Huge Prints From 4X5 Film

[John_4185]

So what is the bottom line?

Say I have a 4gb file. Who will print it a real 300 or 360ppi at 40"x40"?

Anyone?

[Brett Deacon]

From the few examples I've seen, drum scanned 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies can make very nice 40x50 prints, even when viewed from up close. In fact, the awe I felt viewing upon viewing such prints was critical in my decision to take up LF photography. I'd love to make a few 40x50 prints myself someday. However, other than spending hours staring at them in my office or hanging them in my living room I'm not exactly sure what one does with 40x50 prints. From those of you who make such large prints, I'd be interested to hear what you do with them. In particular, how/where do you sell them? Who buys them? Are there special issues regarding handling or mounting/framing that make prints of this size a particular problem relative to smaller prints?

[Ben Chase]

I am not a large format shooter yet, but keep a close eye on this forum to snatch the tasty tidbits of information that arise.

I shoot 6x7 exclusively on an RZ Pro II. When a customer orders a print from me, it is printed on the ZBE Chromira, which is very similar to the Lightjet. It uses LED light vice laser light to print the image at 300dpi. All of my originals are scanned at 4000 DPI on a Nikon 9000 with the glass-mounted holder (keeps things flat). I have never been all that impressed with upres'd images from smaller formats (I've tried it with 35mm, and files from a 20D).

I have had nothing but absolute success when printing at 20x30 inches. I think that the most important things to ensure the best quality output from your prints is to have a color-calibrated monitor (I use Optix XR Pro), employ a quality printer (I use West Coast Imaging), and start with the best transparency that you can.

When I move to 4x5, I certainly hope to get up to 40x50 inch enlargements.

[Gregory Gomez]

Keeping all the previous comments in mind, then would it be safe to assume that the quality difference between 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 inch film, when all variables are held constant, would be minimal if only 11 x 14-inch optical prints are made and viewed at about 18 inches (one-half meter) in good light? What do you all think?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Well, I guess there would be no difference between 40X50 inch prints made from 8X10 or a digital cell phone camera if they were viewed from 1/2 a mile away.

[Glenn Kroeger]

I routinely do 24x30" prints on LightJets from drum scanned transparencies with exceptional sharpness and no apparent grain... I don't mind viewing these from 18" so I suspect you can make 30x40's with no issues and 40x50's that look fine from a few feet.

[paulr]

"I guess there would be no difference between 40X50 inch prints made from 8X10 or a digital cell phone camera if they were viewed from 1/2 a mile away"

closer than that ... think about what looks sharp to us in a movie theater. that's a 400 X or 500 X enlargement, but from several rows back it looks pretty great.

[RDKirk]

>>However, other than spending hours staring at them in my office or hanging them in my living room I'm not exactly sure what one does with 40x50 prints. From those of you who make such large prints, I'd be interested to hear what you do with them. In particular, how/where do you sell them? Who buys them? Are there special issues regarding handling or mounting/framing that make prints of this size a particular problem relative to smaller prints?<<

In my case, high-end formal portraits.

No other studio in my vicinity is using a 4x5 for formal portraits, and the clients who can afford them can't resist getting one after seeing a 40x50 made from a drums-scanned 4x5 negative. It's like owning a Ferrari--but cheaper. "Look at what's hanging in MY family room. Go ahead, get up close! Ever see that kind of detail?"

Even the camera itself gives them gratification--setting up a 4x5 view camera is a much more impressive process (for something they're going to pay several thousand dollars for) than a photographer pulling out what looks like a normal SLR.

[Doug Dolde]

Gotta agree about Galen Rowell's big prints from 35mm.

I was in the Mountain Light gallery today and. with all due respect to Galen, a 24x36 print shows an incredible lack of detail when looked at from a few feet away, and even worse when examined closely. Most are stunning except for that lack of fine detail

He did get a lot of shots that would have been difficult to capture on 4x5 though, mostly wildlife stuff.

[adrian tyler]

i saw burtinsky 50x60 prints from both 4x5 and 8x10, there is a difference, but you have to get closer than 2 feet to see it. they both look great from the distance you would look at a 50x60 print from unless you are a nit-picker, he has a lab... saw some huge paul graham prints off 4x5, say 70x90, and they were just amazing right up to the glass, he did them at laumont and we can assume that his production budget was not a major concern.

if the original is good and the scan is good, and you can do a few proofs, 4x5 or 8x10 will look good at 50x60, the difference will be noticable to a proffesional from 3 feet or less.