8x10 color negatives.....and big prints.

[BradS]

Is there any advantage to shooting 8x10?
Before you scream the obvious, hold on...hear me out...

If I want to shoot color and not chromes, and I want big prints....say, 24X30 inches....

and if we recognize the modern reality involves scanning the negative and making a light jet or, worse, an ink jet print....

What is the point of shooting 8x10? Wouldn't 4x5 be adequate?

Wouldn't a finely crafted real print froma 4x5 negative be equal to or better than an ink jet from an 8x10?

Does any pro lab make real color prints from 8x10 color negatives? Or do they all scan and injet?

[Nathan Potter]

The answer resides in the quality of the color negative and how fussy you are about the print. Certainly a 4X5 color neg carefully exposed can yield an outstanding 24X 30 inch print but not quite the quality you'd get from an equally carefully exposed 8X10 neg.

The quality of a large 24 X 30 inch print really depends on the care taken at every step,
from negative generation and development to scanning to photoshop to print. Don't denigrate inkjets, when masterfully executed they can be brilliant and of top museum exhibition quality. Color prints can be made from 4X5 and 8X10 color negatives using an enlarger or digital printer using Fuji Crystal Archive paper with CP-40FA or the common RA-4 process; many labs do this albeit a diminishing number.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Mike1234]

There's been some banter about fully analog processes vs. hybrid somewhere on the APUG.org forum. I've yet to test this myself but there is some possibility that you are correct. A fully analog print from an excellent 4x5 neg may be as good as or better than a hybrid print from an excellent 8x10 neg regarding overall sharpness and detail.

[vinny]

There's another thread with the "is 8x10 better" question going on here very recently. A search should bring up plenty of threads on it. Bottom line, most of the members here are old gray-haired fellas that can't see well enough to focus and 8x10. Shoot some 8x10, get it printed, see for yourself why it's worth $11/sheet.

[bob carnie]

Last time I looked there was less grey and more landing pad.

There's another thread with the "is 8x10 better" question going on here very recently. A search should bring up plenty of threads on it. Bottom line, most of the members here are old gray-haired fellas that can't see well enough to focus and 8x10. Shoot some 8x10, get it printed, see for yourself why it's worth $11/sheet.

[Drew Wiley]

I optically print 8x10 negs and chromes directly onto paper, and yes, there is a real
quality difference from 4x5, though it's not readily apparent in most cases unless you
are printing larger than 20x24. With digital printing methods, however, the size print
you are contemplating would probably not make much difference, since extreme detail
cannot be resolved this way, and potential contrast and saturation loss can easily be
corrected in Photoshop. 8X10 is obviously much more expensive to shoot and scan,
but I personally prefer it to 4x5.

[BradS]

I optically print 8x10 negs and chromes directly onto paper, and yes, there is a real
quality difference from 4x5, though it's not readily apparent in most cases unless you
are printing larger than 20x24. With digital printing methods, however, the size print
you are contemplating would probably not make much difference, since extreme detail
cannot be resolved this way, and potential contrast and saturation loss can easily be
corrected in Photoshop. 8X10 is obviously much more expensive to shoot and scan,
but I personally prefer it to 4x5.

Drew, Do I understand correctly...you projection print (or, contact print?) 8x10 color negs?
...here in the Bay area???? :) :) :)

[Mike1234]

The OP asked the quality difference between 24x30" FULLY ANALOG prints made from 4x5" negs vs. HYBRID prints made from 8x10" negs.

He's asking if there is a loss in quality in the scanning process that degrades the quality of 8x10 enough to stay with fully analog 4x5 instead.

[D. Bryant]

The OP asked the quality difference between 24x30" FULLY ANALOG prints made from 4x5" negs vs. HYBRID prints made from 8x10" negs.

He's asking if there is a loss in quality in the scanning process that degrades the quality of 8x10 enough to stay with fully analog 4x5 instead.
The unequivocal answer is YES, with both analog and digital printing. Side by side comparisons of 4x5 and 8x10 printed in identical methods will clearly show the increase in resolution from 8x10, all other things being equal.

If someone is not seeing the difference then they are doing something wrong somewhere. And I would also state there is almost as much difference when comparing 4x5 to 5x7 or 5x8.

Don Bryant

[Mike1234]

[4x5 FULL ANALOG] vs. [8x10 HYBRID]

DIFFERENT printing methods. :)

I suspect the OP can print 4x5 analog but has no way to print 8x10 analog.

[Brian Ellis]

I assume that by "real print" you mean a print made in a traditional color darkroom. And as I understand it, you're asking whether a digital print from 8x10 color negative film will be superior to a print made from 4x5 color negative film in a traditional color darkroom. I don't know exactly what you have in mind with the word "superior" but to me it means not just detail but also things like better local contrast, color saturation, color balance, etc.

IMHO the answer is unequivocally "yes," but not so much because the digital print is from 8x10 film while the darkroom print is from 4x5 as because any normal size film that's scanned and printed digitally by someone using good equipment and who knows what they're doing will be superior to the same size film printed in a color darkroom unless perhaps the color darkroom worker is well versed in the intricacies of masking. I add that qualification only because I never became involved with masking when I had a color darkroom and so can't speak from experience.

But I've done a fair amount of color darkroom work with negative film and I've done plenty of digital work and to me there just is no comparison between the quality of the prints that can be made with the two methods. In a color darkroom without masking you can make two basic adjustments - exposure and color balance. Once you have those two things right you're pretty well finished. You can sometimes do a very minimal amount of dodging and burning but it's hard to do even that without messing up the color balance in the areas dodged and burned. With digital you can do those basic things very easily and much much more.

Those are of course just my opinions, others might differ, but they are based on extensive experience with 4x5 and 8x10 film and with darkroom and digital printing.

[Ed Richards]

> He's asking if there is a loss in quality in the scanning process that degrades the quality of 8x10 enough to stay with fully analog 4x5 instead.

As other threads have discussed, it is not even clear that scanning degrades an image, when you consider that you can optimize the sharpness in Photoshop. Since scanning 8x10 for a 24x30 print is only a 3x magnification, you are in a sweet spot for even consumer scanners. It would be sharper and with better tone than the analog 4x5 - but you might not be able to notice it without sticking your nose in the print, and no one but you will care.

> Side by side comparisons of 4x5 and 8x10 printed in identical methods will clearly show the increase in resolution from 8x10, all other things being equal.

But all things are seldom equal. DOF will bite you more in 8x10, and when you close down to compensate, diffraction and movement of things like branches and clouds will bite you. Figure you need to shoot at least 500 sheets to moderately comfortable with the camera, and maybe 1000 more to get pretty good. The chances you will do that with 4x5 is a lot higher than with 8x10.

Maybe the best metric would be how many keepers you have at the end of 5 years. I bet the number would higher for 4x5, because most people are going to shoot a lot more images with the 4x5 over the 5 years. OTHO, a major reason to do LF is to mess with the gear, and bigger gear is more fun to mess with.:-)

[D. Bryant]

[4x5 FULL ANALOG] vs. [8x10 HYBRID]

DIFFERENT printing methods. :)

I suspect the OP can print 4x5 analog but has no way to print 8x10 analog.

Yes you should see a difference there if HYBRID means scanned film and non optical printing.

Don

[Kirk Fry]

Would you rather have an 8X10 computer monitor or a 16x20 one? That is the big difference between the little itty bitty ground glass on a 4X5 and the big beautiful image on the 8X10. Unless you are printing stuff over 16X20 the size of the film is not a big issue. A 4X5 negative gives you 300 GB of image. KFry

[BradS]

Thanks for all the replies...and sorry for not following up. I have been sitting on the side lines trying to figure out what I am am really asking...as many of you were too.

I think that the basic issue is one that many have struggled with and, as has been pointed out, has been hashed over in different forms a few times.

At the root of it, for me, is the underlying distaste I have for all manner of digital printing. Yeah, I know...that is not what most of you want to hear (to put it mildly). I really do not want to argue about wthe merits of digital prints...perhaps, you can just accept that the injet print does not appeal to me aesthetically and let it go at that. Just accept that...as I accept that some folks find fuzzy, out of focus photos aesthetically pleasing....there can be no reckoning for personal taste...if we can get beyond that, I think we may be able to have a discussion instead of an argument (so far, I think that we're doing well in this regard).

OK, so...anyway....I've been shooting 4x5 for a while and have just started shooting 8x10. I want to shoot color negatives (I've done chromes and am not happy with the confining lack of latitude). I can projection print 4x5 B&W and contact print 8x10 B&W. So, here's the rub, I am under the impression that virtually all color prints are now made by scanning the negative and inkjet (or other digital) printing. Which does not appeal to me...so, I'm just kinda whining I guess....Wondering what's the point of shooting 8x10 color film if all I can get is a digital print....which isn't going to look any better to me than a digital print from a 4x5 color neg...because, ultimately, both are digital prints...

Are there any pro labs that will make real color prints from 8x10 color negs???

[Eric Leppanen]

Are there any pro labs that will make real color prints from 8x10 color negs???Edgar Praus still makes analog C-41 prints. He shoots 8x10 C-41 himself.

http://www.4photolab.com/

I haven't spoken with them, but the Icon lab in Los Angeles might offer C-prints as well. A well know pro shooter here in Orange County recently recommended them to me for C-41 film processing.

http://www.iconla.com/PLcolor_film_services.php

[Robert Fisher]

Yes, Edgar and staff do outstanding C41 prints (assuming he is given a decent image to work with). Also has a great lab for processing C41, E6 & B&W.

A great guy that actually shoots 810 regularly (Sinar P).

[BradS]

Edgar Praus still makes analog C-41 prints. He shoots 8x10 C-41 himself.

http://www.4photolab.com/

I haven't spoken with them, but the Icon lab in Los Angeles might offer C-prints as well. A well know pro shooter here in Orange County recently recommended them to me for C-41 film processing.

http://www.iconla.com/PLcolor_film_services.php


Yes, Edgar and staff do outstanding C41 prints (assuming he is given a decent image to work with). Also has a great lab for processing C41, E6 & B&W.

A great guy that actually shoots 810 regularly (Sinar P).

Ah-ha!

This is most excellent news. Thanks guys.

[Drew Wiley]

Brad - sorry to respond so late, but I've been out on the trail for a few days. I do not
run a commercial lab, but do process my own RA4 prints up to 30x40. I am also looking
to install a 40" wide RA4 processor too, but am bogged down with other remodeling
projects for awhile. I am in the process of hanging a number of large Crystal Archive
C-prints, but am not really geared up to printing for others, since I do this only seasonally (I also print Ciba, DT, and a lot of b&w, so obviously can't operate all these
systems at once). I believe C-printing is still available in the Bay area comercially. With
direct optical enlargements 8x10 holds saturation on prints this size much better than
4x5, with the color pallate representing that of the film itself, rather than a retranslation into digital options, more of a classic look, I'd say, depending on the
specific film, paper, and of course, the photographer's sensitivity to the subject. Very
different than chromes, but also different from the look of Vericolor and the "muddy"
negatives and papers of the old days.

[BetterSense]

At the root of it, for me, is the underlying distaste I have for all manner of digital printing. Yeah, I know...that is not what most of you want to hear (to put it mildly). I really do not want to argue about wthe merits of digital prints...perhaps, you can just accept that the injet print does not appeal to me aesthetically and let it go at that. Just accept that...as I accept that some folks find fuzzy, out of focus photos aesthetically pleasing....there can be no reckoning for personal taste.

I would like to just chime in with support, letting you know that you are not the only one who maintains an aesthetic preference for photographic prints over digital ones. Although I don't print color I have respect for those that continue to do so. Asserting that digital prints are "better" is to me no less silly than insisting that digital cameras are "better"...and there are plenty of folks who do exactly that, of course.