Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,812   Posts: 1,581,564   Online: 932
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Thanks,

    The reason I asked is that simply working out that 10x8 has twice the linear dimensions of 5x4 therefore should allow a print twice the size never seems to work in practice and has not done so when moving from MF up to LF in my opinion. I was concerned that the 5x7 is not that much bigger than 5x4 and I want an appreciable difference. I agree with 5x4 starting to lose it at 20x16, but on the other hand it can look incredibly impressive if the subject suits it (lots if detail meaning there are no large areas of contiuous tone). From what has been said so far it looks like 5x7 is worth the kit re-shuffle, relagating the 5x4 to far flung places with ready/quickload to keep weight down. I normally end up cropping 5x4 to reduce its stubbiness, so will probably end up with twice the useable neg area on 5x7, which will be cropped very little in most instances. Problem with uncropped stubby 5x4 being that in landscape format, once framed with a thicker bottom edge to the mount than the top and sides results in a close to square frame which tends to lack elegance in my opinion. I do not often shoot colour, but 5x4 seems to be able to produce much larger acceptable colour prints than B&W. Once the 10x8 is up and running I will try contact printing, but still find that 10x8 is a little on the small side for an image. I can see why there is a market for 12x20s out there and have considered it myself, but for now it is not really feasible (not enough cash for camera, lenses and mandatory mule). I do not print large for tha sake of it, but get frustraed when an image wants to be large and I run out of quality !

    Thanks for your help,

    Tom

  2. #12
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,124
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
    Clay,
    But, in terms of sharpness, wouldn't a 150mm lens resolve more lines per millimeter at f22 than a 300mm at f45? Further, if a 150mm lens needed to be stopped down to f22 for adequate depth of field, I don't think f45 would be adequate for the 300mm on an 8x10.

    Tom
    The only reason for a difference in lines/mm would be a difference in the lens design. The degrading effects of diffraction on lens resolution would be virtually identical between the two lenses you mentioned in your example at their respective apertures (300 @45 and 150@22).

    As to your second question, there once again it would depend on how much you intended to enlarge the resulting negative. If you accept the same 'circle of confusion' parameter for both lenses, then the depth of field of a 150mm at f/22 would be identical to a 300mm at f/45. As others have pointed out, it will also depend on how large your final intended print will be and what viewing distance you expect the viewer to maintain.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Stanworth
    Thanks,

    The reason I asked is that simply working out that 10x8 has twice the linear dimensions of 5x4 therefore should allow a print twice the size never seems to work in practice and has not done so when moving from MF up to LF in my opinion. I was concerned that the 5x7 is not that much bigger than 5x4 and I want an appreciable difference. I agree with 5x4 starting to lose it at 20x16, but on the other hand it can look incredibly impressive if the subject suits it (lots if detail meaning there are no large areas of contiuous tone). From what has been said so far it looks like 5x7 is worth the kit re-shuffle, relagating the 5x4 to far flung places with ready/quickload to keep weight down. I normally end up cropping 5x4 to reduce its stubbiness, so will probably end up with twice the useable neg area on 5x7, which will be cropped very little in most instances. Problem with uncropped stubby 5x4 being that in landscape format, once framed with a thicker bottom edge to the mount than the top and sides results in a close to square frame which tends to lack elegance in my opinion. I do not often shoot colour, but 5x4 seems to be able to produce much larger acceptable colour prints than B&W. Once the 10x8 is up and running I will try contact printing, but still find that 10x8 is a little on the small side for an image. I can see why there is a market for 12x20s out there and have considered it myself, but for now it is not really feasible (not enough cash for camera, lenses and mandatory mule). I do not print large for tha sake of it, but get frustraed when an image wants to be large and I run out of quality !

    Thanks for your help,

    Tom
    It seems that you are equating negative size to linear dimension. Negative size is a matter of square inches of negative. 4X5 would twenty inches square, 5X7 would be 35 inches square (almost twice as large as 4X5), 8X10 would be 80 inches square (four times as much as 4X5). All things being equal a 8X10 negative could be printed four times as large as a 4X5 negative and maintain the same print quality.

    Color materials will print larger then black and white materials when equivalent negative size exists. Just the nature of the beast.

  4. #14
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    "I was concerned that the 5x7 is not that much bigger than 5x4 and I want an appreciable difference. I agree with 5x4 starting to lose it at 20x16, but on the other hand it can look incredibly impressive if the subject suits it (lots if detail meaning there are no large areas of contiuous tone)."

    4x5=20 and 5x7=35 so it is nearly twice the square inches at 5x7. 8x10=80 square inches and is really 4 times the square inches of 4x5. It is a neat format but the film is rarer than either 4x5 or 8x10. But it is still available. I think it is too small to contact but I don't have an enlarger any more for that format. So for me, I contact 8x10 and enlarge 4x5.

    lee\c

  5. #15
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    Don must have been typing while I was. We are in agreement.

    lee\c

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    20
    About 7 years ago, I attended a workshop by the photographer Howard Bond. He works mostly with 8x10 and 5x7 but had a few prints from 4x5 and a few 11x14 contact prints. At the time I was using 4x5 almost exclusively. The prints he showed were mostly 11x14 and 16x20. There may have been a few 20x24 prints but nothing larger. I had a hard time seeing any consistant difference in quality between the prints from 5x7 and 4x5 but could reliably pick out which prints were from 8x10 negatives (I also could not reliably see a difference between 11x14 prints from 8x10 and 11x14 contact prints, but that's a different issue--I actually prefer 8x10 "enlargements" from 8x10 negatives to 8x10 contact prints they look a little sharper, but that's just me).

    Anyway, from that workshop experience, I decided I wanted to work with an 8x10. I eventually found a used 8x10 enlarger and bought an 8x10 camera. I mostly stopped using the 4x5 unless I was going on a trip by plane. At the time, I could easily see the difference in my prints from 8x10 and 4x5 negatives. My output in number of good negatives per year dropped dramatically. Carrying the camera and especially the film was a great burden. Going from basicly unlimited 4x5 film in readyloads to a very full backpack with only 10 sheets of 8x10 film made me more careful with every exposure and kept me much closer to the car. When looking at negatives and prints, I kept thinking that shooting more variations on each subject would have given me better results. When showing prints in galleries or friends and customers, I could see the difference between 8x10 and 4x5, but no one else could.

    After a 3 or 4 years with the 8x10, I bought a 6x7 Bronica SLR to loosen up my photographs. I generally would expose 4 rolls (40 exposures) with the 6x7 to every 4 sheets I'd expose of the same subject and time. The content of my photographs improved dramatically from ease of use and exposing much more film. Content differences are way more important than any subtle differences between 6x7, 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10). Friends and clients still can't see any differences in my prints, although I rarely print larger than 16x20 (and I do usually use Pan F in 120 vs Tmax 400 in 8x10). Larger prints are generally looked at from further away so don't need to be quite as sharp (too me a long time to get over this!).

    I eventually got a 6x9 Horseman view camera to get movements, but still usually use the 6x7 SLR for speed. The 4x5 has sat in a case unused for several years and the 8x10 comes out only rarely. I learned a lot from using the big camera and don't regret it at all.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Jdef,
    thanks for the reply. No, my 8x10 and 5x7 setups are identical, and checked, i.e., if focused on the same subject the infocus parts are equally sharp when shot at the same fstop with the same lens, as viewed through a 4 power magnifier. I maintain that the only difference is that I'm shooting at a smaller fstop with 8x10 and the loss of resolution is caused by diffraction.
    Take care,
    Tom

  8. #18
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,124
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
    Jdef,
    t I maintain that the only difference is that I'm shooting at a smaller fstop with 8x10 and the loss of resolution is caused by diffraction.
    Take care,
    Tom
    Out of curiousity, what are the focal lengths, f-stops used and type of lenses you used for this comparison? As I said earlier, diffraction is a factor related to the physical hole size, not the relative aperture.

    clay

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Clay,
    I mostly use a Apo-Symar 300mm for both 5x7 and 8x10. With 5x7 I can often shoot at f22. With 8x10 I usually need f64 for the same approximate framing of the same scene.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    448
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
    I'm always very surprised at how much fuzzier my 8x10 negs look through a magnifier than my 5x7's.
    Tom
    Your 8x10 negatives should be no less sharp than your 5x7s. Indeed, my 11x14 negatives are tack sharp unless the fuzzy fairies are at work. Camera movement (a given for 11x14s), poor holder placement, poor registration of the ground glass, or a poorly mounted lens may affect the quality of the larger negatives.

    Once you trace the culprit you'll find, like the rest of us, that size matters.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin