I'm going LF this year and got some questions???

<p>If one looks at B&H's site; the largest color sheet film is 8x10 inches. Fuji shows 11x14 in fujichrome on a site; is it still available?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dan South:<br />So even though 8x10 has four times the film surface or 4x5, it doesn't have four times the resolution. Add in the curvature of the film and the drop in clarity from shooting at, say, f/32 instead of f/16, plus the difficulties of scanning film that size, and the 8x10 shot <strong>may have no more resolution than the 4x5. </strong>The grain will look smoother, but that's about all you can count on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan,<br />If this is true, given the goal, maybe stitching 4x5 shots would be the better option?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But in the digital world, the difference between 4x5 and 8x10 probably won't be noticeable <strong>except on</strong> prints that are at least four feet wide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I often print a lot larger than 4 feet. 6 feet to 10 feet is norm. So, are you saying that for these sizes 8x10 would likely not do better?<br />Do you think that stitching say 3 to 4, 4x5 shots, with little overlap and the nodal point correct using a pano head would be able to out produce a 8x10 shot in terms of sheer detail in a 6-10 foot print?<br />Thanks for your help and suggestions!</p>

<p>If you haven't seen it already, you might want to check out this thread:<br>

<a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36661">http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36661</a><br>

I would suggest forgetting about 11x14. These days, it is a contact printing format only, with color film availability virtually non-existent (the special order 11x14 Provia at Badger notwithstanding).<br>

The print quality benefit of 8x10 versus smaller LF formats is controversial, as is already clear from the previous posts. When scanning and printing digitally, I find 8x10 worthwhile only when shooting planar or fairly distant subjects, where stopping down beyond f/32 or so is not necessary (otherwise lens diffraction, shutter or wind vibration, etc. kills any resolution advantage 8x10 might otherwise have).<br>

As for 4x5: given you already shoot MFDB (and I'm speculating that you are using at least a 39MP digital back), I'm not sure if you'd find any additional resolution of 4x5 film to be sufficient for your purposes.<br>

For static subjects, stitching is quite possible with LF, even with 8x10 (a monorail camera would probably be best for this application, as it is easier to rotate around the lens nodal point). Some 4x5 shooters stitch by shifting the rear standard (rather than rotating the camera), although you'll need a lens which covers 8x10 to make this work.<br>

I agree with the suggestions that you first rent some LF equipment before making a large commitment to the format.</p>

<p>Hi Mark,<br /> <br /> Sensible plan to rent an LF camera, you shoot Veliva ? in which case you will probably be thinking in terms 1/3 of a stop metering ? Huummm you may find the lens’s shutter not quite that accurate so before you frustrate you self have the shutter you rent checked so you know what the different shutter speeds actually are and base you metering on a known speeds.<br /> <br /> All the best<br /> <br /> Rob</p>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p>If this is true, given the goal, maybe stitching 4x5 shots would be the better option?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I often print a lot larger than 4 feet. 6 feet to 10 feet is norm. So, are you saying that for these sizes 8x10 would likely not do better?<br>

Do you think that stitching say 3 to 4, 4x5 shots, with little overlap and the nodal point correct using a pano head would be able to out produce a 8x10 shot in terms of sheer detail in a 6-10 foot print?</p>

</blockquote>

</p>

<p>Stitching 4x5 is going to be expensive, first of all. You're looking at an expensive scan of each sheet. Plus with stitching there's always waste. Some parts of the scene will appear in two or more frames, and you almost always have to trim the edges.</p>

<p>It's also probably not very practical. If there's any movement in the frame (even the movement of shadows) it become difficult to merge the individual frames. This isn't a big problem with spray-and-pray small-format cameras with autofocus, but a 4x5 camera would probably have to be refocused for each exposure. That means removing the film holder, opening the lens, opening the aperture, pulling out the dark cloth, grabbing your loupe, recomposing, refocusing, adjusting tilts and swings if possible, closing the lens, resetting the aperture, loading the film holder, cocking the shutter, and pulling the dark slide before you can take your next shot. Individual exposures could be separated by several minutes rather than a couple of seconds. Of course, ISO 50 film exacerbates the subject-movement problem when you're shooting at f/16 and slower. It just doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me. It's tough enough to get ONE well-exposed frame of LF film let alone a half-dozen for a scan-and-stitch project. It's probably better to use your MFDB if you want to stitch frames together.</p>

<p>I've seen 15-foot-wide prints blown up from 35 mm negatives. They look amazing as long as you're standing 20 or 30 feet away. If you want to get closer and still see detail, you need higher resolution; But what's the cutoff as to what of acceptability. An MFDB creates an amazing image if you take care of all of the technical aspects (optimum aperture, sensor alignment, etc.).</p>

<p>I haven't seen a lot of prints from 8x10 chromes. I recall an eight-footer at Duggal in NYC that looked quite sharp, but that's not always the case. Prints from 8x10 film tend to look more "smooth and creamy" than "ultra-sharp." (Is the smoothness a product of diffraction?) Again, I strongly advise you to TRY before you BUY. Just because something is bigger doesn't mean that it's better. There are always trade-offs in photography. For everything you gain by moving up in format, you lose something else. Rent, shoot, develop, scan, and print for yourself. If at all possible visit galleries that feature prints from 8x10 chromes. Get a firsthand impression of what can be accomplished before you mortgage the farm.</p>

 

<p>One way to stitch with 4x5 is to shift the back. This will work if your lens covers. It should be fairly easy to do to get a almost 4x10 shot: shift left, take photo, shift right, take photo -- no refocusing, etc. Of course, you don't gain much, and there is still the problem of something moving in the scene at the boundary.</p>

<p>I've seen large size prints from 8x10. Blown up large enough so that if you look very closely you can see grain. At the distance to see the grain you can't see much of the print, either you want to look at some detail of the image rather than the entire image, or you are a photographer examining print quality. They hold up better at that size than a 4x5 would.</p>

<p>Re the effects on resolution from taking aperture: for the same depth-of-field, you have to stop down farther with the larger format. This decreases the resolution on the film. But for the same size print, you have to enlarge less. So the resolution on the print is the same. The main impact is longer exposure times.</p>

<p>I am really appreciating all the feedback here. Exactly what I was after. I have read most of it thoroughly with the exception of the last few comments. I am printing it off again and will read those today. Thanks everyone very much! A lot of obstacles, but thats ok, I love a challenge.</p>

<p>A few thoughts:<br>

Maybe a joint (two) 4x5 camera system working in concert? Of course at least the shutter speeds would have to be accurate.<br>

Not too worried about expense and am willing to invest.<br>

I am renting first and am hiring someone experienced to teach me.<br>

These are prints that will be scrutinized from inches away by art critics, art dealers, photographers and sometimes the general public.<br>

As someone points out above, the goal is to pioneer. <br>

Again, thank you to everyone for the very thoughtful feedback. I have read every word more than once.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Eric, thanks for that link.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe a joint (two) 4x5 camera system working in concert?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or you could just use a 5x7 which has 75% more film area than a 4x5. It's about like merging two 4x5 exposures.</p>

<p>BTW, your website mentions that you use 8x10 cameras. Maybe you should be ANSWERING these questions!</p>

<p>:-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Or you could just use a 5x7 which has 75% more film area than a 4x5. It's about like merging two 4x5 exposures.<br>

BTW, your website mentions that you use 8x10 cameras. Maybe you should be ANSWERING these questions! </p>

</blockquote>

<p>5X7... never thought of that. I'm going to check into that!</p>

<p>As far as the website...<br>

1. I am now experimenting with and implementing 8x10 and 4x5. What is says on there I am currently right in the middle of doing.<br>

2. The website is being developed / built in <strong>preparation</strong> of the traffic we expect to receive do to gallery work later this year. Otherwise, few people browse there yet.<br>

3. No, in no way am I an expert (or even competent) in LF yet ("answering these questions") but will be, partially due to the great help and feedback here.</p>

<p>I'm starting to look into the Linhof Tachihara 5x7.</p>

<p>My Two Cents ...<br>

1) I agree you should rent or buy a cheap view camera to try out Large Format if only to help you decide what features you'll really want in a camera (ie -- you might not want back movements etc etc -- there are likely more things to consider than you think).<br>

2) I shoot 5x7 and would recommend it -- I prefer the longer format and with good drum scans you can easily print 50" on the short side at 300 dpi (as long as the image is sharp -- refer to everyones comments above). I'm sure the tachihara would be great -- I use a Walker Titan 5x7 -- it is very rigid and solid - (I know from experience -- it fell about 10 feet on a rock and came out with no marks -- luckily the lens didn't hit :) ) <br>

3) For editing I have vista 64/cs4 with 16 gigs of ram and raid 1 harddrives and still have serious slowdowns after the layers have piled up -- if you want to edit 8x10 scans or stiches you will need at least 16 gigs to 32 gigs of ram and very very fast harddrives. I think the system you would need would be at least $5000 and only if you built it yourself.<br>

4) I would seriously discourage you from stitching large format scans -- first off I actually highly doubt there is any software that would perform the stitch -- most software has limits on final file size (even photoshop) (the size your talking about could be over 4 gigs) -- try it first. Plus a good 8x10 slide drum scanned at 2600dpi (what I consider just below grain for velvia 50) can be printed to 74" x 94" at 300dpi (I think 300dpi would be overkill at that size anyway) and 93" x 116" at 240 dpi. Also most wide large format lenses have lots of falloff that would make it impossible to stitch unless you do the back shift method but that won't work for 8x10 as the lens coverage will fail you.<br>

5) For the quality you going for I would suggest an 8x10 as it will beat the 5x7 at HUGE sizes (ie 10 feet). An 8x10 will kill anyone's back on a hike no matter what shape you're in (I'm sure your in great shape but still). Even with an 8x10 and light weight everything else your looking at at least 50 pounds if you have all your equipment and more if you carry other formats with you (if you can fit the thing in your pack) -- all reasons I shoot 5x7.<br>

6) I don't know if you've shot film before but if you haven't your going to seriously miss white balance :).<br>

7) I really like your photography -- I hope you can create some stunning large format prints. Good luck!<br>

Andrew - andrewmorrill.com</p>