5x4 Images on the internet.

I was wondering if anyone knew of a site that had downloads of very large

scans of 5x4 images?

 

If you look at this site -

 

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/

 

They have the photograph and then an option for the full size digital image.

It would be nice to see some 5x4 images around the same size.

 

Thanks.

It would be nice to be PAID to put up and host the images, too. dpreview is for profit.

 

FWIW, I have done a lot of work with arbitrarily large images on the web. There are a few ways to do it. They are online now for proprietary purposes. I will check with the client and see if I can post examples.

 

But who wants to do it for nothing?

What's a "full size" 4x5" scan? I have a scan of a 5x7" slide here - it's 105 megapixels. And that's scanned at only 1000 dpi, there is far more information in the film.

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen_GF.jpg">Here is the whole picture.</a><br>

<a href="http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen_utsnitt.jpg">This is a small piece of it at lower "reduction".</a><br>

 

So how big is your monitor? And more important - how big is my server bandwidth?

not 5x4, but here is a nice full size image from a leaf back from an alpa camera....

 

http://www.leaf.alpa.ch/ALPA_35XL_CERN2_ns.jpg

Why do you want the full sized file?

Thanks everybody. Robert X, yeah that was about the size I was thinking of. I just really want to see the detail.

 

I'm thinking of going 5x4 but I want to see if I think it's worth it compared to other mediums.

<i>So how big is your monitor? And more important - how big is my server bandwidth?</i><p>

 

30" monitor. Bandwidth? gigibit internally, T1 (actually two)to the outside, and we are also on Internet 2 but you can't be. Nya, nya. :) It's so fast on a bad day that opening a device all the way across the USA is like having an external USB2 drive! :) <p>

 

But back to earth. The method I like best for huge images is to present a full-image to the size of the monitor quickly, at modest resolution and then if there is no input (keyboard, mouse) it fills in the rest iteratively. Meanwhile, if there is input, for example the user clicking on a location, it breaks out a section around that area in a new window (a cheap and easy copy method) and then fills that in the same way. Another click in there, more detail, and so-forth. I have found that it is a rare case where someone is not happy with seeing the low overall image, and then a few separate high-res detail frames. Rarely is the entire image loaded. What's different about this approach than others is that it uses multiple windows instead of beeing Zoomie. <p>

If I weren't so tighly coupled with the application development, I'd put it out there.<p>

But it will be everywhere and probably dirt-cheap Real Soon Now.<p>

Here's my contribution... Full frame image followed by a 100% crop from an 1800dpi scan from a rather ordinary flatbed scanner.<div></div>

And the 100% crop...<div></div>

Thanks for that. The detail is quite incredible. What set up did you use to take this shot?

 

Thanks.

I have a few here and other scattered around my pbase site

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/mf_vs_4x5

Thanks for the link. Your work is excellent and very inspiring for me to look into 5x4. Some really nice shots on there.

The setup used to take the shot isn't really important other than the lens. I think I used a Cambo monorail (cost about $100) on that particular picture, but now I use a wood field camera. The camera doesn't affect image quality, except to the extent that it remains stable/motionless during the exposure.

 

The lens was a Nikkor SW 90mm f/8, a well regarded wide angle lens which costs about $500 on the used market. Film was Tri-X 320 developed in Xtol 1:1. I might have used a red filter for the exposure, but I'm not 100% sure on that point.

 

Hope this helps!

A monitor will not do justice to anything.

 

Compare a 4x5 from 35mm with a 16x20. If you use 4x5, you can make a 16x20 that looks like 4x5 from 35mm if you get equal quality lenses, not 1960 vintage stuff.

 

There will be a whole new set of problems with 4x5 though like dust on film, uneven processing, little debth of field, film buckling in holders. All can be overcome at some cost.

Ronald, my example was shot with "1960's vintage stuff": A 165mm f:6.8 Angulon.

 

You are seriously underestimating the quality of "vintage" optics.

In addition to detail, what you get, and remains through enlarging, is TONE, looads of it. Even Sheldon's small image shows this, even on a monitor. This is reason enough to move up from MF.