4x5 or 8x10 for maximum print size

[simonsutcliffe]

Hi
Im 14 and done various 35mm before and worked with MFDSLR, I have been printing bigger and bigger for my clients and want to print images ideally around 80 inches by 80 inches (quality is very important). These photos will be scanned and printed on high quality paper then handled by my gallery. I will be traveling with my camera a lot and would like a camera that I can bring to other countries with me and will have to be brought through airports. I would like a bit of lens selection, I like working with lenses in the 35mm (35mm equiv) range. I am considering getting a 4x5 speed graphic or a Dayi camera.
(http://www.ebay.ca/itm/DAYI-TOYO-Portable-4x5-Professional-Large-Format-Camera-/280732730484?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item415cf98474) I am going to shoot with colour slide if I shoot in 4x5 I could process myself. For 8x10 I would be looking at a similar camera to the Dayi such as a gaesoeri.

[vinny]

LF cameras are a whole different animal. I suggest you use the search function as you've got a lot to learn. 8x10 would be the choice for large prints but isn't very travel friendly these days.

[John Kasaian]

You're 14 with clients and a gallery?
Dang! i'm impressed!

[Bruce Watson]

You have interestingly conflicting requirements.

Spend a couple of months browsing and searching this website and you'll probably figure out what you need to know. It's all here. Every bit of it.

I too thought that I'd want to use the same relative lenses for LF as I did for small format. Didn't turn out that way for me, nor for anyone else I know doing LF. That's because 35mm is about as different from LF as clarinet is to trumpet. But you'll figure that out.

Good luck with it. It's a big step, but one that many people have taken already. And much of their experience is captured right here in this forum. Do with it what you will.

[akfreak]

I remember when you were 13 asking about 35mm or MF (http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00YsHN?start=0). You sure grew fast from picking a 35mm or MF camera to world traveler working with a Gallery doing 80x80 inch photographic prints.


I think the Dayi Toyo backed camera is a bit limited for the money. If you want a 4x5 why not get a crown graphic. The price is good, and when you are ready you can get a better camera. Heck if you are selling 80x80 prints at a Gallery you should be able to pick most any camera you want. Do you still consider Samyang lenses your " Holy Trinity" lol

You have a link the the gallery selling your work. Any samples, I am very interested to see what you are doing, Best of luck, AKf

[Brian C. Miller]

Hi, Simon, and welcome to the forum! You've come to the right place for loads of help and good info.

A 4x5 camera is closer to using a large MF film camera than an 8x10. And 8x10 says, "I am a camera! Respect me!" A 4x5 says, "I'm a camera, and I'm fun!" A 35mm can say, "I'm a camera, and I'm cuuuuute!" But no LF camera is cute.

These cameras deliver quality, but they take some effort to learn and use. You have to do absolutely everything one sheet of film (one frame) at a time. If you take a deliberate approach to your photography, like setting the camera up on a tripod, making sure it's level, and basically take at least five minutes for a photograph, LF won't seem to be so bad. Otherwise, you'll have to spend some time adjusting.

You don't want that Dayi. One of the forum members (dsphotog) has a nice Graflex Super Graphic for sale for cheap, and it's the same model that I use. It's a very good and reliable camera, it comes with a very good lens, and it folds up into a nice compact bundle. It's a great camera with movements, and unless you're photographing architecture (buildings, etc) then it's fine.

Are you processing E6 yourself? With a Jobo? It's not difficult, but the temperature and times have to be kept quite strict.

Read up, and best of luck!

[simonsutcliffe]

5x7 the film does not come in colour so thats a no, I think I'm going to end up just getting a DAYI 4x5 with a few lenses for traveling and then get a 8x10 that i can travel if I want to but mainly stays near a car or not going on planes

[E. von Hoegh]

5x7 the film does not come in colour so thats a no, I think I'm going to end up just getting a DAYI 4x5 with a few lenses for traveling and then get a 8x10 that i can travel if I want to but mainly stays near a car or not going on planes

A better option than the Dayi would be any folding wood or metal tech or field camera, purchased used so you can break even reselling it. Another suggestion would be to thank the people who take the time and effort to respond to your threads.:)

[Bill_1856]

Digital.

[Jim Jones]

A 4x5 should suffice for most 80x80 prints. Better a 4x5 camera that is practical to use than an 8x10 that is left behind because it is too onconvenient for some travel. Edward Weston's 8x10 kit was 30 pounds according to his wife, not including a sturdy tripod. My 8x10 kit is about 25x8x18 inches and 40 pounds, including a flimsy wooden tripod. My light weight 4x5 field camera kit with three lenses and four film holders weigh 10.5 pounds without tripod. Substituting a Crown camera would increase the weight 3 pounds. Perhaps most airlines would permit it as carry on luggage. The Crown is probably the best of commonly available press cameras. Busch, Burke & James, and a few others may also serve well.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Prints don't call for transparency emulsions and you give up a great deal of exposure latitude and dynamic range when you use them over color negative. This becomes a significant disadvantage soon as you jump formats for a host of reasons, starting with film (un)availability, and including such things as negs being more tolerant of budget LF shutters. Urge you to reconsider. And not everything you shoot will be printed 80x80" square. You've set some high hurdles for yourself.

[Jim Michael]

As far as the math is concerned, I would determine the scan resolution I could dependably obtain from my negatives, then take the resolution I intended to print at, and then determine the film width I would need to get the largest print size I intended to print. That would tell me the minimum film width I'd need. Then I'd take into consideration other factors such as film type (color, b&w etc.), availability, cost, logistics, etc.

[Noah A]

As to the part of your question about film size, 4x5 should give good results if you use impeccable technique, get a great scan and don't mind some grain. In my experience, prints from slow 4x5 neg film can be very sharp at 60x75in. The grain is visible but pleasing in my opinion and the prints are tack-sharp even upon close inspection.

The normal advice that lenses for LF don't matter too much won't apply to print sizes that large. You'll get the best result from the latest glass, personally I'd recommend the Apo-Sironar-S or Apo-Symmar range for longer lenses and the latest Grandagon-N or SA/SS XL lenses for wider lenses.

If you go to 8x10 you may not get sharper results for various reasons (film flatness, diffraction, longer shutter speeds, more problems with wind, etc.), but you will get less grain and a bit of a smoother look and perhaps a better tonal range.

If you're shooting chromes for the look, go for it. But you should at least try a few sheets of Portra 160, which is incredible when drum-scanned and can go huge due to it's fine grain.

Let me reiterate the opinions of others and say that a gaoersi or DaYi would be the worst possible camera. Those cameras are mostly niche products for people who want to handhold their LF cameras, which is something of a silly proposition if you're talking about huge print sizes. The exception to that rule would be is if a tripod is not an option, like for aerial work. But in that case you may very well get sharper results from an MFDB kit or even a good MF film camera like the Mamiya 7.

I have a DaYi 4x5 and to be honest, it's kind of a piece of crap. If you figure in a few lenses your kit will be way larger than a technical/press/field camera which others have suggested. The reason is that the DaYi/Gaoersi cameras use rigid lens cones for each lens. These are not small, especially for medium and longer lenses. The DaYi is probably the worst travel camera I can think of. And for shooting, the cameras give you no real movements. They may have some rise, but it's of limited use since at least on the DaYi there is internal vignetting since it's a bad design. There is no tilt to control the plane of focus, and you'll need that for lenses longer than 90mm.

A folding field camera will give you decent movements and it folds smaller than the DaYi. If you consider the total size of the kit, say a camera and two or three lenses, the field camera will be much smaller.

I'd go for any metal folding field camera (like a Wista SP/VX, Horseman 45FA, any new or used Technika) and a few good late-model lenses.

Of course you'll need great scans and a master printmaker to make good prints of that size. I would expect each print to cost a few grand once scanned, printed, mounted and framed. So considering that, it's silly to cheap out on your gear.

If I haven't changed your mind about the DaYi, I have one for sale with a 135 Apo-Symmar. I'm selling it because my Linhof Master Technika 2000 is a far better camera on a tripod and it's also just as capable handheld. And it folds up much smaller for travel.

[rdenney]

There is a saying in the amateur astronomy world: If you want to grind your own 12" mirror, grind a 6" mirror first.

The wisdom in that saying is that what you learn grinding the 6" mirror will save you more time and energy than what it took to grind the 6" mirror, once you actually grind that 12" mirror.

I would say that if you want to make 7-foot prints, learn to make 3-foot prints first. Set a high standard for those prints, and learn to consistently achieve those standards. What you learn will scale up. But it may be impossible for you to know what is going wrong with such large prints without that experience.

A DaYi camera does not fulfill your requirements, by the way. It is designed as a wide-angle camera with a limited capability up to normal lenses. It provides very little movement, and therefore does not give you any ability to tilt the focus plane. That is a key strategy for making large-format negatives sharp enough to make multi-foot prints. You can't just stop down--diffraction will get you when your objective is high-quality 7-foot prints--and the skill of large format is in finding a way, usually using movements, to not need such a small aperture to get what you want in focus.

I believe you need a view camera with reasonable movements to achieve the size and quality you have specified. There are monorail cameras that you can travel with, but a metal folding technical camera is probably your best bet to fulfill all your very specific and difficult requirements. You might get buy with a Super Graphic, but I don't think a Crown or Speed Graphic is equipped to support prints that large in a wide range of situations. The DaYi, which has no tilt movements, certainly is not.

I'll say this once: The camera is about 10% of what you need. The other 90% is the skills and commitment needed to make best use of it.

Rick "who learned to use a Linhof Color when only a couple of years older than you are, but who spent many more years perfecting technique well enough to make really large prints, particularly in color" Denney

[Tim k]

.... And 8x10 says, "I am a camera! Respect me!" A 4x5 says, "I'm a camera, and I'm fun!" A 35mm can say, "I'm a camera, and I'm cuuuuute!" But no LF camera is cute....


Brian, this is interesting. Format linguistics? Could you expand on this to include 11x14, up to say, 20x24?

I'm pretty sure my 11x14 says "your an idiot for packing me around".

[simonsutcliffe]

My prints are constantly 3-4ft large and I have reached that goal and want to go bigger because I find that my photos really "Pop" when they are printed 40 inches+



I would say that if you want to make 7-foot prints, learn to make 3-foot prints first. Set a high standard for those prints, and learn to consistently achieve those standards. What you learn will scale up. But it may be impossible for you to know what is going wrong with such large prints without that experience.

[Daniel Stone]

My prints are constantly 3-4ft large and I have reached that goal and want to go bigger because I find that my photos really "Pop" when they are printed 40 inches+

do you happen to have an online reference to your photographs by chance? ie: a website/photo gallery?

-Dan

[akfreak]

I asked the same question, A year ago he was asking info about MF now he is a world traveler with a gallery to host his body of work. All a 14 years old. Seems the media would of heard of this fenom. "Really pop at 40" yeah if they aren't popping at 8x10 they will surly pop at 40x40 square crop enlargements.

I am a bit skeptical of all of this, I apologize if you are the real deal. Post a link to a single image in a gallery credited to you, that will be enough for me. I will be your biggest fan.

[johnmsanderson]

I love this forum.

[simonsutcliffe]

Here is some of my snapshots from my dslr http://www.flickr.com/photos/57994640@N07/sets/72157627980062602/

[Scott Walker]

Here is some of my snapshots from my dslr http://www.flickr.com/photos/57994640@N07/sets/72157627980062602/

Definitely looks like you get around, thanks for sharing.
The last image in your gallery, is that from the Badlands in Alberta?

[tgtaylor]

Judging from your favorites posted on Flicker, you don't need a camera with extensive movements. Rather than a Crown/Speed Graphic type of camera, I'd recommend the Toyo 45CF which weighs in a 3.4 lbs without the lens and accommodates all FL's from 65mm to 360mm. A 90mm will work on a flat lensboard without dropping the bed (wider lens will require you to drop the bed and use a recessed board). A normal lens will fold-up while attached to the camera. Combine this with a lightweight tripod like the Gitzo GT0540/41 and you have a system that can handle all landscape, cityscape s, portraits...just about anything except architecture that require greater movements beyond front rise, tilt, swing and a 15 degree rear tilt.

This is a system that is compact enough to carry on-board an aircraft (I never flew with this set-up but I think TSA will allow the tripod which folds up very small and extends to about 5' without using the center column) and you can easily pack this discretely while walking around town, bicycling (camera, holders and meter in a Pannier and the tripod lashed to the back rack with a bungee cord) or hiking carrying minimal weight.

There are probably other compact 4x5 systems to choose from but I own and have used the above system for about 10 years now and personally vouch for it.

For lens I'd recommend the 75mm Rodenstock Grandagon 4.5 which is very compact and lightweight, and the Rodenstock 150mm Apo Sirona-S which is also small and compact and will fold up with the camera. It's field of view is almost the same as a 35mm lens of a 35mm film camera.

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

You will need a fair amt of time to become comfortable with any view camera format.
8x10 is tricker in terms of the logistics - cost and availability of film, much heavier and
far less portable, more expensive to scan etc. You'd be surprised just how heavy a
pack or travel kit with a 4x5 system in it can be, and 8x10 is a lot more. But 8x10 can
give way better results in big prints under certain conditions, namely optimized optical
printing. With scanned and inkjet output, the distinction is going to be less noticeable.
It just depends on whether or not you want your prints to be viewed close up - 8x10
can really help in that respect. But it's a whole different game than SLR. One good shot
a week is what I personally aim for. I'm not a big guy, but years and years of backpacking has made me comfortable with heavy loads. 8x10 is pretty ambitious unless you want a serious workout every time.

[rjmeyer314]

Your question was how big a negative you need to make 80"x80" prints. I haven't studied that in detail, but I did study a related question of what was the minimum negative size to give me sharp 20"x24" prints in my darkroom. My definition of sharp was it had to be crisply sharp when held at the end of my nose, not from halfway across the room. I ultimately came to the conclusion that 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" negatives were the absolute minimum that would do it for me. This corresponds to a magnification of 6.15 (roughly). Now, I've made pretty good 11"x14" prints from negatives I've made with my Mamiya-16 camera. That corresponds to a magnification of about 25X. However, these prints aren't in the category I want for sharpness. For your 80"x80" prints I'm going to guess that you need a negative 80"/6.15=13" square. Thus, the 8"x10" will come closest to making the sharp 80x80 prints you want. I have made 30"x40" prints that meet my sharpness test from an 8x10 negative. I've never tried from 4x5. An even bigger negative than 8x10 would be better, but 16"x20" (or something similar in ULF) film will probably be unobtainable before long. Too bad.

[simonsutcliffe]

Yes my last photo was taken in the bad lands, By the way These are just some of my snapshots on my digital camera, Im going to get a website with all my photos up next month.

[Scott Walker]

Yes my last photo was taken in the bad lands, By the way These are just some of my snapshots on my digital camera, Im going to get a website with all my photos up next month.

I thought I recognized that formation.
Good luck with the website, I'm sure you will do well with it.
Your images, snapshots or not, show how you look at things and compose what you see.....so, they are as important as a finished image in some ways.

[akfreak]

I still want to see a single image your " clients" or your Gallery is displaying. Rebel DLSR links are a far cry from the large gallery prints done in MF that you spoke of.

[simonsutcliffe]

I said I have worked with one which does not mean I shoot with it. I just said that so you guys know i have worked with larger cameras. My "gallery" is my cousin who works at jack shainman gallery and she is working on starting her own gallery and im in her shows.

[Drew Wiley]

Just don't underestimate how very expensive it is just to get a big print made, mounted, and potentially framed, esp if you don't have a personal facility to do all this
yourself. Making a buck on a big print isn't all that easy.

[E. von Hoegh]

I said I have worked with one which does not mean I shoot with it. I just said that so you guys know i have worked with larger cameras. My "gallery" is my cousin who works at jack shainman gallery and she is working on starting her own gallery and im in her shows. So perhaps if you told us precisely how much experience you have with film, we could more effectively guide you. A few rolls in a 35 doesn't count. The jump from 35 to MF is more of a step, the jump from MF to 4x5 is a huge leap. From 4x5 to 8x10 is another giant leap.
Have you made wet prints in a darkroom? Developed your own film? Ever used perspective control on a view camera?
Unlike the gallery world, the cameras and hardware cannot be BS'd .

[Scott Walker]

I don't understand the need to try and force the OP to justify himself. He seems to be enthusiastic about photography and has asked a legitimate question.
Using a view camera is not that difficult, in fact I find it more difficult to use a DSLR.
Really, who cares how many rolls of 35 someone has shot before they move on to 4x5 or 8x10 or even larger.
I know that I have not shot much 35 so I just went down to my darkroom and pulled my 35mm binder out. I have 34 sheets of negatives, that is 34 sheets x 35 exposures for a whopping 1,190 exposures in my lifetime.
I shot more 4x5 than that in the first 2 years of using the format and at the rate I am currently using film I will hit that in 3 years with 8x10.

[akfreak]

The reason I asked for some sort of proof of statement is to see if I am really talking to a legitimate person that is for real or some fake person living in some dream world.

At 14 with the way he worded it, the OP made it seem he is selling big prints to "clients" in a gallery. He also makes reference to working in film (35mm) "various 35mm before and worked with MFDSLR" And he also works with Medium Format D (digital)SLR. OK this is a serious tool. The one I am looking at is $47000 on sale.

Next he goes on to say "I have been printing bigger and bigger for my clients " Well this says he is now a printer and has a client base, he is printing big prints and has a his own gallery "my gallery"

Next he is looking for a better gear because his MF DLSR isn't cutting it, so he wants to go to square format 80"x80" prints. Does this not raise a huge red flag to say all of this is not true!. "80x80 will make them POP More"


He further states he will be traveling "A Lot" jet setting from country to country at age 14. He must have some form a personal tutor and is schooled on the road so world travels with this photographic phenom can take place and he can finish school. Hectic deadlines must be had while he delivers the work commissioned by his "clients" at "his gallery".


Yet when I asked to see a single big print, An Iphone snap would suffice so I can convert to a huge fan of his 14 year old tog. He offers up some Canon Rebel Flickr images.

OK I must be the meanest man on the planet, I just like to know who I am dealing with from jump street. It seems he may of stretched his skill level and status just past a little.

His OP for Ref, Below,
Im 14 and done various 35mm before and worked with MFDSLR, I have been printing bigger and bigger for my clients and want to print images ideally around 80 inches by 80 inches (quality is very important). These photos will be scanned and printed on high quality paper then handled by my gallery. I will be traveling with my camera a lot and would like a camera that I can bring to other countries with me and will have to be brought through airports. Medium format A

[Drew Wiley]

It's a step at a time. And anyone interested in large format at that age should be
encouraged in every way possible. People new to making big prints in general rarely
have a realistic idea of just how much is involved. "Really big prints" seems to be an
art fad at the moment. Technically it's complicated enough; getting shots that warrant
that kind of treatment is a whole other level of whatever, not to mention that a lot of
folks who do make really big images positively stink at it. But the last thing we need
here is to discourage anyone. Reality comes a step at a time in this business, and it's
never a crime to dream.

[E. von Hoegh]

I don't understand the need to try and force the OP to justify himself. He seems to be enthusiastic about photography and has asked a legitimate question.
Using a view camera is not that difficult, in fact I find it more difficult to use a DSLR.
Really, who cares how many rolls of 35 someone has shot before they move on to 4x5 or 8x10 or even larger.
I know that I have not shot much 35 so I just went down to my darkroom and pulled my 35mm binder out. I have 34 sheets of negatives, that is 34 sheets x 35 exposures for a whopping 1,190 exposures in my lifetime.
I shot more 4x5 than that in the first 2 years of using the format and at the rate I am currently using film I will hit that in 3 years with 8x10.

I'm not asking him to justify himself. I'm asking him to be honest; not to exaggerate. I'm tired of going to the effort of sharing my knowledge and experience with BS artists. My other approach would be to not respond to these threads at all.

And no, shooting a few (few, three to five) rolls of 35 and bringing it to Kinney's doesn't count. I asked what his experience with film was, I was using a Rolleiflex and developing and printing in 5th grade so it's entirely possible he is as well.

Edit -
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum187/101182-colour-ulf-film.html . FWIW

[simonsutcliffe]

Why the hell do I have to prove my credibility to a bunch of people on a internet fourm im trying to get help from? Im just trying to get better.
Edit- The apug thing was about trying to figure out how long would colour stay avalibale?

[Brian C. Miller]

The reason I asked for some sort of proof of statement is to see if I am really talking to a legitimate person that is for real or some fake person living in some dream world.

Wow! A test to determine if a person is real or fake! :eek: And based on artist's statement and print size! :p

I thought that the artist's statement and the print size was the dream world. The real world is to say, "I want. I need. I will fulfill." To dream a dream, and pursue it.


At 14 with the way he worded it,

I think you read a lot into what he posted. I read that he is 14, he has a 35mm, he's used a MF digital camera (not has one). The rest of the statements are generalities. He's printed bigger and bigger. How big? He doesn't say, just that he wants 80x80, so a bit over 6-1/2ft square. That can be had now, up to 50in for B&W and 60in for color, just grab some film and enlarge it, and enjoy the grain. (There currently isn't any paper for 80"). So enlargements that size will require scanning and inkjet printing.

You aren't required to reply to posts like these. Just wait until Andreas Gursky joins the forum, and then you'll have lots of fun chatting with him.


I'm not asking him to justify himself. I'm asking him to be honest; not to exaggerate. I'm tired of going to the effort of sharing my knowledge and experience with BS artists. My other approach would be to not respond to these threads at all.

You could just wait until the poster says, "I have a _____ (LF) camera, and ..." and then you know that they're not one of the "BS artists."

The original post is about 4x5 or 8x10. Can an equally sharp image be made on both? Yes. How does it look when drum scanned and enlarged huge? That's a different set of factors, isn't it? After all, B&W max is 50", color max is 60". Can a 35mm image look good enlarged to that size? Depends on the image, doesn't it?

Which is best for Simon? The one that he has in his hands. Seriously. He won't shoot LF without the camera. I think he has a good eye, and if he pursues photography he'll become a very good photographer.

[simonsutcliffe]

Thank you for the people who have responded with very good information. I just wanted to let you know that I'm going to get a 8x10 and a lens and start shooting.

[Scott Walker]

Thank you for the people who have responded with very good information. I just wanted to let you know that I'm going to get a 8x10 and a lens and start shooting.

Good choice, I love the 8x10 format it just seems like the proper size for a negative. :D Hope to see some of your images in the image sharing section here.

Any idea what type of camera yet?

[Greg Y]

Simon, From your photos I see you're in Alberta...PM me if you're interested in a very nice & cheap 8x10 in lovely condition...

[akfreak]

Thank you for the people who have responded with very good information. I just wanted to let you know that I'm going to get a 8x10 and a lens and start shooting.

Nice, Choice. That camera travels the world quite nicely. Good luck with your Client base. Just a little advice be prepared to get a nice loan from your parents or the gallery. A single Image in Color of 8x10 is around $20 a sheet for film, The processing if you buy all the stuff and can do it yourself $3 to 4 a sheet, Also $150-200 for a High res scan.

A huge print like an 80x80 for Exhibition or Gallery on something like a SuperGloss or Fuji Pearl is $25 a foot so an 80x80 is 44.44 sq feet and un mounts the print is $25 A SQ FOOT FOR A TOTAL OF $1111. Then mounting it to gator board or god forbid acrylic face mounting is going to cost a a bit. Then a frame $500 to a $1000

Be sure you understand what you think you are getting into.

[Leszek Vogt]

I'm relatively new here though I know that it takes lots of patience and chit load of small items before you can even expose your first sheet. I just went through all this, getting cable release/s, film holders, lupe, light meter, etc etc.

Anyway, and don't wish to discourage, it's 5x worse when you are in the field....and rarely you'll find a store that handles the LF items that you may need or desire. Preparation will be everything.

Not only there is a lot to the style and technique, but if you play your cards right, you can gain some crucial info by paying attention to those (here) that have been around the block. Here is one that I just learned. You can use an umbrella to shield your camera during exposure when the wind is trying to move the thing to the next zip code. It may be a simple tool, but it takes ingenuity to apply it...and it prevents the wind from ruining your shot.

Before you jump into LF, you might want to try (rent perhaps) digital MF. By that I mean, you can shoot particular scene in pano layers....overlapping one frame over another and then stitch with decent software....and you should be able to get pretty good results with static scenes. It's like with anything, the more care you put in, the more satisfaction you gain from the final outcome. Much if it depends on your demeanor. Good luck.

Les

[David Higgs]

Good luck Simon with the 8x10!

I've very jealous that you are obviously having great fun with photography, traveling the world ( looks like you were in London last year - on my birthday), and are selling images in a gallery. I rather suspect some of the old geezers that hang out on this forum might be jealous too - try and ignore them there are enough helpful people here as well.

For all you sceptics I was shooting with a borrowed Rollei, developing my own film and printing at the age of 8 - I can see no reason why a 14 year old cannot do the same on 8x10 and produce 80inchx80inch prints. I never made photography my sole profession but wish you the very best in the future.

I've just picked up some 60x48 inch prints shot on 4x5. This is the absolute limit for my eye, I very rarely print that large as most people's houses aren't that big. These are for a large restaurant. Customers are have a different perception of quality than us I suspect, I've never seen anyone 'nose' my prints in galleries, and I've seen very large 100 inch panoramas taken with Dslrs look acceptable to most people.

8x10s look like another step up in the hassle factor, film loading, processing, scanning and getting film in the first place. 4x5 might be 'enough' for your needs.

Have fun

[Nguss]

Yup, and honestly good luck if this is genuine. I really don't want to seem like another grinch, and I apologise if I do, but am also in the slightly sceptical camp as I am relatively new new to LF but find 4x5 plenty expensive for my tastes and I work full time! It will be good to see the 8x10 images on your flickr site.

Just remember to get the tripod, light meter, dark cloth, loupe, film holders, scanner etc etc. Also I think from my extremely limited experience it is not exactly easy to get a photo that will print 80x80 without getting the technical side down perfectly. I think that things like even the film not being entirely flat can affect the final image, so whilst in theory 80x80 prints might be possible, it may be premature to think you will be able to knock them out immediately for your clients.

Once you have taken some images you will probably want to come back and post them to prove the sceptics wrong.

[E. von Hoegh]

... Also I think from my extremely limited experience it is not exactly easy to get a photo that will print 80x80 without getting the technical side down perfectly. I think that things like even the film not being entirely flat can affect the final image...

This is correct. It requires impeccable technique, and the only way to acquire this is to educate one's self and then put that education into practice. 80 x 80 is a 10x linear enlargement from the short side of an 8x10 sheet, so it isn't extreme - like a 10 x 10 inch from a 35mm negative. It's certainly doable, once one learns how to choose and use one's equipment. A sturdy tripod is where you start....:)