Into the 4x5 world

[davidwrogers]

I've shot B&W 35mm along time ago, and spent 4 years shooting on crappy-but-affordable APS-c sensors from any of the Big Three (nikon/canon/sony). Got incredibly frustrated with my inability to make Gursky-sized prints out of 13mp images...so here I am.

I just bought a Cambo 4x5 used, off ebay. I don't know what model it is, and it comes with a lens board whose size will hopefully be revealed to me by the seller soon.

My plan is to get a Polaroid 550 back and load Fujifilm Instant Color into it. Does anyone here know of any previous threads relating to scanning / scanners of negatives and prints? I'm curious about how much information is available in a single 4x5 polaroid. With a good scanner (6000 dpi?) my number processing device has informed me that I'll basically have a 120mp camera available to me...

Anyone have some examples of full-size RAW file scans of 4x5 polaroids? I promise not to pilfer, steal, plagiarize or otherwise abuse the things.

[Leigh]

I've scanned some of my 4x5 B&W negatives @ 6400 dpi and 16 bits.

The resulting file is 1.32 GigaBytes, so I'm not likely to post it online.

A scan of a color positive at that resolution and depth would be about 4 GigaBytes.

- Leigh

[mdm]

except fuji instant film only resolves about 7 lp/mm if my memory serves me. So basicly you've got a 4x5 print. They are beautiful little jems.

[davidwrogers]

A roughly 4gb image size sounds pretty ill...and justifies purchasing a computer with a 64-bit chipset and 16gb of RAM. I would like my photographs to reveal, upon enlargement, the cellular structure of my portrait subject's face. But from a distance of 'across town' or so, it'll just be a person.

Anywho. Scanners beyond the Epson V750 include...? Anyone?

[sully75]

if you scan a 4x5 polaroid, you'll have basically 4x5 of information to play with. You'll have to shoot film to beat your DSLR in resolution.

If your desire is to make gigantic monster prints, you may need more than a flatbed scanner, even a good one. I've made really nice 13x19 prints with a flatbed scanner and an inkjet printer, and I think I could probably do a bit better than that if I needed to. But generally you are talking having something drum scanned to make an awesome super large print.

At least...that's what I'm told.

[stevebrot]

A roughly 4gb image size sounds pretty ill...and justifies purchasing a computer with a 64-bit chipset and 16gb of RAM. I would like my photographs to reveal, upon enlargement, the cellular structure of my portrait subject's face. But from a distance of 'across town' or so, it'll just be a person.

Anywho. Scanners beyond the Epson V750 include...? Anyone?

The V750 is a nice scanner, but the actual resolution is somewhat below the advertised 6400 dpi. I have the similarly-spec'd V700 and it will only deliver about 2400 dpi best case. For 4x5 this is a very acceptable number, however. More capable options exist, but with the possible exception of retired reprographic scanners, be prepared to lay out some serious money to get better than 2400 dpi with support for a 4x5 negative.

You might also wish to consider that even with hot hardware, management and manipulation of large scanned images is tedious at best and may not even be possible with your usual choice of software.


Steve

[goodfood]

Why not shoot B/W film and go to wet darkroom?

[Brian C. Miller]

David, the Fujiroid film will give you a print, and you will have to go through some effort to recover the negative from it. I've done it a few times, but I'd rather work with film.

Scanning a Fujiroid print will not give you what you want. The print is designed to be the final product, and while it's good for making a proof, the negative is better.

[Ash]

The Fujiroids are terrible resolution. I tried to scan on my V700 and enlarge for printing and it wasn't worth the time or effort.

[Noah A]

I assume you're exaggerating a bit when you mention "Gursky-sized prints". Or maybe not. I also recently transitioned back to film after being unhappy with the quality of small-format digital at large print sizes.

As you may know Gursky composites many large-format (or medium-format digital) frames into each final print. This stitching method allows him to make really, really huge prints. The ones I've seen are a bit grainy close-up, but they still maintain a high level of detail.

There's absolutely no way you'll get sharp, good quality enlargements from Fuji instant film. The fuji-roid films are great for proofing, which is why I use them, and you can create nice little one-of-a-kind prints. They have something of a soft look that can be quite beautiful but is very different from the look of the prints by contemporary color photographers like Gursky. I've never tried to recover the negative but I don't think it's worth the trouble.

If you're shooting color, you'll probably want to start with a color negative film like the new Portra 160. And if you're printing any bigger than 16x20, the Epson scanner won't cut it. You'll need a drum scan or at the very least an Imacon scan.

A lot of folks here will say that you shouldn't make a 40x50 inch print from 4x5, but I do so all the time with great results. The biggest print size I make from 4x5 is 48x60. At that size, if you stick your nose to the print you definitely see some grain, but the grain is sharp, the image is sharp and the grain isn't objectionable from the normal viewing distance for that size print. To me 48x60 represents the biggest size I would print from 4x5, and only then if you use good technique, have an excellent drum scan and use sharp, modern lenses, a really solid tripod and a good film.

If you truly want to make gursky-sized prints, which can be far bigger than 60 inches, I'd say you need to either stitch your images together or consider 8x10 instead.

[Noah A]

By the way, for my large prints I scan my 4x5 negs at 4000dpi, and the 16 bit files are just about 1.5GB.

[Robert Jonathan]

You should only use Fuji instant film for checking exposure and to get a sense of instant feedback, like with digital. The actual image area isn't even the same as what you get on film in a 4x5 film holder.

Other than checking exposure, the instant film prints are low-res, soft pieces of crap... and I love using them!

[rdenney]

Some basics:

The Epson V700/750 scanners are capable of about 2400 spi. That's actually not bad for 4x5--it gives a file of about 100-120 megapixels depending on how much of the nominal 4x5 frame you actually use. At that resolution, you can nominally resolve detail in the negative at about 40 or 45 lines/mm, though in reality it will be less because of losses introduced by the scanner. Most would consider the V700 series capable of a 4x enlargement with excellent results and maybe as much as 6X with good results. If you intend to print at 16x20, you'll get excellent results, and up to 24x30, it will work well enough in most cases.

Doing better will require spending real money, or developing a museum of obsolete computer equipment to run older high-end scanners. Take a look at the thread comparing the Epson to an Eversmart Pro (high-end flatbed) and a Howtek (PMT drum scanner) for an idea of what it takes.

An alternative is 6x7 or 6x9, and scanning in a Nikon film scanner. A used Nikon 8000ED will cost more than the new Epson, but it will deliver 4000 spi at a little better quality than the Epson's 2400. Again, you can expect 100-120 megapixel files, but this time supporting enlargements up to 8-10x with high quality, which takes you to the same 16x20 up to 24x30 prints.

Note that the smaller the format, the better the lenses have to be to keep up with the required enlargement ratios. At 4x enlargement, a lens that resolves 20 lines/mm at high MTF won't cause much visible degradation. A lens for 6x7 or 6x9 might need twice that.

And I still find that 4x5's enlarged at 4x scanned in an Epson make better prints than 6x7 enlarged at 8x in a Nikon 8000. With the former, the film itself is spread over less print area, and the result is smoother tonality.

If you scan film in a drum scanner, you can make bigger prints, but you'll need correspondingly better lenses and technique to keep the sharpness at the full capability of the system. This represents an expensive jump in the whole system.

I have a 13MP Canon 5D. It will not support a 16"-wide print at the same quality, even with high-end lenses. It's pretty good, and better than I ever got with 35mm film. But think about it: a 16" print from a 24x36 sensor is a 17x enlargement. Your lenses and technique will have to exceed perhaps 85 lines/mm to avoid constraining the sharpness of that print. That is a demanding target even with high-end lenses, and without even considering the pixel density of the sensor. For the typical low production levels most of us have with large format, you can buy a lot of large-format stuff for the price of a 5DII or D3 and a range of lenses of that level.

By the way, all Cambo monorail cameras use the same lens board. Calumet also marketed the Cambo SC cameras as the 45, 45N, and 45NX, and they also all use the same lens board. They also all have a Graflok/International back, so you can put roll-film holders on them easily. They will not handle lenses shorter than 65mm, and even that will require a recessed board and bag bellows, so if you are a wide-angle freak you will find it lacking with smaller formats. Short of that, it's a completely capable camera and very good for learning about view camera image management.

Rick "speaking from personal experience on all of the above" Denney

[Wally]

...
By the way, all Cambo monorail cameras use the same lens board. Calumet also marketed the Cambo SC cameras as the 45, 45N, and 45NX, and they also all use the same lens board. They also all have a Graflok/International back, so you can put roll-film holders on them easily.
...


The Calumet CC-400s were folded into the Cambo line-up, weren't they? I belive these have much smaller lensboards - around 4x4 inches.

If he's got one of these, they're good starter cameras to see if 4x5 is for him, and with a little work he'll be able to get a Pola 550 back under the GG.

[rdenney]

The Calumet CC-400s were folded into the Cambo line-up, weren't they? I belive these have much smaller lensboards - around 4x4 inches.

If he's got one of these, they're good starter cameras to see if 4x5 is for him, and with a little work he'll be able to get a Pola 550 back under the GG.

I don't know for sure, but I certainly have never seen a Cambo-branded CC-400. Did Calumet hire Cambo to make this camera? Dr. Jones would know. I thought it was originally a Kodak Master View 4x5, which would have been made here not in the Netherlands where Cambos are made. And didn't the original made-in-Holland Super Cambo predate the end of the CC-400 production? Did Calumet distribute the Super Cambo in the U.S. from the start? It was distributed by Braun in Canada.

Anyway, the differences are obvious, so confusion is unlikely once he has the camera in hand.

Rick "who has both a CC-400 and a Calumet 45nx" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

The Calumet CC-400s were folded into the Cambo line-up, weren't they? I belive these have much smaller lensboards - around 4x4 inches.
true (Calumet CC-400s take 4x4 lens boards).

If he's got one of these, they're good starter cameras to see if 4x5 is for him, and with a little work he'll be able to get a Pola 550 back under the GG.
I have an older grey one (CC-402 short rail) and it wasn't really feasible to use instant film holders, the bail doesn't open wide enough. I put a newer black version of the GG holder/bail assembly on it that opens wider and now it will take an instant film holder. I'm not positive all the black models have wide enough bails and all the grey ones don't, but I suspect that's the case.

...Mike

[rdenney]

true (Calumet CC-400s take 4x4 lens boards).

Mike, are you saying that it's true that the CC-400's take 4x4 boards (which is, of course, true) or have you seen an example of a CC-400 with Cambo branding? If the latter, I'm hoping we can get Lynn Jones to recount the history of the CC-400 production. We already know that it was originally made as the Kodak Master View 4x5.

Rick "who has seen old Cambo stuff but always in the SC vein" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

Mike, are you saying that it's true that the CC-400's take 4x4 boards (which is, of course, true) or have you seen an example of a CC-400 with Cambo branding? If the latter, I'm hoping we can get Lynn Jones to recount the history of the CC-400 production. We already know that it was originally made as the Kodak Master View 4x5.

Rick "who has seen old Cambo stuff but always in the SC vein" Denney

I'm just saying CC-400s take 4x4 lens boards. I know nothing about Cambos or anything about Calumets other than the CC-40Xs.

...Mike

[rdenney]

I'm just saying CC-400s take 4x4 lens boards. I know nothing about Cambos or anything about Calumets other than the CC-40Xs.

Okay--thanks. I just wanted to make sure that my assertions had not been undermined by the presence of a refuting example.

Rick "who hates when that happens" Denney