So I'm really getting the itch to go 4x5 (shooting now 1Ds2 digital, and RB67 6x7cm film). I'm lucky enough to have a relative who has a spare 4x5 field camera (either a Wista, or a Wisner, which ever he chooses to send me) so I will be able to get my feet really wet, for virtually no cost! (I am very greatfull to him for this!)
Anyway, I am not really a traditional dark room guy. I'll develop my own tri-x film, but I'll then scan it in to do my processing and print prep (I print through mpix.com, which is a digital projection onto regular film paper, the results are perfect for me!). My black and white film is Tri-X, and my color film/chrome is Velvia (which I'm just now getting into). I shoot landscapes, sunsets, and a little bit of automotive stills (with landscape/sunset backgrounds).
I'm going to upgrade my scanner to an Epson v700 (from a 4490) so that I can scan in the 4x5 film. I have had great results from my 6x7cm negatives, which give me plenty to print to 11x14", which is my standard print size.
My question is concerning the scanning of 4x5 film. How much reduced grain (assuming the same developing process) will there be on the tri-x going from 6x7cm to 4x5" when printing to 11x14"? Will it be significant? This isn't the reason I'm wanting to try 4x5 (the reason is for some lens/body movement, and a bit of nostalgia!) but I'm just curious about the results? I am quite happy with the results from the 6x7 tri-x at 11x14, but I usually do just a bit of grain reduction before I do final down-sizing and sharpening before print.
Thoughts? Anyone else made this transition? How has your scanning gone? Have the results been impressively better? How large have you tried printing from flat-bed scans? (my standard is 11x14, but I may try a few larger prints)
Oh, and my other question, I have heard that Tri-X doesn't scan to well (the grain maybe?) What B&W film do you guys use when you know you will be scanning in the negative? I have gotten familiar with Tri-X, but I'm not closed to other possibilities (preferably ones with maybe finer grain when scanning?)
Daniel: I shoot/scan/print exclusively 4x5. To cut to the chase, if you get results you're happy with from 6x7cm>11x14 prints, then you'll be plenty happy with 4x5. Indeed, b/w film grain tends to be magnified by the scanning process, and coarse contrast adjustments (mainly in skies) can really add to increased visible grain. There are numerous methods to help reduce this.
Assuming you know how to best operate your scanner/software and you're scanning good originals made with good technique, you can easily print to 16x20 with very good results. A drum scan is always a better option, but drum scans can be costly.
All b/w films will scan just fine, but the granularity of the film determines the graininess of the scan/print. If you want to reduce graininess, start by using the finest-grained films. I shoot with Ilford Delta 100 and Fuji Acros. If there's sky in the image and I push the contrast hard, sure, it shows grain. Otherwise, these are excellent films that when scanned properly can be enlarged greatly.
Posted by Lon Overacker on June 10, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Daniel,
I can't speak to shooting, developing or scanning B&W negs, since I shoot all color trannies, but I did want to chime in a little anyway. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but the emulsion and/or grain structure is the same no matter what the size correct? So, the grain is the same between 35mm, 6x7, 4x5 or 8x10, right? So if you take an image using the same field of view with all these formats, the larger the format, the more information or grains/crystals will be included. and so for a given print size, the larger the format, the more detail you will be able to retain and print. Ok, that's pretty basic.
Having said that, you'll be able to scan larger, retaining detail, the larger you go with the original capture.
I also shoot 4x5 like Michael and I have had very good success printing 16x20's. I've had larger printed, but they were from drum scans. The vast majority of the time, a drum scan will give you much better detail than the flatbed will give you. However, like most things, it always "depends." And it's very true that the "operator" of both a drum scanner and a flatbed have a huge input on how well any scan is done. I have a couple of examples of where my flatbed was superior to a drum scan (please note that I blame the operator on the drum scan and I should ask to have it re-scanned.) But the resulting print from my flatbed is excellent!
Bottom line, depending on the original, you can achieve very good results scanning your own and printing to at least 16x20. Depending on the image, even much larger... it depends.
Lon
Posted by Daniel Buck on June 10, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Thanks for the replies yall :-) I guess I was just looking for confirmation on my own thoughts, looks like I should have no troubles!
Discussion
4 repliesAnyway, I am not really a traditional dark room guy. I'll develop my own tri-x film, but I'll then scan it in to do my processing and print prep (I print through mpix.com, which is a digital projection onto regular film paper, the results are perfect for me!). My black and white film is Tri-X, and my color film/chrome is Velvia (which I'm just now getting into). I shoot landscapes, sunsets, and a little bit of automotive stills (with landscape/sunset backgrounds).
I'm going to upgrade my scanner to an Epson v700 (from a 4490) so that I can scan in the 4x5 film. I have had great results from my 6x7cm negatives, which give me plenty to print to 11x14", which is my standard print size.
My question is concerning the scanning of 4x5 film. How much reduced grain (assuming the same developing process) will there be on the tri-x going from 6x7cm to 4x5" when printing to 11x14"? Will it be significant? This isn't the reason I'm wanting to try 4x5 (the reason is for some lens/body movement, and a bit of nostalgia!) but I'm just curious about the results? I am quite happy with the results from the 6x7 tri-x at 11x14, but I usually do just a bit of grain reduction before I do final down-sizing and sharpening before print.
Thoughts? Anyone else made this transition? How has your scanning gone? Have the results been impressively better? How large have you tried printing from flat-bed scans? (my standard is 11x14, but I may try a few larger prints)
Assuming you know how to best operate your scanner/software and you're scanning good originals made with good technique, you can easily print to 16x20 with very good results. A drum scan is always a better option, but drum scans can be costly.
All b/w films will scan just fine, but the granularity of the film determines the graininess of the scan/print. If you want to reduce graininess, start by using the finest-grained films. I shoot with Ilford Delta 100 and Fuji Acros. If there's sky in the image and I push the contrast hard, sure, it shows grain. Otherwise, these are excellent films that when scanned properly can be enlarged greatly.
I can't speak to shooting, developing or scanning B&W negs, since I shoot all color trannies, but I did want to chime in a little anyway. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but the emulsion and/or grain structure is the same no matter what the size correct? So, the grain is the same between 35mm, 6x7, 4x5 or 8x10, right? So if you take an image using the same field of view with all these formats, the larger the format, the more information or grains/crystals will be included. and so for a given print size, the larger the format, the more detail you will be able to retain and print. Ok, that's pretty basic.
Having said that, you'll be able to scan larger, retaining detail, the larger you go with the original capture.
I also shoot 4x5 like Michael and I have had very good success printing 16x20's. I've had larger printed, but they were from drum scans. The vast majority of the time, a drum scan will give you much better detail than the flatbed will give you. However, like most things, it always "depends." And it's very true that the "operator" of both a drum scanner and a flatbed have a huge input on how well any scan is done. I have a couple of examples of where my flatbed was superior to a drum scan (please note that I blame the operator on the drum scan and I should ask to have it re-scanned.) But the resulting print from my flatbed is excellent!
Bottom line, depending on the original, you can achieve very good results scanning your own and printing to at least 16x20. Depending on the image, even much larger... it depends.
Lon