okay, what to do with my new 4x5 negatives

[harry_zet]

i have been shooting with my new old speed graphic, have developed

the fp-4 negs in a tray, have been fallen over about the sharpness,

contrast and great looks of the negatives - but what now? i want big

prints (otherwise i could have used 35mm), but the local lab wants 78

dollars for a 60x70 cm print. i doubt if my wife will allow an

enlarger in our house - no i am sure! what do you with your negs? is

there a scanner i can use and have it digitally printed?

[neal_shields]

Most digital printers, print at a resolution of 300 dpi. (Ink jet uses more dots to create a single dot of information).

 

At that resolution I doubt that you will be able to tell the difference between an enlargement made from a 35mm neg and one from 4x5.

 

A: Find a new lab.

C: Make contact prints

B: Find a wife that understands compulsive behaivor.

[link]

<i>Most digital printers, print at a resolution of 300 dpi. (Ink jet uses more dots to

create a single dot of information). <p>

 

At that resolution I doubt that you will be able to tell the difference between an

enlargement made from a 35mm neg and one from 4x5. </i><p>

 

Even an Epson inkjet will show off the quality of your 4x5 negs beautifully. My prints

from 6x9 film make my 35mm film prints look well, 35mm...<p>

 

The trick here is getting quality scans of 4x5 film without spending a lot of money.

Your choice for scanning yourself is to get a flatbed scanner that can scan 4x5 film (a

few hundred dollars) or an Imacon CCD scanner or drum scanner (thousands of

dollars). Or you could pay a lab to scan, at maybe $50 per scan. See, the enlarger is

sounding better all the time LOL

[guytal]

Neal, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of digital printing. 300dpi is the print resolution, which has nothing to do with the final print size or the amount of information extracted from the film (i.e. scan resolution).<br>

Due to grain and film resolution constraints, most films will yield useful information when scanned up to about 3,000dpi. A 35mm frame scanned at 3,000dpi will give you about 3,000x4,200 dots of "real" data. Printed at 300dpi will allow you a maximum print size of about 10x14". Beyond that you need to interpolate the data and manufacture more dots by stretching existing ones.<br>

In compatison - a 4x5 frame scanned at 3,000dpi will yield 12,000x15,000 dots and, printed at 300dpi will allow you to go as large as 40x50" with no need to interpolate data.<br>

There's other factors having to do with lens resolution, scanner dynamic range etc. that may impact the results but this simple calculation illustrates the point - at any significant print size a 4x5 scan will give you far more detailed prints than 35mm, regardless of the print resolution.<br>

<br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://www.scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild Photography</a>

[leonard_evens]

Get an Epson 4870 scanner. The less expensive Photo version should suffice for the present. (The more expensive Pro version includes software which is nice to have, but it will be a while before you know enough to take advantage of it, and you can get it then.)

 

The previous Epson 3200 has been discontinued, but you may be able to find one somewhere, discounted in price. It also will work fine.

 

If you are satisfied with prints up to letter size, there are several relatively inexpensive Epson printers which will do a good job. They won't do as well with bw as they will with color, but they will do well enough. When you get further into it, you can get special inks which will produce bw prints to match what you can do with an enlarger. If you want larger prints, you will need to go to an Epson 1280 or 2200, which are more expensive. They will do up to 13 x 19, and the 2200 will do a better job of bw without using special inks.

 

If you want prints larger than 13 x 19, you will either have to buy a printer costing $1800 or even more, or more likely send your scans out to be printed by a commercial lab.

 

In any case, the prints you will get from a 4 x 5 negative this way will be plenty impressive.

 

To do all this, you will need a good photoeditor. Phtoshop Elements will probably come with your scanner or printer, and that will work well to start. Later you will want to get something with more capabilities. The ultimate product is the full Photoshop, but there are alternatives. I use the open software application Gimp, with which I can do most everything I want. Instructions for getting it can be found at www.gimp.org.

[paul_e._cassidy]

Hello Harry,

I can recommend from my experience using an Epson 1200U backlit photo scanner which handles up to 4X5 and three Epson photo printers. With great success when I use Epson paper but very mixed results with paper from other manufacturers. For large prints I would suggest looking at a firm called West Coast Imaging or similar. Their website will give you a lot of info and if you request an output sampler you can compare the output from several large format digital print processes.

For working on a computer I recommend only one program Adobe Photoshop. It can actually do more than I can do with all three of my enlargers!

BTW, I have been doing this for slightly more than a decade now and must say that the engineering for digital reproduction is constantly changing! So by the time you read this there is probably a better system being introduced!

Hope this helps!

paul

[User_503771]

How come your wife objects to you having an enlarger?

 

I guess I'm a dinosaur, but I prefer photographic prints made optically onto photo paper. I just think they reveal more of what is on the negative and for me are more a direct expression of what photography is and is capable of as a medium.

 

Maybe if you got her to expound on all of her objections to the thing, then you could find a way to answer each one to her satisfaction? Or maybe offer her use of your camera and darkroom equipment?

 

In any event, I don't think you'll be able to print less expensively than with a darkroom these days. While materials and supplies might add up to about the same as for a good digital workflow (coincidence?), the outlay for equipment is going to be much less, what with good used equipment going for a song.

 

Be a man about it! Get down on bended knee, put on your best cheesy grin and apologetic demeanor and, roses in hand, beg, beg, beg for a hearing on the subject!

[link]

<i>How come your wife objects to you having an enlarger? </I><P>

 

After reading your post, I too, told my wife that I needed an enlarger.

 

She said, "what a coincidence, I just received 10 emails selling a product that claims

to do just that!"

[Troll]

Divorce the bitch.

[link]

I said, "honey, you don't understand." "It's for photography!"

 

When I woke up in the hospital, it dawned on me that she might have linked the

photography idea with the emails...

[paul_e._cassidy]

Harry, just a footnote to say I still prefer a real double weight print from under my 4X5 Omega enlarger over the digital. Digital is acceptable but not better than. . .imho- Paul

[capocheny]

Harry,

 

I'm a bit confused here... you have your 4x5 negs and your question is, "but what now?"

Then, you explain that the lab wants $78 for a 60x70cm print.... and that your wife won't

let you have an enlarger in the house."

 

My question back to you is, "so you have your negs scanned... now what? At the end of the

day, it still isn't going to be inexpensive to have it printed digitally and/or otherwise. All

you're going to end up with is a scanned negative.

 

It sounds like you and your wife have to work the next step out between yourselves! The

scanned negatives aren't going to be any better/worse than your 4x5s if you can't produce

the 60x70cm print from it.

 

The problem here isn't about the 4x5 neg, the scanned neg, or the fact that you'd like a

60x70cm print...it's really about the constraints between the cost of the print and what

your wife will accept. You ALREADY know what next... you want the 60x70 cm print!

 

Comprende?

 

Good luck on the "negotiations."

 

Cheers

[capocheny]

Bill,

 

"Divorce the bitch."

 

If Harry did that... not only would he NOT be able to afford the $78 for a single print but

he'd have to give her half the camera too! :>)

 

B.G.

 

"After reading your post, I too, told my wife that I needed an enlarger. She said, "what a

coincidence, I just received 10 emails selling a product that claims to do just that!""

 

LOL.... good one!

 

Cheers

[neal_shields]

I agree that at huge enlargements you will see a difference. However objective testing has shown that 35mm 200 ASA film can contain the equivelent of more than 16 meg pixels of real information. For enlargements at 300 dpi you have to get quite big before you run out of real information on a 35mm negative.

 

I saw some 16 x 20"s last night taken by a very very good photographer on 35 mm Velvia and minipulated in Photoshop that would be very difficult to tell from a 4x5 of the same scene and printed the same way, but that is "opinion" not data. They were also scanned with a prosumer scanner at over 5000 dpi. To my mind they probably surpassed any direct optical print that he could have made from that sized negative as they were grainless and dust spot free. I suspect that you would have to go to medium format to get a competitive direct optical print.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm

 

Other testing has shown that you are still pulling information off a negative at 8000 dpi

 

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Scan8000.html

 

I am not saying that you won't see increased tonality and gradation from a 4x5 digital print to say 11x14 over a 35, it just seems to me to be a huge waste of money and energy to go through the trouble to make a 4x5 negative and then take a digital picture of it, unless you are going really really big.

[neal_shields]

It is obvious to me from Guy's photography that I need to take fewer pictures of resolution test targets if I ever hope to get results anywhere near that good.

[Troll]

I apologize. My "divorce the bitch" suggestion was made reflexively, without considering the consequences. On subsequent thought my advice is 1)kill the bitch and hide the body, or 2) get the bitch a second job so you can afford an enlarger and she won't be around in the way when you want to work in the darkroom.

[link]

<i>get the wife a second job so you can afford an enlarger and she won't be around

in the way when you want to work in the darkroom.</i><p>

 

Bill, that reminds me of some advice a got from a photography teacher many years

ago. If your wife (or anyone else) bothers you when you're in the darkroom, throw

some hypo at em -- that'll fix em.

[link]

<i>

 

I agree that at huge enlargements you will see a difference. However objective testing

has shown that 35mm 200 ASA film can contain the equivelent of more than 16 meg

pixels of real information. For enlargements at 300 dpi you have to get quite big

before you run out of real information on a 35mm negative. </i><p>

 

Neal,<p>

 

Your theories are interesting, but unfortunately don't work in the real world. One can

easily see the difference between a scan of a sharp 35mm frame and a scan of a

sharp medium format frame in an enlargement as small as 11x14 and printed on an

epson printer. It's a huge difference of detail and picture information. <P>

 

So, Harry, enjoy your speed graphic with the knowlege that all that effort will

<i>not</i> go to waste!

[jonathan_bundick]

For my money, 8x10 is pushing all but the best of 35mm. You should be able to see the difference difference between 35mm and 4x5 at 8x10, let alone 16x20.

 

The easiest and least space consuming option is as others have suggested is an Epson scanner. I have been using the Epson 3200 for over a year for 4x5 slide film and B&W. Cheap and capable of delivering good results to 16x20 and with a good original 20x24.

[john_kasaian1]

Trade the Speeder in for a 12x20 and make contacts!

[jeffrey_abelson]

"At that resolution I doubt that you will be able to tell the difference between an enlargement made from a 35mm neg and one from 4x5. "

 

Shoot the same scene with a 4x5 and a 35mm - go scan the negs and make an 8x10 print and then make the same claim - I see detail in my 4x5s (made with an ancient Tele-optar nonetheless) that blow away anything made with 35mm - and I shoot with excellent 35mm lenses (nikon glass). Why people think it's just about enlargement is a mystery to me...

[j.w.]

I was contact printing my Speed Graphic produced negatives for a long time, content with their "intimate" size and incredible sharpness.

 

Then, several weeks ago, I purchased a used Beseler 4x5 enlarger, 2 lenses and 3 film carriers, all for $150. Since the enlarger is wall-mounted, I didn't lose any counter space on the dry side of my tiny 6'x6' darkroom.

 

BTW, the camera's 135mm Kodak Ektar lens, mounted on the Speed Graphic lens board, fits right into the Beseler lens carrier slot, and produces nice 11x14 prints. Thus, you may not even need to worry about purchasing a long focal length enlarger lens.

 

My biggest problem now is the cost of 11x14 paper. I've started using Kodak Polymax II RC paper in 11x14, just because of the cost vs Ilford or Forte paper.

 

Have you considered the cost of digital printing larger than 8x10? If you can manage the compact space required for a conservative darkroom, you're miles ahead, cost-wise, especally with bargain, used gear.

[johnmarkpainter]

Neal,

 

Having shot the same Film on 35mm, MF and 4x5 (using Leica, Hassy, Schneider) on the

same shoot on many occasions I will also STRONGLY disagree.

 

The differences are obvious even at 8x10.

 

jmp

[sam_portera]

Neal, if you don't see a differnce at even 5x7 from a 4x5 and 35mm your either blind or wasteing your time in photography. There is major diffence between 6x7 and 35mm and the difference between 4x5 and 35mm is obvious to even an untrained eye even at 4x5. Now, either your using horrible lenses, scanning, development etc. whatever the case may be but don't mislead others into believing they can get LF results with 35mm. Hell, even 35mm pan f shot with my Leica does in no way compare in image quality to Hp5 pucshed one stop in 4x5.

[danny_wong2]

In our city we have a photo eqm rental house that has an Imacon scanner hooked up to a G5, DVD burner etc for rent by the hour.

 

I save up my negs and chromes and go there for a day, after the first two visit I have all my parameters set up that I could get working without spending too much time on setup.

 

They also have a Imacon workshop which is training for this setup.

 

You should inquire in your area about this typ of service

 

IMHO scanning with anything less is an insult to yourself and the effort you have made to make the image