PDA

View Full Version : LF, MF and print size



jonathan_lipkin
30-Aug-2010, 17:59
I'm starting a new series that will entail shooting a large number of images, perhaps 50-100 per day. I've been shooting Portra on my 4x5 toyo. Film costs about $2/sheet, and developing another $2.50. So 100 images = $450. Were I to put a roll film back on the camera (I've been asking about this in the other forums) I could shoot 6x7 at a fraction of cost: about $4/roll + about $3 for developing. Total $7 for 10 images, $.7 per image, so 100 shots would cost only $70. So far so good. However, I'm concerned about print size. I eventually would want to make very large prints - say 48x60 inches on a large format epson.

Would the 6x7 negs hold up at that size? Does anyone have experience making very large prints from MF film? I looked through the forums a bit and didn't see anything - sorry if this discussion has taken place already.

Thanks
-jl

Sirius Glass
30-Aug-2010, 18:13
You can blow it up to any size the enlarger supports. Yes a some point the grain will show up if the viewer puts their nose up to the print. The viewer must stand back at the proper distance for the size print.

Steve

Jeff Keller
30-Aug-2010, 18:18
Printing a 48x60 will be much more expensive than the capture. Are you happy with a 48x60 from your 4x5? If so, enlarge a 6x7 section of it to 48x60. There is more to LF than resolution but if you like LF you probably want higher res than what a casual viewer wants. You are already at 12x enlargement ... equivalent to a 35mm negative printed at 12x18. Would you be happy with a 35mm negative printed at 24x36?

Probably depends on subject and personal preferences ...

jonathan_lipkin
30-Aug-2010, 18:26
@Steve - Actually, I plan to print these digitally.
I haven't really had much experience enlarging from 4x5 since about 20 years ago. I suppose it really is a question of how large the grain gets, and as someone who shot Kodak p3200 way back when, I'm not afraid of a little grain. I'm really concerned with detail. I suppose I could shoot Ektar 100 which is meant to be very low grain.
@Jeff - I've enlarged my own 35mm to 16x20 which was just fine and seen prints up to 30x40 (Alex Webb's recent show) which got a bit grainy. But they were low light shots and probably on a 400 iso film.

Sean Galbraith
30-Aug-2010, 18:29
What were you planning to use to scan the images? Drum scan for maximum resolution? If so, the cost to get the negs developed is the least of your worries.

Daniel Stone
30-Aug-2010, 19:01
if you end up shooting sheet film, you might want to give these guys a look see:

$1.50/sheet for c-41 4x5. I've been using them since I don't have access to color chems right now(out of school), and dip-n-dunk for that cheap really helps price-wise!

www.samys805.com/film-processing/

-Dan

Brian C. Miller
30-Aug-2010, 19:04
OK, for a big enlargement from 6x7, yes of course it can be done. I have a 40" panoramic from a 645 drum scan. However, it does require a drum scan.

If I had made the same shot using a 4x5, then I could have scanned it with my flatbed scanner, no problem. In your case, if you have any kind of a decent flatbed scanner, then shoot 4x5 and scan it yourself.

jonathan_lipkin
30-Aug-2010, 19:39
@Sean, Brian - I have access to an Imacon and a very good tech.
@Daniel - That's excellent, thanks.

There was a great grant a few years back from a site called too much chocolate which gave money for film costs. Unfortunatly, they dont' seem to have offered the grant again.

Henry Ambrose
30-Aug-2010, 19:48
I think you'd be more pleased with the prints from a Mamiya 7 instead of a roll film back. (unless you need movements) I sometimes find that the 7 seems "sharper" than 4x5 and I'm not alone in that finding.

Ben Syverson
30-Aug-2010, 21:11
The Mamiya 7 is amazing, but you should not expect it to look great at 48x60 inches, especially if you're scanning. That's a 20X enlargement.

Personally I wouldn't print 4x5 that large, but I'm picky. It sounds like a job for 8x10.

Any particular reason you need to shoot 50-100 images per day? My advice is work it out with the DSLR, find the shot, then get it on 3-4 sheets of 8x10.

patrickjames
30-Aug-2010, 22:03
I have seen some amazing prints done larger than that off of 35mm and an Imacon 949. Though if you are the type to walk up to the print and put your nose to it, nothing will be good enough. If you print that large, the only people who will walk up to it will be photographers, and you can safely ignore them at your opening because they won't be buying.

I would say go for it! Shoot on medium format if you have to due to money constraints. The only thing that matters is if the images are good. No one that matters will go pixel peeping on your prints so don't worry about it.

Ben Syverson
30-Aug-2010, 22:24
Yeah, if you don't care how it looks, just shoot digital. That way you really don't have to worry about how many shots you're taking.

Brian C. Miller
30-Aug-2010, 23:09
It really depends on the subject matter. Your mileage will vary, so you must do a little bit of testing.

One afternoon I went to Alki Point and photographed the downtown Seattle skyline while the sun was setting. I used a Pentax 645 and Kodak E100S. The shutter speed was 1/60th and I don't remember the f-stop. Anyways, under a loupe I could see windows in the buildings, lots of good detail there. I had it drum scanned, and I have a great image. But is it just a drum scan and then printed? No. I went in with Photoshop and cleaned it up. And of course I had to do something like over 20 test prints.

So if you are doing something that requires all the detail that is in the film, then of course you will wind up cleaning up the scan. Scanners aren't perfect, and there will be flaws. The greater the enlargement, the more time you will spend making an excellent image.

I agree with Ben that film size matters, and the bigger, the better. But to have a semi-reasonable image from a digital camera, you'd need a 40Mp or better sensor. Perhaps what you can do is mix your film formats, and have at least a rough idea of which ones will probably be enlarged to 4ft by 5ft, and use the 4x5 film for those.

engl
31-Aug-2010, 08:49
For that kind of high volume shooting targeting digital prints, would it not be easier to buy or rent a digital MF solution? Or possibly buy new/used and then sell when finished.

With film you will have the purchase cost, development cost, time lost on film handling, loading holders, archival, cost of a scanner if you do not own one, time spent scanning, time spent cleaning up scans, cost of drum scanning if you want all the negative has to give. The analog workflow will also probably make shooting more time consuming, and you can not verify at time of shooting that you got what you were expecting. If I were to do hundreds of shot on a LF camera in a short time, Id probably loose some to mistakes caused by stress, exhaustion etc.

If you are going with film, why not try making a print and see if the quality if up to your requirements? Shoot on 4x5, crop out the 6x7 area and print.

A medium format camera would probably be better than a roll film back though, if you are aiming for maximum possible sharpness for big prints. Lenses measuring much higher in sharpness tests, mounted rigidly on cameras designed for higher precision.

jonathan_lipkin
31-Aug-2010, 09:15
All - thanks again for the thoughtful and detailed replies.
Questions, answers, more questions, more answers.....

So:

Why LF? Several reasons: I'm shooting people on the beach, and somehow a LF camera is less threatening. I don't know why exactly, but I can shoot things with it that I've never been able to were I to use a 35 or MF camera. Also, I need the tilt and rise. I know I can get that with a MF like the Fuji 680, but I already have the LF camera.

Why not MF digital? Just looked up the prices at BH, and a 40MP Hassy starts around 30K. That's more than I want to be responsible for. I'd love to shoot digitally, but don't see how. Betterlight backs scan, so I can't shoot people. If you know of another option, do tell.

Sirius Glass
31-Aug-2010, 09:26
@Steve - Actually, I plan to print these digitally.
I haven't really had much experience enlarging from 4x5 since about 20 years ago. I suppose it really is a question of how large the grain gets, and as someone who shot Kodak p3200 way back when, I'm not afraid of a little grain. I'm really concerned with detail. I suppose I could shoot Ektar 100 which is meant to be very low grain.
@Jeff - I've enlarged my own 35mm to 16x20 which was just fine and seen prints up to 30x40 (Alex Webb's recent show) which got a bit grainy. But they were low light shots and probably on a 400 iso film.

I have a place that I use when I want something bigger than 20"x24". They are an all optical shop.

Steve

jonathan_lipkin
31-Aug-2010, 09:31
I just got off the phone with Fotocare in NY, and am going in tomorrow to look at some 20-50mp capture systems. Might be cheaper to finance than to process all that film.

mcfactor
31-Aug-2010, 11:09
I have printed images from a mamiya 7 on fuji 160s scanned with an imacon and printed 50x60 inches (roughly). The image looked good from far away, but did not really stand up to close scrutiny. I am not sure digital backs would fare much better.

bob carnie
31-Aug-2010, 11:19
I think you are pushing the limits with medium format back, either film/drumscan or direct digital capture.
I would stick with 4x5 and drum scan for that size print.

just my 2cents.

Bill_1856
31-Aug-2010, 11:20
If you're going to print them digitally, why not just shoot them digitally and save a lot of hastle and expense?

Ben Syverson
31-Aug-2010, 13:49
Yeah, I say just use a cell phone camera. That way you can email the pictures directly to the print shop from the phone. It would really save a lot of hassle!

Sirius Glass
31-Aug-2010, 16:07
I just got off the phone with Fotocare in NY, and am going in tomorrow to look at some 20-50mp capture systems. Might be cheaper to finance than to process all that film.

Oh, I should run and get that! The latest stuff has gotta be better than my junk 4x5 stuff. I could even save space by using a cell phone to take photographs. No one will notice then because by then no one would want to look at them. Who needs resolution, color gamut and archival prints anyway!

Brian C. Miller
31-Aug-2010, 17:03
Waitaminit. Let me see if something isn't glaringly nuts here. (and guys, stop it with the knucklehead comments, they aren't helping anything)

The project is for 50 to 100 images per day. This includes loading the film holders. I'm guessing that you aren't going to be doing this alone and you have enough holders, right? So that's a little under five minutes per shot, considering shooting for eight hours. That has to be really cruising for sheet film.
A $30,000 back is a reasonable expenditure. (Consider the new Pentax 645D?)
$450 per 100 sheets considering the price of the digital back leads me to guess that you'll be making over 6,500 exposures, taking between two and three months.
An archival page holds four sheets.
That means over 1,600 archival sheets and I don't know how many binders to hold them. Plus some time indexing, etc.

From a logistics view, this looks kind of massive.

Could you please let us in on what you are doing?

Ben Syverson
31-Aug-2010, 17:57
50-100 images / day is just not a LF number. 5-10 is a LF number.

Honestly, the best workflow is to rent a Canon 5D Mark II and shoot your 50-100 images, with the 4x5 or 8x10 set up a couple feet away. When you see that you have an image you want to print large, pull the LF over, grab the shot, and move on. That way, you'll have a bunch of nice 21 MP images that you can print pretty big (say 16x20 or a little bigger). And you'll also have the LF, which you can print much larger. I still think 48x60 is pushing it for 4x5, but I'm picky.

Jack Dahlgren
31-Aug-2010, 20:49
50-100 images / day is just not a LF number. 5-10 is a LF number.

Honestly, the best workflow is to rent a Canon 5D Mark II and shoot your 50-100 images, with the 4x5 or 8x10 set up a couple feet away. When you see that you have an image you want to print large, pull the LF over, grab the shot, and move on. That way, you'll have a bunch of nice 21 MP images that you can print pretty big (say 16x20 or a little bigger). And you'll also have the LF, which you can print much larger. I still think 48x60 is pushing it for 4x5, but I'm picky.

Not only is it 50-100 a day, but it is 50-100 a day on the beach. And the light is not good all day on the beach. Nor is the weather. I just don't see that as being maintainable. Just dealing with the film holders is going to be a big issue, let alone handling your subject(s).

If you are going to burn $1000/day in film and developing (+ $$$$ and time scanning), why not rent MF digital and save loading, scanning, spotting time?

What is the point of all the images?

Ben Syverson
31-Aug-2010, 21:21
Renting MF digital does not solve this problem. You can't expect a MF digital image to survive at 48x60".

Jack Dahlgren
31-Aug-2010, 22:50
Renting MF digital does not solve this problem. You can't expect a MF digital image to survive at 48x60".

4x5 would be marginal too. If this guy is printing hundreds of images, then they are basically wallpaper and should hold up at distances of 4 or 5 feet from the print.

Sure 8x10 would be better.

raizans
1-Sep-2010, 01:24
large format is impractical at this volume, but 6x7 will get the job done.

medium format digital would give you the best of both worlds. it also doesn't hurt that it's digital.

the pentax 645d or something similar may be cost-effective.

jonathan_lipkin
1-Sep-2010, 06:20
Just got back from fotocare. The new systems drop too much in price for things to work for me - even if I buy a 30k system and finance it, which is affordable using a home equity loan, I'd have to sell it at the end of the project, and if the back loses even 25% of the value, I'm on the hook for a bunch of money. A used system runs about 20k, still workable, but I think in the end I'm just too chicken to have that much equipment with me to break, lose, or have stolen.

So, I'm either going to have to shoot less with 4x5 (and no, not 1600 images - I'd only shoot a few days out of the month, but believe me that even with only two hours of workable light I could shoot 50-100 images a day) or 6x7. Someone on the board has a sliding back I'm going to buy and run some tests with. Duggal in NY will make digital c-print tests for not very much money.

Sorry I can't let you in on the details of the project yet, but I promise once it's finished I'll let you all know.

Thanks everyone - I appreciate your very high standards and concern for the utmost in image quality. It's what I've come to expect from this board.

Ben Syverson
1-Sep-2010, 08:35
If you're considering using a scanning back and shooting on the beach, I guess that means this is landscape.

And by "two hours of workable light" I assume you mean golden hour / sunset.

Dude, I am telling you. You do not need to blow through 100 sheets to get one good 8x10 of a sunset.

Brian Ellis
1-Sep-2010, 08:46
For prints that size and a project of that magnitude I'd look into the possibility of renting a digital back and medium format camera. I've seen very large - probably larger than you're planning though I didn't measure - prints from a Mamiya RZ I think it was with one of the higher end digital backs that blew away anything I've ever seen from 4x5 enlarged in that range. I have no idea if anyone rents that gear or if it's practical for what you plan to photograph but that's the way I'd investigate for maximum quality in that size and that many photographs per day.

jonathan_lipkin
11-Oct-2010, 12:46
Brian - Fotocare in NYC rents the hasselblad backs. I downloaded a sample file from their 39MP back and made a test print - enlarged the file to 40x50 inches, then printed a 13x19 inch crop on my Epson R2400. It was simply fantastic.

The problem is that I'd have to rent not only the back, but a lens (light needs to hit the sensor's photosites at a particular angle) and an adapter as well. Would run quite a bit of money.

biglewsmi
11-Oct-2010, 13:24
You can rent a Hasselblad H4D-40 Medium Format camera system from lensrentals.com from 65-189 dollars per day including a lens depending on how long you need it for. If 70 dollars a day for film shots is in your budget this should certainly fit all your requirements.

jonathan_lipkin
12-Oct-2010, 05:40
That's a great idea. They ask for a certificate of insurance, which I'll have to look into. I think they want to be protected in case you loose or steal the camera.