Large prints with details

[sunilmendiratta]

<p>I like to shoot landscape and so far i dont know anything about view camera or large format photography.I am using Nikon digital slr for landscapes. What i know is i can not obtain large prints from APS-C cameras.<br>

I have two things to consider cost and quality.<br>

1) I can buy full frame digital and upscale image in photoshop to obtain large prints<br>

2) Buy medium or large format camera lenses etc and scan the film for large prints.</p>

<p>I do not have budget to buy medium format digital backs and as of now i am not making money from photography but this is hobby which give me immense satisfaction.</p>

<p>Any suggestions...</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Sunil</p>

 

[dave_s]

<p>Sunil, read <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00YO3K">this recent thread</a> as a first step. That woman asked much the same question as you. The thread degenerated into film-versus-digital polemics, but there are some good ideas embedded in the discussion.</p>

[sunilmendiratta]

<p>Thanks Dave,<br>

I will look into thread but just to clarify or rephrase the question, This is NOT about digital verses film. I would request others to please do not get into this at least to answer my question.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Sunil</p>

[eoinmurphy]

<p>A third possibility would be to use a 4x5 camera and print with an enlarger. You did not specify B&W or color. Personally, and many people will disagree, I prefer digital for color and large format film for b&w.</p>

[archie_alcantara1]

<p>Could you define what you consider large print ?</p>

[spodzone]

<p>One possible workflow: <br>

5x4" large-format, develop black&white yourself (send E6 off for developing), scan on flatbed scanner such as Epson V700. You might wind-up dust-spotting an image around 10000*8000 pixels this way (5x4" at 2000dpi).</p>

<p>Another:<br>

dSLR, a handful of photos, stitch together in Hugin (beats the pants out of Photoshop's Photomerge). The more megapixels you start with, the easier it is to achieve desired final output size; does require mostly static subjects, though.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>1) Actually, the current APS DSLRs have pretty near the resolution of the FF ones. Remember, you have to quadruple the megapixels to double the print size. You have to double the megapixels to go up one "paper size". The difference between a 16mp APS and a 24mp FF is only a 22% larger print, about 1/2 a paper size larger. Not enough to make much difference in your work.</p>

<p>FF gives you several advantages over APS.</p>

<ul>

<li>The selection of wide angle lenses is better, there's more lenses, and lenses of higher quality, than for APS.</li>

<li>The selection of "portrait" lenses is better. The Nikon and Canon systems each contain 3 or 4 "epic" portrait lenses for FF, and, if you're lucky, 1 really good portrait lens for APS.</li>

<li>The low light ability is better.</li>

<li>The dynamic range (better shadow detail and/or better immunity to blown highlights) is better.</li>

<li>The viewfinder is better. That sounds like a trivial, little thing when you first say it. But your viewfinder is your way of "communing" with the scene you're shooting: if you're spend hours are a camera, $1000 for a better viewfinder may bring you more "joy of photography" than anything else you can spend that $1000 on.</li>

</ul>

<p>2) I'm with Eoin and Tim. I like 4x5 film. Back in my film days, I pretty much skipped "medium format". It was way too "medium" for me. 4x5 LF felt "large", I could print large, I could retouch negatives, and the cameras handled "different" from 35, full movements, more capability, big "direct" 4x ground glass. 35mm felt "maneuverable", and it had remarkable capabilities for macro, wildlife, astro, etc. MF just felt like an in-between "too many eggs in one basket" or ill conceived "Swiss army knife" with too many blades. And, even 25 years ago, you could see the MF makers were faltering, not keeping up with technology, and selling "myth" and "reputation", sizzle, not steak.</p>

<p>You can get up and running with 4x5 either in a darkroom or by scanning, pretty cheap and easy.</p>

<p>3) Consider looking into "stitching". That's what replaced my own 4x5 work. Stitching is a technique where you take a big scene (landscape, architecture, etc) and shoot a bunch of small pieces (I always liked the term "tiles") of the scene, then put them all together on the computer. You need a piece of hardware called a "panorama bracket" that will set you back $150-500, but that's not bad.</p>

<p>One upside, and downside, is that you have to learn to work deliberately, to "previsualize" the scene that the tiles will assemble into. This isn't the "a more awkward, klunky, crude, primitive camera will 'force' me to slow down and think" line of BS you hear from MF shooters. This is really a different way of working.</p>

<p>But the resolution can be insane. I shoot mostly with a Nikon D3 and D90. They're just 12mp cameras. But a 3x3 stitch, 9 shots, is 54mp. That will make a 20x30 print at 300dpi, the standard for "sharp" prints. It will also, with care, make an 8x12 at 720dpi that, with some knowledge and practice with high resolution inkjet printing, will look sharper than a 8x10 large format contact print. Seriously, I've made images that seasoned pros, critics, and gallery owners couldn't tell weren't LF contacts. A decent bracket and a fast camera like, well, anything in the last 4 years, will lay down a 3x3 in about 20 seconds with practice, so you can shoot it a few times to be safe, try different compositions, play with exposure.</p>

<p>I've done a lot of commercial work as 5x5 stitches, 150mp, which gets you enough resolution for just about anything. 33x50 "lobby art" at 300dpi, or a 14x20 shot that looks like a contact print, even of someone with a critical eye views it from 18 inches away, or even takes a loupe to it. Ever used a 14x20 view camera? Me neither. But I can exceed its results.</p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>There's a reasonably cheap way to find out the answer to your question, which requires a very subjective answer. First of all, most large photos that cost under $10/sq. ft. are made on wide carriage inkjet printers. May I presume that you, at home, have a small carriage inkjet printer of a somewhat recent vintage that will handle 8 1/2 by 11 paper? <br /><br />Most of the popular photo manipulation programs, like Paint Shop Pro, Photo Shop and Photo Shop Lite, allow you to print a center 8 1/2" by 11" portion of a 6'-8' tall print out. So, if you set your printer on high quality and use the same paper you would want your wide carriage print shop to print for you, you can see exactly the quality of the print your input would produce. The ink and paper are just going to be a few bucks, where a 5' by 5' full print out at $10/sq.ft. would cost $250. <br /><br />Now to address the input. If you're thinking of a 4X5 camera, why not borrow or buy an already made 4X5 image? You could choose your interest, either black and white, color negative, or color positive. If you couldn't borrow one for free, you can always buy one on SleazeBay, which would cost you $5-10 including shipping. The one thing you'd want to do is get an extremely sharp crisp piece of film to start with so you can make a valid decision. Again, this is a cheap way to find out what you really need and what is acceptable to you and your tastes. <br /><br />The scan....with film as big as 4X5", many people are satisfied with consumer-grade flatbed scanners. Although the manufacturers advertise 4800 PPI to 6400 PPI, the real resolution is 2500 PPI plus or minus. Not all consumer flatbed scanners will fully scan a 4X5 piece of film and are limited to either 35mm or 120 width. Some scanners that can accommodate a 4X5 piece of film are the Epson 2450, 3200, 4990, V700, and V750. If you have a friend or someone in a camera club, they may be willing to scan your experimental 4X5 film free on a one time basis. Even many camera shops that use low end scanners might scan for a cost of $10 or less. These flatbeds are not to be confused with professional units, like an EverSmart Pro, which would rate a rather high scan fee, but on the other hand, give you a great scan. <br /><br />If once you've made the print from a consumer-grade scanner, as noted above, and find it unacceptable, take a good look at the negative through a microscope or high quality, high powered loupe (not a 4 or 10 power consumer grade loupe). If you see there is detail and information on the film that the scanner just was not able to digitize. Although expensive, you might want to try a good high resolution drum scan. You can then print the center section and see if that satisfies your needs. <br /><br />So, if you can get a piece of 4X5 film free or reasonable, an inexpensive scan, and use your own printer to print the center section of a print sized the same size that you will eventually want to make large prints, you can see exactly how it looks, and on the cheap. <br /><br />You say you don't want to invest in a digital back. Should you change your mind, before buying one, you might want to try renting and printing the output on your home printer in the same manner as described for a scanned piece of film above. <br /><br />Film or digital, you will at least know what your professional printer's output will look like without investing the monies necessary to buy the image-capturing equipment or have to buy a full sized print.</p>

[sunilmendiratta]

<p>Thanks a lot for your valuable inputs. I will try to rent one and check print from scan.<br>

Once again thanks a lot...</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Sunil</p>