4x5 guys that have switched to a 5D

What is the largest print you would go that will still retain detail that your totally happy with

I know this would be subjective but if you are used to seeing prints big that were shot on a 4x5 and scanned, then I would take it it would be easy to say a 5D doesn't compaire but you obviouly still print off a 5D or you wouldn't be using one. What size do you print to that you are still happy with the print

Thanks

Keith, a lot depends on the image itself. Generally I'm happy with results up to 16x24, though there is some visible loss of detail at that size. Some images can go much larger than that, others can't, depending on reliance on fine detail, intricate patterns etc.

Guy

I totally agree with Guy. It depends so much on the image itself. I have some 5D images I've printed noise-free and with satisfactory detail at 30x40. How these big prints compare to 4x5's depend a lot on the details needed to make the image work for you. My average print size that I'm quite happy with is about 16x24. Most of my images at that size will look as detailed as you might find with a medium format enlargement. They won't compare with 4x5 though, and of course the larger you go, the more the difference in details recorded becomes apparent.

I have only printed 16x24 (Epson 4800) and am quite happy with the 5D print. Not quite the same level of detail as a drum scanned 4x5, but still a really nice print.

I print a lot of 24x30 and 24x36 from the 5D. At that size people start to step back a little to look, so with some images I could go bigger. There is less resolution of course, but the only people who seem to notice are other photographers. I have more very good to excellent images using the 5D. What some people forget about is the images they don't get with 4x5. But I'm not discarding the possibility of going back to 4x5.
Canon TSE lenses allow easy doubling of image size. I also really like the tilt. I think I used a tilt type movement in almost every landscape view camera image.

I am thinking of getting a 5D for myself soon and so I am always happy when I hear people say that they are able to make sharp prints up to 20"x30". However, I am not sure how this is so, because even with good drum scans (300mb) of my 6x7 film, I am often not able to make sharp prints at the 16"x20" and 22"x28" sizes. I guess it all depends on the amount of sharpness you expect from your work.

For what its worth, I was quite disappointed with Galen Rowell's large prints (16"x24" and 20"x30"s) on display at Mountain Light Gallery in Bishop. In my opinion they were blown much beyond the limit and the resulting softness is something that I didn't find acceptable.

Guys,

I'm printing a project for Marriott Hotels that consists of 8 images at 20x24 from medium and large format and 10 images at 20x28 (cropped to 5x7 format) from my 5D (a few from my 1Ds). I was a little concerned with this size but the more I get into the processing of the digital images and using PK Sharpener to work the images I'm seeing that the 5D is putting out a very good 20x28. Way better than drum scanned 35mm and even a little better than my drum scanned 645 trannies. As for comparing with 4x5 for detail and sharpness, no way to really compare them. But the funny thing about seeing the images together is that the LF images may have more fine detail but the digital kills the LF prints for overall shadow and highlight detail.

I’ve preached this many times before, the ONLY people that look at a photo for its detail are the large and medium-format photographers and not the person that will actually buy your prints. The person that's going to buy your print is looking at the overall impact of the print and could care less about the fine detail.

Anil,

While I greatly admire Galen Rowell's photography, I agree with your take on the prints displayed at Mountain Light. Most are way too large and many are a little too saturated for my tastes (and I like saturated prints). Even some of the smaller ones are quite soft in the corners and even in the center. But to reiterate Jerry's point, the buying public is not concerned with that. The gallery sells a boatload of prints.

I agree with Jerry as far as his comparison of the 5D to MF film sizes. There's always a 'it depends', but 645 or a little better is about right. My Mamiya 7 with wide angle 6x7 shots drum scanned would almost always be better in good light assuming no big crop.
There are a lot of people selling 35mm film wall art. Technically it is looking dated. But if it sells it sells. With big prints I have difficulty looking past the 35mm 'mush' and seeing the photograph.

Don,

6x7cm would ONLY be better when it comes to detail and sharpness. Where the 5D would kill the film camera is in dynamic range and image control. I gave up large and medium format for the 5D and I'd never go back. Again, most all of the prople that are buying our prints do not care about the detail/sharpness issue. Especially if the overall print looks great and is reasonably sharp and detailed.