please advise.. 4x5 or 8x10 for big prints on handmade paper?

[Drew Wiley]

Hi Bob. You're first issue is going to be film flatness; so you might need to rethink 11X14 holders. But I also have a question for you. Have you tried presenting MG Classic so it develops more evenly? It's a lot fussier in this respect than MGWT, and 30X40 is obviously kinda expensive to waste.

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh. Pre-wetting the paper, not presenting it. This Dumbphone alters the spelling! We finally got a fiber optic cable back in the neighborhood, but the rates are still way too high to tempt us to hookup again.

[bob carnie]

Drew this is amazing my first conversation with you since you went awol.

I do not have issues with Warmtone @30 x40 , but I am pretty fast with it... I used the classic today but small prints and did not see an issue.

What do you mean re think film holders, how in the hell am I going to hold the film???

[chris77]

thanks to you all for taking time to respond to my questions in such detail. its late right now and i have to re-read it tomorrow.
until then!
chris

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - I was referring to vac or adhesive filmholders. The sag of 8X10 film can distinctly compromise big enlargements. ULF is even worse. But I'd far rather optimize 8X10 technique than gamble with 11X14 logistics for non-contact prints.

[Two23]

I wouldn't be so quick to write off 5x7 format just because you currently have a heavy studio camera. There are even heavier 8x10 studio cameras, after all. I don't have any trouble hiking at altitude with my 1926 Gundlach Korona 5x7 field camera. It weighs about the same as my Nikon D800E with a Sigma lens.


Kent in SD

[Drew Wiley]

It's getting difficult to find decent 5X7 holders; and film choice has always been limited in this size. Not many people are going to seriously hike with 8X10 gear. I'm one of the exceptions. But long ago Einstein proved that gravity is a function of time, and that eventually the universe is doomed to contract to a 4X5 rectangle black hole.

[xkaes]

We all have our different needs/standards. What you need for "not only looking for more sharpness, but especially more resolution and better tonality."

My largest easel is eight feet, and I'm completely satisfied with my 4x5 results -- assuming I did everything right. But I've made great eight foot prints from smaller format film.

Several decades ago, I was passing through Grand Central Station. Kodak had a HUGE presentation "billboard" there that was rear illuminated. It was high up on the wall, and you had to walk under it to get to the trains. I had no idea it was there. It was about 75 feet long. Kodak changed the picture from time to time, and the day I passed through, there was a single, cropped image by Ernst Haas of a stream of racing gazelles on the Serengeti. He had used a Leica and Kodachrome 25. No one in the Station could believe their eyes.

[Two23]

He had used a Leica and Kodachrome 25. No one in the Station could believe their eyes.

Viewing distance is another key component of perceived sharpness.


Kent in SD

[GG12]

Having only done work in 4x5 or smaller, and none in 8x10, please recognize these comments are necessarily limited.

There was an old rule of thumb that after 10x enlargement, something seems to go different in a print from a neg. That is, for example, a 35mm neg after 10" x 14" loses something; the same thing would likely apply to 4x5 at 40"x50". And for me, the 10X is too much - I prefer smaller, say 5X. That argues well for the 8x10 neg. Also, that size makes nice contact prints.

But the larger neg/camera has all sorts of difficulties in handling, etc. Just to be aware. Getting the properly exposed, flat negative to print at that size is a significant challenge! Good luck...its a far far better thing you do...