LF, MF and print size

[jonathan_lipkin]

I'm starting a new series that will entail shooting a large number of images, perhaps 50-100 per day. I've been shooting Portra on my 4x5 toyo. Film costs about $2/sheet, and developing another $2.50. So 100 images = $450. Were I to put a roll film back on the camera (I've been asking about this in the other forums) I could shoot 6x7 at a fraction of cost: about $4/roll + about $3 for developing. Total $7 for 10 images, $.7 per image, so 100 shots would cost only $70. So far so good. However, I'm concerned about print size. I eventually would want to make very large prints - say 48x60 inches on a large format epson.

Would the 6x7 negs hold up at that size? Does anyone have experience making very large prints from MF film? I looked through the forums a bit and didn't see anything - sorry if this discussion has taken place already.

Thanks
-jl

[Sirius Glass]

You can blow it up to any size the enlarger supports. Yes a some point the grain will show up if the viewer puts their nose up to the print. The viewer must stand back at the proper distance for the size print.

Steve

[Jeff Keller]

Printing a 48x60 will be much more expensive than the capture. Are you happy with a 48x60 from your 4x5? If so, enlarge a 6x7 section of it to 48x60. There is more to LF than resolution but if you like LF you probably want higher res than what a casual viewer wants. You are already at 12x enlargement ... equivalent to a 35mm negative printed at 12x18. Would you be happy with a 35mm negative printed at 24x36?

Probably depends on subject and personal preferences ...

[jonathan_lipkin]

@Steve - Actually, I plan to print these digitally.
I haven't really had much experience enlarging from 4x5 since about 20 years ago. I suppose it really is a question of how large the grain gets, and as someone who shot Kodak p3200 way back when, I'm not afraid of a little grain. I'm really concerned with detail. I suppose I could shoot Ektar 100 which is meant to be very low grain.
@Jeff - I've enlarged my own 35mm to 16x20 which was just fine and seen prints up to 30x40 (Alex Webb's recent show) which got a bit grainy. But they were low light shots and probably on a 400 iso film.

[Sean Galbraith]

What were you planning to use to scan the images? Drum scan for maximum resolution? If so, the cost to get the negs developed is the least of your worries.

[Daniel Stone]

if you end up shooting sheet film, you might want to give these guys a look see:

$1.50/sheet for c-41 4x5. I've been using them since I don't have access to color chems right now(out of school), and dip-n-dunk for that cheap really helps price-wise!

www.samys805.com/film-processing/

-Dan

[Brian C. Miller]

OK, for a big enlargement from 6x7, yes of course it can be done. I have a 40" panoramic from a 645 drum scan. However, it does require a drum scan.

If I had made the same shot using a 4x5, then I could have scanned it with my flatbed scanner, no problem. In your case, if you have any kind of a decent flatbed scanner, then shoot 4x5 and scan it yourself.

[jonathan_lipkin]

@Sean, Brian - I have access to an Imacon and a very good tech.
@Daniel - That's excellent, thanks.

There was a great grant a few years back from a site called too much chocolate which gave money for film costs. Unfortunatly, they dont' seem to have offered the grant again.

[Henry Ambrose]

I think you'd be more pleased with the prints from a Mamiya 7 instead of a roll film back. (unless you need movements) I sometimes find that the 7 seems "sharper" than 4x5 and I'm not alone in that finding.

[Ben Syverson]

The Mamiya 7 is amazing, but you should not expect it to look great at 48x60 inches, especially if you're scanning. That's a 20X enlargement.

Personally I wouldn't print 4x5 that large, but I'm picky. It sounds like a job for 8x10.

Any particular reason you need to shoot 50-100 images per day? My advice is work it out with the DSLR, find the shot, then get it on 3-4 sheets of 8x10.