Is there any technical advantage to using ...

[Eric Rose]

Is there any technical advantage to using an 8x10 or 11x14 film camera over scanning a 4x5 neg and producing an 8x10 or 11x14 digital neg for contact printing?

When I see those lovely wooden 8x10 cameras go up for sale it's all I can do to resist buying them. But at the end of the day it's about the print not the fondling.

Your collective wisdom is appreciated.

Eric

[BetterSense]

Larger formats give a different look than smaller ones. If you want the look, you have to use the larger format. It's just physics.

[thart2009]

But at the end of the day it's about the print not the fondling....



I don't know about that. I enjoy the fondling too!

[memorris]

I recently added an 8X10 and the comment about the look is true. Digital negatives are still digital negative, good quality but of all I have seen, a well done analog negative has a quality that is not available in a digital negative.

[Steven Barall]

An 8x10 original of a given scene looks completely different from a 4x5 original of that same scene. You can always tell the difference. Good luck.

[Ken Lee]

...producing an 8x10 or 11x14 digital neg for contact printing?

If you plan to make contact prints on either Silver or hand-coated paper, I doubt you'd see a difference between 4x5 and 8x10.

At the print size you mention, the advantages of 8x10 over 4x5 will be obscured by noise, one way or another.

Using inkjet negatives for prints on Silver paper, the limiting factor will be noise introduced by the printer.

Using inkjet negatives for contact prints on hand-coated paper (like for Pt/Pd and other traditional processes), the limiting factor will be noise introduced by the texture of the paper. (Before the advent of digital negatives, we needed big cameras for big negatives for large alt-process contact prints - but nowadays people make lovely Pt/Pd prints from point-and-shoot digital cameras and small format film, because the paper itself is so low-resolution by nature, that one can't often tell the difference).

[Jay DeFehr]

Eric,

I hope Sandy King replies. Sandy has made a lot of both kinds of negatives (film and digital), in a lot of different formats, and his insight is worth seeking out. I'd be interested in his views on the subject, as well.

For me, even if the digitally enlarged negative equaled the quality of an 8x10 original, I would opt for the original. There is very little of a practical nature in my preference, beyond my inexperience in making digital negatives. Mostly, I just like working with the big camera, and the big negative, in a simple, intuitive way. I don't think I'd enjoy the intermediate process of making a digital negative, for its own sake, the way I enjoy processing an 8x10 negative. But, your question is a technical one, not an emotional one. I'll follow, with interest.

[Heroique]

Hence Ansel's statement: "When asked what camera I use, I reply 'The heaviest one I can carry'."

This is a favorite photography quote of mine, by anybody.

It’s rich enough to mean more than it says.

One of its “meanings” that might address your question (beyond technical advantages) is: the extra handling and deliberation that come w/ using heavier gear can encourage superior visualization, better image making.

Remember to consider whether this trumps the “technical advantages” you seek.

;)

[Jay DeFehr]

Ken,

My post was composed before I saw yours. I don't want my post to read as if I'm discounting your point of view in favor of Sandy's; I value yours very highly, as well.

[Bill_1856]

The only significant advantages come when making humongous sized prints, or contact printing.

[Ken Lee]

Jay - Thanks, no problem. :)

Like you, I had Sandy's postings in mind. He's shared the numbers before.

[Eric Rose]

There is a post by Sandy I should look at?? Where is it??

[Greg Miller]

the extra handling and deliberation that come w/ using heavier gear can encourage superior visualization, better image making.

I've never understood the logic of this line of thought. If this were true, then it would also make sense to remove all the knobs from the camera and then put them on before each shot to make for even more handling, and thus resulting in even better image making. Or take each lens off the lens board, requiring the lens to be mounted on its board again before each shot. And remove the rail stops so that you have to find infinity from scratch for each shot. Or buy the biggest, bulkiest tripod with the most cumbersome head.

If someone wants to be more deliberate, then just be more deliberate.

[Greg Blank]

Digitally scanned and printed images in my experience fall short of darkroom produced chemical prints- although high end digital scanning and output equiptment lessen the distance (Imacon scanners and Lambdas- being an example- used by knowledgable folks). A sharp 8x10 enlarged negative at 16x20 beats a sharp 4x5 at 16x20.



Is there any technical advantage to using an 8x10 or 11x14 film camera over scanning a 4x5 neg and producing an 8x10 or 11x14 digital neg for contact printing?

When I see those lovely wooden 8x10 cameras go up for sale it's all I can do to resist buying them. But at the end of the day it's about the print not the fondling.

Your collective wisdom is appreciated.

Eric

[Jay DeFehr]

Greg,

I think Eric's intention is to digitally enlarge a 4x5 negative to 8x10, and contact print it, but maybe I've misunderstood.

[Ken Lee]

There is a post by Sandy I should look at?? Where is it??

See http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=54560

"When making digital negatives with inkjet printers the resolution of the negative is limited by the printer and the media in the same way that resolution is limited when making prints with the same printer. The only difference between a negative and print is that the negative is inverted and made on a clear film and the print is a postive made on paper. Since the effective resolution of inkjet printers is somewhere between 360 dpi to 720 dpi this puts the maximum possible resolution of a digital negative at between 7 lp/mm and 14 lp/mm, with the first figure much more likely than the second.

A sheet of 4X5" film is likely to contain the equivalent of about 40 lp/mm or more of effective resolution. However, if the negative is scanned with a perfect scanner and the file printed at 4X the resulting resolution will be limited about 10 lp/mm maximum by the film, and perhaps less by the printer and media.

Some loss of resolution in making an alternative print may occur because of paper texture. This is true of processes like pt/pd, kallitype, vandyke, cyanotype, etc. In these cases the limit of resolution is usually the paper, not the negative. Even if you print directly with an 8X10 negative that has the equivalent of 40 lp/mm of resolution the paper will limit the resolution to 10 lp/mm or less because of the texture of the paper."

[ic-racer]

I don't know, nor care to know, anything about digital negatives. But the extra work needed to produce a digital negative from a 4x5 negative would need to be weighed against the extra work in hauling around the bigger camera. Personally, my 4x5 and 8x10 kits weight about the same and focusing and setup are easier on the 8x10 camera for me.

[Michael Wynd]

I find that having gone from 4x5 to 8x10 that my rate of keepers has increased. The fact that the camera is so heavy to carry around has made me cast a more critical eye at what I photograph. The cost of film and the time spent in the dark tray processing has also made me more selective of what I take, so I get a better result overall.
Mike

[Eric Rose]

Jay was right, my intention is to contact print using alt processes. Using digital negs would allow me to make contacts prints of any size I wanted. Well at least up to the maximum size my Epson 3800 will produce.

In my mind this added artistic flexibility far out weights any advantages provided by using purpose built film cameras. Say my image looks best cropped and I want to make a 12x18 print. This would not be possible using either 8x10 or 11x14 film cameras.

I'm not a fan of sitting in front of a computer either, but if that is what it's going to take, then I guess I have to suck it up.

[Greg Blank]

I would build or buy a camera of the format size or dimension you like and stick with it. I have an eight x ten and 4x5 and enlargers to match, only you can decide what your time is worth.

I like the idea of contacting bigger negatives, and doing alt process.....computer work
does not encompass that...per say :)


Jay was right, my intention is to contact print using alt processes. Using digital negs would allow me to make contacts prints of any size I wanted. Well at least up to the maximum size my Epson 3800 will produce.

In my mind this added artistic flexibility far out weights any advantages provided by using purpose built film cameras. Say my image looks best cropped and I want to make a 12x18 print. This would not be possible using either 8x10 or 11x14 film cameras.

I'm not a fan of sitting in front of a computer either, but if that is what it's going to take, then I guess I have to suck it up.

[Robert Hughes]

If you'll be making a digital internegative and your final presentation is an alt process print anyway, I don't think it makes much difference what your origination medium is. Digital capture may be your most expeditious option, as you'll have the most workflow flexibility. That said, I built an 8x10 box camera and am having lots of fun working printing the big negatives to cyanotype and bichromate prints.

[Nicholas Whitman]

After many years of making contact platinotypes from 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 negatives I recently began making enlarged digital negatives on OHP film. I'm using an Epson 4800.

The results are better for several reasons.

First you can taylor the digital negative to the platinotype emulsion rather than the other way around as was the case before. By creating a custom curve for your setup you can make perfect negatives.

Of course while you are in photoshop you can clean the dust out of the sky and put a nice clean edge on the image.

So now that you have an excellent negative your platimum/paladium printing will go much smoother. This is a temperamental process and anything you can do to tame it really helps. There will be a lot less waste which is good because print materials are expensive. In fact you can tweak the negative file and make a new one for the cost of a print, so you might make several negatives zeroing in.

If you make large scans, 16 bit about 150 MB, you can enlarge from 4x5 to 8x10 no problem. When you look at the enlarged negative under magnification you think it will never work - but printed it looks great - yes even on smooth stock.

Yet an other advantage is you original negative is safe in it's Printfile sleeve while your duplicate negative is in the lab doing the heavy lifting.

This system has given plat/pal printing a whole new life. The good folks at Bostick and Sullivan have never been busier!