that contact prints of 5x7 worked well for a few subjects but in general they were too small to be satisfying with most of the things I photograph.

Ken Lee
29-May-2009, 10:08
The original question might be rephrased, as: "What's the best way to make color interiors and landscape prints, sized 8x10 feet ?"

Then the next question becomes, best for what ? For example, at what distance will they be viewed, and by whom ?

Depending on the answer, a simple point-and-shoot digital camera may be good enough - or scanned 8x10 film may not be good enough.

Lenny Eiger
29-May-2009, 12:08
The original question might be rephrased, as: "What's the best way to make color interiors and landscape prints, sized 8x10 feet ?"

Then the next question becomes, best for what ? For example, at what distance will they be viewed, and by whom ?

I agree, and this frustrates the heck out of me. These questions get asked and people start answering like crazy, before the particulars of what someone is trying to do are clear. There are some technology issues here, basic physical limits, # of pixels, etc. There is also the issue of what style of print does someone want to make. Who is their printing hero? Do they want to make something close to an Ansel Adams print, or a Frederick Evans one? Or somewhere in between...

It is very helpful when someone points to a web page and says I want to make a print like this, and gives a sense of the size.

Back to the prep on these two 20 foot prints I am making this week...

Lenny

GeorgesGiralt
29-May-2009, 12:59
Hi !
One point which is not addressed in previous posts is lens quality.
A lens computed for 4x5 IS superior to a lens computed for 5x7 which is superior to a lens computed for 8x10. Why ? Because an 8x10 lens has to work harder to cover the whole negative (and allow for movements...)
So your gain in film surface will be partially lost by the "worsening" of the lenses. Add to this the diffraction factor and you've lost a big part of the gain. Bear in mind also that it is more difficult to maintain an 8x10 negative flat (compared to a 4x5 one).
Add to this that your bellow will be huge and will play with the wind like a sail. This will ensure that the crisp images will be a little blurred and will loose some resolution...
So if you speak in terms of surface you're going for a 4x gain going to 4x5 to 8x10. But with anything accounted for I guess you a closer to 1.3 ~ 2.5 ...
This is why 5x7 makes perfect sense. Lenses are closer to their 4x5 cousins in terms of performance, the film area is greater and you are not forced to close down the lens to the pinhole you need with 8x10.
Of course, your mileage may vary a lot depending of the lenses you own and the film holders, film, processing and the like. But don't expect too much from 8x10. IMHO.

don mills
29-May-2009, 13:03
Sorry all, thought I was clear on what I'm trying to emulate. Hasn't anyone seen Elger Esser's prints live? Incredible.

"having been a 4x5 user for a while, i am curious to learn why those of you who have converted to 8x10 prefer 8x10. any input would be helpful. my end product will continue to be 40x50 inch to 80x100 inch prints.

for "atmospheric" landscape imagery (think elger esser), does 8x10 have an advantage over 4x5? i'm hoping the answer is yes in that the tonality and texture of 8x10 is MORE pleasing than 4x5."

Ken Lee
29-May-2009, 13:41
Here (http://www.kultureflash.net/archive/206/ElgerEsser_RV.html) is a page which shows some of Elger Esser's images - although a bit smaller of course ;)

Have you found out how Esser does his work ? Are his images tack-sharp, when viewed up close ? When he shows them, can the viewer walk right up to them, or are they always displayed from a distance, like a billboard ?

Such questions aside, I would be surprised if you couldn't make images like his, by stitching together a series of smaller images - even digital images if need be. Esser's subjects (in that selection anyhow) are quite stationary.

Stitching might be an easier and more affordable solution, than getting a high end scanner ... never mind learning how to use one.

Jeremy Moore
29-May-2009, 14:08
One point which is not addressed in previous posts is lens quality.
A lens computed for 4x5 IS superior to a lens computed for 5x7 which is superior to a lens computed for 8x10. Why ? Because an 8x10 lens has to work harder to cover the whole negative (and allow for movements...)

This is incorrect. Lenses do not have to "work" to cover a negative. Coverage is determined by the optical formula of the lens. By your logic the world's best lens would be found on a Minox camera. Yes, there are issues with diffraction and the poster will want to purchase a high resolution lens made for the format, but stating that a 4x5 lens is across the board superior to a 5x7 lens is incorrect as there are too many other variables in play.

jb7
29-May-2009, 14:08
I've only checked out a few of those pictures, small, on the web,
and they look like suitable candidates for getting the most out of 8x10,
if that's what you're interested in-

I haven't shot any 4x5 since I converted to 8x10,
though laziness and failure to apply myself properly (fecklessness, I suppose) are the obvious reasons;
it's not that I don't like 4x5 anymore.

There are subjects that suit 4x5 better-
anything needing more depth of field, obviously-

To the person who doesn't understand why 8x10's should be contact printed-
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, I don't have an enlarger.

There are any number of ways to get big pictures-
you can use a computer and a gizmo if you like-
or a dslr and a graduated panning head- I've done that-

But time spent behind an 8x10 is somehow more special-

kub
29-May-2009, 19:58
...This is incorrect...."

It is true that lenses for smaller formats inherently are far easier to make with highest qualities. The bigger the lens surface the harder and more expensive it gets to make them. And I suspect that's what GeorgesGiralt was trying to convey by saying "lenses working harder". It is not a secret that large format lenses don't have the same resolving power that, say, leica M lenses have, or other smaller formats. Large format doesn't need that kind of resolving power, so they don't try to make them as good unnecessarily

Drew Wiley
29-May-2009, 20:21
I mostly shoot 8x10 except when weight and portability is the decisive issue, when I revert to 4X5. Why? 1) It's a lot of fun. 2) More precise focus due to bigger screen.
3) A blemish or dust spot on a big piece of film is barely noticeable, while on smaller film you've got a serious problem. On medium format the same blemish will
be as big as the Goodyear blimp. Exception - if you're sloppy more inches of film
mean more area of electrostatic area to attract dust. So what if you use Photoshop. Spotting is a pain in the butt regardless of whether you print analog or digital.
4) I print optical enlargements, frequently color 30X40, sharp! Every digital print I
have ever seen this size looks like something done with Krylon spray paint cans by
comparison. Lightjets are better than inkjets, but real enlargements from 8x10 separates the men from the boys in this respect. On black and white enlargement the tonality and detail is superior, especially from 20x24 or larger. You can worry less about grain and choose faster films with longer straight lines or whatever.
4X5 photography is wonderful, but 8x10 is even better. Probably no more expensive
because you tend to waste less film in the first place!

Lenny Eiger
30-May-2009, 10:52
Lightjets are better than inkjets, but real enlargements from 8x10 separates the men from the boys in this respect. On black and white enlargement the tonality and detail is superior, especially from 20x24 or larger.

I would disagree. I think lightjets are a joke next to someone who knows how to tune and print on an inkjet. Inkjets can be so much richer, and more 3-dimensional, than either darkroom or lightjet prints.

Of course, what's wrong is the statement itself. Lightjets are better if you want your print to look like a lightjet print. Darkroom prints are better if you want one of those, etc.

My aesthetic is closer to the platinum/carbon/gravure look on matte papers with minimal surface reflection, etc. Someone that doesn't mind surface reflection will have a different view.

I don't think it is reasonable to say one is "better, " it's only better if that's what you are looking for...

Lenny

Doug Dolde
30-May-2009, 11:50
my end product will continue to be 40x50 inch to 80x100 inch prints.


Are serious ? And if so why? Thats ridiculous.

don mills
31-May-2009, 09:56
Are serious ? And if so why? Thats ridiculous.

exactly. because i can and i like.

dsimaging
31-May-2009, 20:27
gregory crewdson uses inkjet to print his terrific work. And no one argues when they're dropping something like $10,000+ for one of his prints.

I heard from a friend the other day that he has recently converted over to using a phase one p65+ di$it@l back. I'm not sure what system he is on for it though. It would be safe to assume something to maximize the resolution of that chip.

He used to shoot 8x10 color neg (some think transparency), but he would go and shoot 40-50 sheets plus of 8x10. Just for ONE photograph.

Then he would drum scan and piece every little thing piece by piece.

Inkjet is terrific! I've never seen or used a Roland, but my Canon IPF5100 does some tremendous things on Hahnemuhle Rag 308, or Torchon.

the hybrid process is tremendous, even though I still like the traditional darkroom. I'm 21 years old, and all the "old photo dogs" I know have pretty much all converted over to the digi-side-of-life. Good for them.

I like Efke 25 and T-Max 400 in 4x5 and 8x10. And 400nc for color in both. Digital hasn't grasped these young bones :) !

But something I've come to realize that in the art world, many collectors, or buyers don't care what the surface is or how many "huffs and puffs" it took you to get that shot on the windy day and braving a huge storm front looming over you.

They only care about the image hanging on their wall, while sipping some fine wine that has been rotting in a barrel for the last 30 years.

just my 2 cents

vwizz
1-Jun-2009, 08:47
They only care about the image hanging on their wall,

I tend to have a slightly different view.
I myself did not buy a very large (approx 60x45 inches) and expensive print of a photo I really liked, even though it was only a limited series (7 If remember correctly). The fact that is was a lambda print blocked me somehow.
I felt like I was buying a "super poster" and that did not feel correct for the price...
Instead I went in another gallery and bought (for a similar price) a considerably smaller (approximately 7x7inches) B&W image from one of my favorite photographers, knowing that he had done it himself in his dark room. The fact that each of the 5 he made were different (he was dropping acid on a part of the paper) reinforced the feelingf of having a genuine piece of art.

Yet I know this has nothing to do with logic or rationnality, it is purely emotional :)

Nevertheless the owner of the art gallery confessed me that he had difficulties selling inkjet prints, and that he had to sell them for approximately 30% less than the traditional photos.

Currently I mostly work with inkjet and I am more than happy of the results, but I guess all this is why I will soon try collodion wet plate for some of my images.

Best Regards,
V

mccormickstudio
1-Jun-2009, 13:02
A few things which deserve to be cleared up:

You likely won't be happy with prints bigger than 40x50 from 8x10 negs scanned on an epson v700 or v750. The scanner just can't deliver the sharpness or color saturation. To go bigger you need to drum scan or work on an Aztek or Creo flatbed which cost much more. I regularly fluid scan 8x10 negs on a v700 and won't enlarge those more than 32x40" where they still look very good.

The investment in time and money is significantly greater with 8x10. Each sheet of 8x10 film with processing & shipping costs me about $15+; 4x5 is about $5. Post-production takes 3-4x as long to edit (4x as much film, right?). If you pay for scanning this also costs 3x as much (more data).

Bottom line: with good workflow, 4x5 doesn't compare to 8x10 when enlarged to the sizes you've mentioned. If you can afford the investment, by all means step up.

I do wonder if there is a trend happening back toward smaller prints to encourage accessibility of work and sales in a dire economy. Brian Ulrich hung some 11x14's at his recent opening in NY and commented on the small vs. large prints (http://tinyurl.com/thrandds). It is interesting how we view the same image in different sizes.

Vlad Soare
2-Jun-2009, 05:51
my end product will continue to be 40x50 inch to 80x100 inch prints.
Are serious ? And if so why? Thats ridiculous.
Ridiculous? Why? :confused: