5x4 or 10x8

[asnapper]

I would like to start a project using either 5x4 or 10x8 colour neg film which I would like to scan & then print using an inkjet printer. Drum scans here in the UK are very expensive so I’m considering purchasing either a V700 or M1 scanner when it becomes available, along with an Epson 3800 printer.

To keep costs low I would prefer to use 5x4 film which I will develop myself using my Jobo

My maximum print size will be 20x16, so is there a huge image quality difference between a flat bed scanned 5x4 & 10x8 and how would they compare against a 5x4 drum scan?.

I know all this is subjective & what one person finds acceptable another will not, but I would like to hear people’s opinions.

[Eric James]

Some folks are sending their film to Asia for cheaper drum scans - I can't offer any details but I'd like to hear from those with experience. Scan prices in the US are over the top too.

What about 5X7? The aspect ratio may work for your project and the extra real estate may allow you to get quality home-grown scans that print well to 16X20.

[Walter Calahan]

I think you have a very good plan. Do it, but make sure the images you make make you satisfied. I'm sure others will split hairs whether your plan will work, but in the end only you will know if the results match your expectations.

[Ed Richards]

Print size of 16 x 20 - does that mean an actual image size of more like 14 x 18, or less? Even at 16 x 20, I think a careful flatbed scan of 4x5 will be hard to distinguish from drum scans or 8x10, even harder at 14x18. I do this this with 4x5 black and white, and find that flatbed scans, done carefully, are plenty good enough. Logistics also matter - will carrying around 8x10 be a problem that limits the shots you can do? Still lifes in the studio - no problem. Does money matter? The initial capital costs for 8x10 are much higher, and the per sheet cost is very high, plus no readyloads.

[Bruce Watson]

Print size of 16 x 20 - does that mean an actual image size of more like 14 x 18, or less? Even at 16 x 20, I think a careful flatbed scan of 4x5 will be hard to distinguish from drum scans or 8x10, even harder at 14x18. I do this this with 4x5 black and white, and find that flatbed scans, done carefully, are plenty good enough. Logistics also matter - will carrying around 8x10 be a problem that limits the shots you can do? Still lifes in the studio - no problem. Does money matter? The initial capital costs for 8x10 are much higher, and the per sheet cost is very high, plus no readyloads.

What Ed said.

[asnapper]

Print size of 16 x 20 - does that mean an actual image size of more like 14 x 18, or less? Even at 16 x 20, I think a careful flatbed scan of 4x5 will be hard to distinguish from drum scans or 8x10, even harder at 14x18. I do this this with 4x5 black and white, and find that flatbed scans, done carefully, are plenty good enough. Logistics also matter - will carrying around 8x10 be a problem that limits the shots you can do? Still lifes in the studio - no problem. Does money matter? The initial capital costs for 8x10 are much higher, and the per sheet cost is very high, plus no readyloads.

Thank you to everyone for your input & I can see myself being swayed towards 5x4, with the IQ being similar to a drum scan or 10x8, for sub 20x16 prints, plus I will save on film costs.

[Kirk Fry]

What Ed and Bruce said and the biggest down side is unless you never move the camera, bigger is not always better. Everything is either 4 times bigger or 2^3 times more volume or 4 time more $$$$. If you have not experienced 8 X 10 up close and personal, it is hard to relate to the difference. The nice part is going back to 4X5. Your choice of films will be much more limited in 8X10. I wouldn't be surprised to see color film in 8X10 to be gone soon (next 10 years). Good luck. K

[Matus Kalisky]

My experiance with scanning is limited, but I would olke just to point out the the resolution is not the only factor for a good scan/print. If you are going to scan a rather dense slides you will probably find out that your highlight or shadow detail might get lost with a flatbed scan. I have up to now only made a simple comparison of Imacon 848 and Epson 4990 and the difference concerning the density range is obvious. You may consider having the same negative/slide scanned on a drum AND flatbed and compare...

Matus