Huge Prints From 4X5 Film

[Jim Rice]

Hello all,

At what size enlargement does 8X10 begin to surpass the quality attainable from 4X5?

Um......8x10.

[Jim Jones]

Kodak's 18x60 foot Colorama http://www.museeniepce.com/expositio...kcolor&lang=us in New Yorks Grand Central Station was an example of super-size enlargements, although in that display environment there was no need for fine image detail. At least some of the images were shot with less than ULF formats.

[Lenny Eiger]

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?

I do it all day long....

[tim atherton]

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.

Paul Graham always used to shoot 6x7..?

[tim atherton]

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... .

as someone else mentioned, in part it's about the variables. Burtynsky was finding 8x10 to much to lug around overseas everywhere. He found he could get 40x50 prints that were 98% as good from 4x5 - BUT he only uses the best super XL/apo whatever lenses.

The other thing he does is shoot Polaroid negs and then takes a 10x loupe to them so he can tell on the spot pretty well how a 10x enlargement is going to look...

That said, the big 40x50 prints I've seen here from 4x5 film look as sharp as anything. Not much point in them being sharper unless you were sticking your own 10x loupe up against the glass in the frame....

[Frank Petronio]

After a point, I don't think detail has much to do with the quality of the image. I'd shoot 8x10 for the quality of the out of focus areas, the way it describes the 3-D quality, the reaction of the subject to the larger camera... the possibility of extra resolution is way down the list. And when you factor things like wind, depth of field, and the like, shooting 8x10 because you want more resolution can actually be counter productive in some instances.

The whole notion puts you in the same company as that self-promoting whats-his-name who built the world's highest resolution camera ladeedah and all that happy BS.

Shoot 8x10 because it is cool, not to win some silly resolution game.

[Jack Brauer]

I've printed several 44"x55"ers from drum-scanned 4x5s... they look great. It was a real satisfaction for me to see the first big print; it really validated shooting LF in my mind (yes I've had my doubts, especially when I was first starting out).

[Ed K.]

The subject matter makes a difference too. It doesn't take a whole lot of sharpness to portray people. Architecture is another matter. The film and processing, as well as exposure make a difference too. I've seen some 4x5s blow up really well to large sizes, and well, some that should have enlarged very well kind of fall flat.

If you look at your scanned 4x5 at 50% of its printed size on a large monitor and it looks great, chances are pretty good that it will also look great as a large print. Another thing you can do is print an inkjet proof of a section of your print - the part that would show details you are concerned about. If the inkjet proof looks good, again, the Lightjet would (IMO) usually look fantastic. Most Lightjet setups do sharpen a bit, so go easy on the sharpening.

As you said, Dr. V., you'll ultimately have to decide for yourself.

[Ric Bower]

In reply to the original post- IT DEPENDS! on a number of issues....
1. Subject matter, as has been pointed out, is key- the reason DC manufacturers use faces close up in their ads to demostrate res is because it is forgiving subject matter, a crowd scene or cityscape would not blow up as big. they demand much more res inherantly.
2. 'Apparrent sharpness' when depth of field is shallow will make the subject in focus appear very sharp when all about is blurry and make the whole thing good for a big ger print than if the depth of field had been large. (another reason to shoot LF)
3. Viewing distance as has been pointed out- Chuck Close's recent portrait paintings illustrate this principle.
4. Most importantly it depends on your creative intentions and this over rides issues 1,2 &3! If you are Thomas Demand, or Andreas Gursky then resolution is essential to make your artistic point- Frank Giaccobetti's portraits of Francis Bacon could have been done on a phone camera without any problem and they are FANTASTIC!

[Greg Lockrey]

"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.

Yes, but the frames are constantly changing and your eyes don't have the time to focus on the faux paux.