Large prints from 4x5

[david richhart]

I will soon be making large color prints and would like to know how well 4x5 chromes and negatives hold up under enlargement. <p>

Am I correct in assuming 24x30 prints will remain smooth and sharp??? Are 32x40 prints ok? At what size do you think I should consider 8x10 format? Would I be better off to photograph everything in 8x10, even though there is a budget to consider <p>

Many thanks for all help...and thanks for the great forum!!! -Dave

[doug_paramore2]

Dave: I don't see any problem if you have good negs. A 32x40 is eight

times linear enlargement, or about the same as an 8x10 off 35mm negs.

The largest I have personally made is 24x30 from color negs, but it

looked good.

 

<p>

 

Regards, Doug.

[joseph_dickerson]

Dave,

 

<p>

 

It's been a long time but I have had 4x5 negatives printed as large as

30x40 inches and the prints were tack sharp with little or no

noticeable grain.

 

<p>

 

That was with Kodak cps neg film, with today's film you should be able

to go even bigger if need be.

[pete_caluori]

Hi Dave,

 

<p>

 

It really depends on the film your shooting. Shoot something grainy

like Kodak High Speed Infrared and you'll see grain on 8x10's which

is only 2x from a 4x5 negative. OTOH, I have a 30x40 print from a

4x5 Delta 100 negative that is grainless. Films have gotten really

good, so unless you're aiming for really big murals or truly grainy

film a 4x5 should be more than adequate.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

[bruce_m._herman1]

Dave,

 

<p>

 

I've made a few 24x30 prints from 4x5 Velvia, and they turned out

fine. One note of caution - tiny silhouettes from dust specks on the

film at the time of exposure, which you may not notice during casual

examination with a 4x loupe, become quite evident in the print. If

you're doing a big enlargement, you might want to consider having it

done digitally so that these flaws can be removed.

 

<p>

 

Best of luck,

Bruce

[fred8]

Be sure and keep your viewing distance in mind. I have printed a 35mm

Kodachrome to 14 feet (via interneg) and have taken an 8x10 negative

to 12 feet by 20 feet. I was amazed at just how well both looked,

both were for display purposes (the largest in a museum), but you

must keep in mind that these prints were not meant to be viewed from

a distance of inches, but rather from a distance of several feet at

least.

[pete_andrews]

The grain and definition of Fuji's negative films are incredibly good

these days. Kodak's a little bit behind in the fine-grain stakes IMHO.

I still prefer Kodak's colour rendering from negatives.

[rainer_viertlboeck]

i just had an exhibition with 50x60" prints, made from 4x5" velvia. very sharp with nearly no noticeably grain.

and 110x40" made from 6x17cm technorama dias with provia 100. very sharp too, but i regretted that i havent used velvia....which is a bit sharper and more saturated. anyway the prints were looking great in this size, although i shot with ilford pan f one bw neg too....and this had mor details, as i could see in a scan from the neg.

greatings...

[alpshiker]

The largest I have printed was 40x50" from a 4x5 Velvia scanned and produced digitally. It looked very nice and sharp and all the spots and dusts had been easily removed. As Bruce suggested, enlarger prints of this size require a lot of care.