4x5" and 8x10" - Quality Differences?

[gmfotografie]

Hi everybody, I´m interested in quality arguments for 8x10 over 4x5 (no discussion about size, weight...)

If we do a high end drumscan on both of the negatives, is it worth to play with a 8x10?
Can we really see those differences clearly if we print the picture on e.g. a 70inch fineart paper?

I mean, a 4x5" is a big Negative. If this size is scanned by a good Drumscan-Operator it should be fine to enlarge it up to a huge size.
Do we really need a 8x10 if we don´t exceed 70" pictures (longst side)?

What is your experience?

Best Michael

[angusparker]

What film/subjects? C41 and E6 film has more resolution than traditional B&W. My guess is with a good drum scan, the 4x5 in C41 or E6 would be hard to tell from an 8x10 while the B&W would show a difference. I certainly see that in MF to 4x5 comparisons up to 16x20.

[IanG]

I use an enlarger, you'd definitely see a difference from good negatives at 70", I can see them at 16"x12". Digital scans will be no different except RIP software can give digital prints an advantage particularly at larger sizes.

Ian

[koh303]

There are two non corrospinding lines on the graph of quality:
1. The larger the negative the more detail there is
2. The larger the format the harder it is to get a sharp image (due to size and weight of camera, DOF issues etc.)

The calculations are simple and only the end user at the specific instance can answer these to see where the balance between the two lies, and when a larger or smaller format is called for.

[John Kasaian]

An 8x10 contact from an 8x10 negative just flat out looks better than an 8x10 contact from a 4x5 negative

[Alan Gales]

Sometimes quality has nothing to do with sharpness. http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/31...H-U-E_pg1.html (8x10 shots borrowed from Jim Galli's wonderful website.)

[AuditorOne]

Interestingly I find the beauty of a good 8x10 contact print to be more than worth any trouble in the increased size. I do have an 8x10 enlarger that I am restoring but at this point I love the contact prints enough that I am not in a huge rush to make them larger.

That being said I actually love a lot of my 4x5 photographs as small contact prints as well and don't always feel it necessary to enlarge them, though I can if I want.

[Ken Lee]

You might find it helpful to read these previous discussions: https://www.google.com/search?q=4x5+...otography.info

[Jim Becia]

Michael,

I will try to stay on track with the question. I can only speak from my perspective. I went from 4x5 to 8x10 and I only use E-6 films. That being said, I can easily see the difference at 32x40 from the 4x5 and the 8x10. While I have taken my 8x10 film up to 40x50 inches, I tend to go no larger than 32x40 for my 4x5 film. I am not saying the 4x5 prints aren't sharp, they are just not as sharp as prints from 8x10 film. My film is drum scanned. Jim

[Eric Leppanen]

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...rs-commentary/

Bottom line is, when shooting for enlargement, 8x10 can be challenging in the field due to diffraction. 8x10 produces unparalleled results when shot at f/22, but if you find yourself having to stop down to f/64 or smaller to get all subject matter in acceptable focus then 8x10 isn't worth it. It really comes down to your shooting style and choice of subjects.

In cases where I was able to shoot 8x10 at a reasonably open aperture, my subjective opinion was that I could start noticing the difference vs. 4x5 at about a 20x24" print size (E-6 film stock, drum scanned and digitally printed).