The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

8x10 vs 4x5?

jonpaul

New member
I am shooting landscapes with 4x5 and 6x17cm, both on color transparency film. I then drum scan and print with a Chromera/Lightjet on Fuji Crystal Archive. My focus is large gallery prints (as large as 48x65 and 32x96, but more often 30x40 and 24x72). If I am doing a good job throughout the process, will I see a vast print quality difference moving up to 8x10 and
4x10?
Thanks for the experienced input.

Jon
 
S

SCHWARZZEIT

Guest
At those print sizes I think it depends on the quality of your imaging chain. But I wouldn't underestimate the potential of 4x5" transparency film. Recently I had to scan a couple of Kodak E100G 4x5" trannies to be blown up to 180x260cm (71x102") gallery prints. That's more than 20x enlargement. It's an incredibly fine grained film that held up really well. At least the files look very good at that size. I have yet to see the prints.
I doubt you would see any grain at your print sizes from 4x5" of that film or Fuji Astia or Velvia. But there's also the quality of the drum scans to be taken into consideration. Some scanners do well even beyond 4000 ppi while others are hardware limited to lower optical output. Which drum scanner are you using?

With 8x10" on the other hand you don't need such high res requirements in the scanner for your print sizes. In an up close direct comparison you'll probably notice a smoother tonality and slightly better sharpness coming from the 8x10". If you're using a coarser grained film the differences will be more obvious.

To break this down for your print size of 48x65" on a 300ppi Lightjet you'll need 14,400x19,500 good pixels in your print file to achieve all the quality you can get from that output process. That's 280 MP which is a lot to ask from a 4x5" sheet. Even when every link in your imaging chain works in your favor you'll see that the print file is struggling on a pixel level. So it's much easier to get 280 high quality MP from an 8x10" sheet. And of course if you'll some day decide to print larger you'll have the necessary headroom stored on film or in your master file if you scan to archive.

-Dominique
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
What Dominique said. Only things I can add are:

1) processing of 8x10 is far more difficult to get perfect results than it is for 4x5,

2) film flatness is more of an issue with 8x10,

3) larger format lenses are not as inherently sharp as 4x5 lenses.

All I am saying here, is you don't end up with a linear 2x gain in image fidelity moving up to 8x10 from 4x5, but you net maybe a 1.4x linear gain... One thing you do gain that is easily visible, is added smoothness and tonality. And of course, you do also gain size, weight, loss of convenience and added expense with 8x10 :D

Cheers,
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
AND, all you need is a contact frame unless :eek: you want to jump for an 8 by 10 enlarger.
I am one of those that thinks that current digital backs cum modern processing techniques yeils equivalent results at 20 by 40 ,<begin type="flame"></begin>
-bob
 

Jeremy

New member
Of course :eek:. I was referring to image quality differences however...
I know, but I think it's always worth stating as large format--especially when one jumps above 4x5--isn't the preferred working method based on image quality for the majority of those I know who still shoot it.
 
Last edited:

Jeremy

New member
AND, all you need is a contact frame unless :eek: you want to jump for an 8 by 10 enlarger.
I am one of those that thinks that current digital backs cum modern processing techniques yeils equivalent results at 20 by 40 ,<begin type="flame"></begin>
-bob
I think it would be interesting to compare 8x10 scanned on a consumer flatbed against a current digital back. If I get a P60+ loaner at work to test I'll do this, but I don't think it will be any time soon.

Personally, I don't understand the flame war thing; I don't really care if someone thinks their camera can meet or beat the quality of my own--I just care about what I can do with my camera. If someone made a one-shot 8x10 sensor that allowed the full ground glass plus no issues with movements I would buy one--of course, I could never afford it :-D
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I used to shoot 4 by 5, then make dye transfer separations,
Airbrush (yeah, a real airbrush) on the separations,
make ruby-liths (the job was called a "stripper") for masks,
then make dye transfer prints at twice (or more) finished size, then airbrush the details.
With backs like the P65+ and photoshop, my life is sooo much easier and years ago I sold off my vacuum frame, enlarger, and my big trays and registration punch.
Give me digital except when once every few years when I want to remind myself why I do this.
-bob
 

johnastovall

Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
I lust for a 8x10 view camera for one thing alternate process contact prints and plates.

I'm seeking a process which will place the least technology between the object, the light and my vision. Digital is fine but there are times when I seek more of a dance with my art rather than an algorithm.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
For me, the least technology ends up being digital.
Soo much simpler than it used to me and it keeps my fingers out of the chemicals.
-bob

Alt processes are fine, but I print my negatives on an inkjet printer :ROTFL:
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
It's horses for courses -- there is an enigmatic something to using film and a big view camera that isn't available from digital. However, I'd agree that files from my P65+ are probably as good as the best captured and drum-scanned 8x10's I ever shot.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Yeah, it it is a Zen sort of thing.
I still have a CO2 cylinder and airbrush upstairs, but I use it only on paper now.
-bob
 
Z

zzyzx

Guest
Why shoot 8x10 and then introduce digital scanning into the process? A sure loser in too many ways. Shoot 8x10 and print from the negative or transparency. That is the way to take full advantage of the quality you get with the added real estate in the negative or transparency.
 

timparkin

Member
Having done some testing recently, if you want the same depth of field from your 8x10 and would have used f/32 on 4x5 then your 8x10 results will actually be worse than 4x5 (because you would have to use f/64). The only advantage comes from 8x10 if you use smaller apertures - i.e. f/32 or at a real push f/45.
 

jsf

Active member
I scan my 8x10's on an Epson v750, I only print to 16x20 size so I don't know at twice and three times the size. But at 16x20 there is a noticeable difference between and 8x10 negative and a 4x5 negative. However there is not a lot of difference between a
2 1/4x3 1/4 and 4 x 5. I think that the film you use is going to matter a lot and also the lenses that you use will be a real issue. The whole thing between digital and film is silly to me. Even when digitized film has its own look and Large Format means low magnification, and that is a factor in apparent sharpness. Digital has accutance all to heck but even on DMF you still are taking an image at about 2 inches and enlarging to 40+ inches, it matters. As for the least amount of technology, personally I think whatever technical thing that you master, that becomes the low tech way of doing things. Like Bob says , in the old days making high quality prints was labor intensive and very technical. Now it is much, much easier. It is very heroic lugging a view camera around. I figure my 8x10 outfit, with film and lenses weighed in just shy of 100lbs. My 4x5 outfit weighed in about half of that. My MF outfit and my digital rig weigh in at 26 lbs each, for me it isn't a real big decision. But it is romantic lugging a big camera around. And you can buy LF rigs pretty cheap these days.
 

Lars

Active member
Having done some testing recently, if you want the same depth of field from your 8x10 and would have used f/32 on 4x5 then your 8x10 results will actually be worse than 4x5 (because you would have to use f/64). The only advantage comes from 8x10 if you use smaller apertures - i.e. f/32 or at a real push f/45.
DOF should be seen as a property of the format. For everything sharp, nothing beats a phone (or a pinhole). 8x10 can be used to extract much more detail, smoother gradations, and less grain than 4x5, but it does take quite a lot of work.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Why shoot 8x10 and then introduce digital scanning into the process? A sure loser in too many ways. Shoot 8x10 and print from the negative or transparency. That is the way to take full advantage of the quality you get with the added real estate in the negative or transparency.
??? How? If you want more beyond an 8x10 contact print, you are going to have to reproduce it one way or another. Scanning is not necessarily going to give a worse result than an 8x10 enlarger.
 

carstenw

Active member
??? How? If you want more beyond an 8x10 contact print, you are going to have to reproduce it one way or another. Scanning is not necessarily going to give a worse result than an 8x10 enlarger.
Through sampling. Optical enlargement gives you all the data, scanning samples it spatially and tonally, within the limitations of the D-max and ability of the scanner. I do not know whether you can really see the difference, but judging from the answers of some respected photographers here, you can. On top of that, the inks add their own limitations to the gamut, although I guess optical printing does too, in a different way.

But I guess you knew all this already.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Through sampling. Optical enlargement gives you all the data, scanning samples it spatially and tonally, within the limitations of the D-max and ability of the scanner. I do not know whether you can really see the difference, but judging from the answers of some respected photographers here, you can. On top of that, the inks add their own limitations to the gamut, although I guess optical printing does too, in a different way.

But I guess you knew all this already.
Optical printing is not "lossless." You still are dealing with a reproduction system where each component is going to impact the results. A photochemical workflow does not necessarily end up with a better result. I may not be a respected photographer, but I have done a lot of large format printing in the darkroom and digitally. Since the OP is Olin for large prints, I am not convinced optical printing is going to give better results.
 
Top