PDA

View Full Version : something about ULF and 8x10



m21asph
10-13-2006, 02:33 AM
let's say....

if there is a enlarger which can do ULF film (20x24, 16x20, 14x17)
let's do 50x70" print from ULF film and 8x10....
who has clearly print quality winner?

The reason I am asking this question beucase, usually ULF have to overcome DOF issue, and long exposesure issue.
Can ULF format get the same DOF as 8x10?
let's say F22 on 360mm 8x10 camera VS F128 on 720mm 16x20 camera.
F128 seems to you is not a workable stop.


Also can Schnedier 355mm G, Nikon 450mm M and Fuji 600mm C can handle enlargment as Schnedier SSXL or Rodenstock APO-S lens do?

Maybe ULF can get better tonality, but not necessary sharpeness... please correct me, if i am wrong.

all the bests

Jeff

janvanhove
10-13-2006, 07:56 AM
Depending on what you are shooting, yes, ULF can get the same depth of field, I mean if you're shooting a landscape at infinity, sure it does... At closer distances it's another matter entirely...

Enlargers do exist for ULF (I know a fellow who has been working for a while on a 20x24 color enlarger...), but enlarging is indeed not one of ULF strong suits...

On the other hand, how else can you get a 20x24 platinum print? you need a 20x24 neg, or an enlargment of a smaller neg on a transparency... here, the contact print wins on all accounts: tonality, sharpness, etc...

But you are right, ULF has to face depth of field problems. But in comparing an enlargment made from 20x24 and another made from 8x10, one has to keep in mind that there is a 6x enlagment ratio difference between the two, and that this has a lot of impact on the final image...

In short, ULF is not just for sharpness... I rather like the very shallow depth of field...

PJ

noseoil
10-13-2006, 08:28 AM
Jeff, this is a good question. There is a large difference, which is hard to describe, between an enlargement and a contact print, as PJ has already said. Depth of field can be manipulated, to some degree, by camera movements. A lot of this question depends on the composition you are working with and the camera / lens combination with respect to depth of field.

The question about lenses is important, but usually, a large format lens which is well focused and properly stopped down can deliver more sharpness than an enlargement needs, if we aren't talking about an enlargement which is extremely large. Again, the larger format would typically require less enlargement than a smaller film size. Some of the "old" style lenses, like a 355mm G-Claron, is a superb lens when it comes to sharpness. There have been large advances in lens design and construction (quality) with the advent of computer design and manufacture, but some of the older designs are still capable of amazing sharpness. Color is a another part of the puzzle. The newer lenses with newer glass, design and coatings do have an edge over some of the older single coated lenses, but this would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, to see much difference.

One aspect of sharpness which can make a huge difference comes from development technique, this is often overlooked in printing. Typically, a negative which is processed with normal or rotary agitation is not as sharp as one done with minimal agitation or stand development. The term "edge effects" can make a large difference in print contrast and apparent sharpness. Small amounts of contrast can be enhanced by these techniques. This part of the printing process is often overlooked, but it is still an important part of the whole. tim

Allen Friday
10-13-2006, 12:37 PM
Isn't the analysis the same as when comparing 35mm to MF to 4x5, and comparing enlargments of the same size made from those different sized negs?

So, to re ask the question:

let's say....

if there is a enlarger which can do LF film (4x5)
let's do 20x24" print from LF film and MF and 35mm....
who has clearly print quality winner?...

User Removed
10-13-2006, 11:11 PM
Interesting you bring this up. I've been shooting only 8x10 for quite awhile now and making only AZO contact prints. However, within a few months I will be starting a project of creating large scale mural prints of alot of my 8x10 negatives, as I have access to a mural printing facility.

Alot of my negatives are made with the Nikkor-M 450mm lens, and they are all VERY sharp for contact printing...however I've been wondering how sharp they will be for enlarging to mural sizes! I have never enlarged one of my 8x10 negatives in the past, so this will be a new experience.

I will be sure to let you know how things work out. I'm assuming my negatives are fairly sharp, as I shoot 100 speed film, develop in Pyro and use a modern lens...however, I will not know until I actually try!

All the best,

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

PhotoHistorian
10-14-2006, 01:11 AM
Interesting you bring this up. I've been shooting only 8x10 for quite awhile now and making only AZO contact prints. However, within a few months I will be starting a project of creating large scale mural prints of alot of my 8x10 negatives, as I have access to a mural printing facility.

Alot of my negatives are made with the Nikkor-M 450mm lens, and they are all VERY sharp for contact printing...however I've been wondering how sharp they will be for enlarging to mural sizes! I have never enlarged one of my 8x10 negatives in the past, so this will be a new experience.

I will be sure to let you know how things work out. I'm assuming my negatives are fairly sharp, as I shoot 100 speed film, develop in Pyro and use a modern lens...however, I will not know until I actually try!

All the best,

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net


Ryan,
Don't expect too much from negatives developed in pyro that you plan to enlarge to mural size. The grain structure may disappoint you no matter how sharp your lenses are. Most experts who know pyro will tell you not to enlarge. If you want to print murals you may want to shoot in the future with a negative/developer combination more conducive to fine grain and details. Since your murals are a new adventure create new negs specific for that purpose.

Walker

Dave Wooten
10-14-2006, 10:04 AM
What the Photo Historian said above.

Some of the most lovely enlarged murals I have seen are in Clyde Butcher's gallery on Tamiami trail road in the Everglades...he has wonderful enlargements of 6 x 10 and 8 x 10 and I believe even 12 x 20, printed on fiber paper developed in large trays. Patricia Katcher at 68 degrees in NYC is also quite adept at developing large murals in narrow trays, rolling them from end to end...the workshops there offer mural printing and developing.

User Removed
10-14-2006, 10:28 AM
So Pyro is not good for developing negatives to be enlarged? Thats odd...

I've seen some 11x14 enlargments from 4x5 negatives that were developed in Pyro, and I swear they were 11x14 contact prints because they were so sharp!

I'm using Pyrocat-HD by the way. Before using this, I was using HC110, and when I switched over...I noticed a HUGE increase in visible sharpness in my prints! I did not think an 8x10 contact print could get much sharper just by changing developer, but they did.

All the best.

Ryan McIntosh

Donald Miller
10-14-2006, 10:47 AM
Ryan,

It depends on the pyro formulation and the light source used on the enlarger. ABC Pyro is a very grainy developer. I have noticeable grain with it at 8X10 print from 4X5 with a diffusion lamp condenser enlarger...a true diffusion enlarger lets me go somewhat larger.

Pyrocat is less grainy than ABC and I can go to 16X20 with a 4X5 neg without too much problem on a diffusion light source. Yet the same neg will evidence slight graininess at an 8X10 enlargement on my point light source condenser.

HC 110 is nice and sharp under the correct conditions without the accompanying grain. So it all depends on what one wants to do with what one has..

PhotoHistorian
10-14-2006, 11:26 AM
Ryan,

It depends on the pyro formulation and the light source used on the enlarger. ABC Pyro is a very grainy developer. I have noticeable grain with it at 8X10 print from 4X5 with a diffusion lamp condenser enlarger...a true diffusion enlarger lets me go somewhat larger.

Pyrocat is less grainy than ABC and I can go to 16X20 with a 4X5 neg without too much problem on a diffusion light source. Yet the same neg will evidence slight graininess at an 8X10 enlargement on my point light source condenser.

HC 110 is nice and sharp under the correct conditions without the accompanying grain. So it all depends on what one wants to do with what one has..

Ryan,
Dave and Donald are absolutely correct in stating the grain in a pyro negative is dependent on what formula one uses. When you said you were going to print "mural" prints, I was assuming you were talking about prints measuring in feet and not inches and pyro at first glance would not be the developer of choice in most instances. A 4x5 enlarged to 11x14 or even 16x20 is not a huge enlargement and one would expect a print to hold together. But enlarge a print to "feet dimensions" like say Clyde Butcher and most people I know would select a different developer. Always pick the best materials (film, developer, paper) for the project at hand. Material selection is just one more factor in the photographic decision-making process. There is no one paper...one developer...one film in photography that is "the" one to use. Just experiment and find the one that best works for you.

Walker

User Removed
10-14-2006, 11:42 AM
Thanks Walter, Dave and Donald.

Yes, I'm planning on having the shortest width of the mural prints a minimum of 40", so they can be considered "mural sized".

I will first experiment with my current film/developer combination and see how the print quality is. If it's not meeting my approval, a film/developer change will be made to better suit this printing process.

All the best,

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

garysamson
10-14-2006, 05:36 PM
I certainly do not want to start a pyro developers war on this thead, but I have made many enlargements from Ilford FP4+ and Kodak Tmax 400 films processed in PMK Pyro that produced excellent sharpness and virtually no grain. A 40 inch wide print would only be a 4x enlargement from an 8x10 inch negative - grain should not be much of an issue with most conventional or pyro based developers at this enlargement magnification.

RobertP
10-14-2006, 10:39 PM
I certainly do not want to start a pyro developers war on this thead, but I have made many enlargements from Ilford FP4+ and Kodak Tmax 400 films processed in PMK Pyro that produced excellent sharpness and virtually no grain. A 40 inch wide print would only be a 4x enlargement from an 8x10 inch negative - grain should not be much of an issue with most conventional or pyro based developers at this enlargement magnification.Wouldn't a 16x20 from an 8x10 be a 4x enlargement? So wouldn't a 40" enlargement be an 16x enlargement?

Scott Peters
10-15-2006, 12:54 AM
What if the neg is scanned and printed digitally? Same grain issues? The reason I ask is that I have a project where they want the ulf negs scanned and then made into 20 x 30's or 30 x 40's...I developed in pyro hd. I have 8 x 10's and 7 x 17's (which would be 14 x 34, or 21 x 51 ratio's roughly).

jimgalli
10-16-2006, 10:50 AM
This reminds me of the whole "can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up" type of question.

Galen Rowell get's (got) away with murals from 35mm chromes! If your picture is worth looking at........is the question that is about a billion times more important than whether grain structure of an 8X10 pyro neg will hold up.

People don't stand 6 inches away from a mural with a magnifying glass! This entire discussion seems idiotic to me. 5X7 has always seemed like overkill to me for enlarging. 4X5 is probably plenty.

Ed Workman
10-16-2006, 06:50 PM
In line with what Jim said, the 'best' developer will be one that gives a robust negative with strong contrast and perhaps maybe too much grain for an 8x10 print. It will probably be printed on higher than normal contrast paper as well. The larger the print the more contrast is necessary and the farther you must stand back to see the intent of the picture. Else there will be no perception by the viewer of three dimensionality.
But as Jim already said, the photo has to be worth looking at.

Andrew Clearfield
11-18-2006, 07:21 PM
Wouldn't a 16x20 from an 8x10 be a 4x enlargement? So wouldn't a 40" enlargement be an 16x enlargement?

Nope. Enlargement comparisons are usually linear comparisons, as it is the degree of linear magnification which gives an indication of the progressive degradation of the image. 16"x20" represents a 2X enlargement of an 8"x10" negative (even though the resulting print has 4X the area.)

Obviously, others may disagree, but I have found that my 4"x5" PMK Pyro negatives look very good at 4X--i.e. 16"x20". In fact, I have begun using PMK even for my 6cm x 7cm roll film negs. in enlargements up to 11"x14" and even in digitally-processed images up to 13"x19"--admittedly with FP4+ rather than something coarser grained. This represents a magnification of almost 7X. The grain was visible, but I thought the improvement in acutance and tonal gradation was worth it. I would also agree with those who point out that viewing distance has something to do with the grain criterion, especially for a mural. You'll never confuse the result with a contact print, but you wouldn't anyway. The only format I would definitely not recommend Pyro for under any circumstances is 35mm.

sanking
11-19-2006, 10:59 AM
If grain is a major issue for mural size prints I would advise changing film, not developer. Although some developers give finer grain than others these differences are nuances compared to the significant difference in films. Also, the developers that give the finest grain do so at the expense of sharpness, the best example being Microdol-X compared to Rodinal.

In any event grain should not be an issue with a ULF negative, regardless of developer, unless you are going to be making murals measured in feet, and at that point viewing distance and detail are factors of even more importance than grain. In any event, one can easily go 3X-4X with an FP4+ ULF negative of 11X14" in size and still maintain critical sharpness and minimum grain even at the optimum viewing distance of ten inches or so. And at that point you already have a 44X56" print.

Sandy King