The modern position with 4X5...

[Bobbo]

I'm new to this forum although I have been watching what goes on here for a while and have more than a passing interest in LF since I was once a qualified technical and industrial photographer. However, for many years I have been a disenchanted photographer who never touched a camera unless severely pushed. In my teens and twenty's I eat, slept and drank photography and carried the firms 4X5 kit into the country at weekends and holidays to make many successful (and profitable) landscapes and still-life shots on the 'Ektachrome' 25 A.S.A. sheet film which was more or less the only colour positive material of that era for LF.

When I stopped being a photographer I got rid of most of my gear as fast as possible but my wife insisted on keeping a Tele-Rolleiflex and my M.P.P. Mk7 with some Schneiders and 10 d/d slides, together with an early 'Benbo' tripod and some Weston meters.

In recent times several matters have conspired to cause me to use a small point and shoot 35mm camera,..albeit initially reluctantly,.. when the young military musicians who I instruct met the Queen I wanted my own keepsakes and my walking holidays in the Welsh-English border country started to make me long for some nice, big transparencies of the fantastic scenery. Eventually, the MPP came out of the loft and has accompanied us into the hills, much to my wifes pleasure and satisfaction!...this time with Fuji 'provia'.... I must admit that the transparencies are wonderful and have pleased me greatly and increasingly.

The only problem is scanning. so far results using a borrowed Epson '2450' have been very dissappointing despite the excellent reputation of this scanner on the web and elswhere. My research so far suggests that there is a big differential in peoples expectations and tastes, not to mention their eyesight, when using falt-bed scanners.

So, what this long-wided post has been about is; Does 4X5 photography have a modern place without the £20,000 scanner?......Should I pop the MPP back in the loft and get a nice digital SLR,....even tho' I hate the 35mm equivalent??......I'm not getting any younger so the lighter load would be very acceptable provided 10 millpixels equals the best flat-bed/4X5 tranny.....

Obviously, most of you nice people here are LF enthusiasts who enjoy using these cameras in preference to SLR's etc.,....I can easily identify with that but how much better are your results when scanned to a quality digital capture straight from the lens.

Your comments and helful advices would be very valuable.

[Charles Twist]

I doubt there is a quick answer to that one. I seem to recall some number crunching going on, on the lines that a scanned 5x4 equated to a couple 100 million pixels. Give digital a few years and it might catch up. Beyond that there is the question of how faithfully a scanner reproduces. You'll get plenty from Joanna and others about the technical aspect and I leave that to her, as I honestly cannot say what the difference between a £400 and a £20,000 comes down to. Quentin will also have a lot to say about the place of the 5x4 in the modern digital routine.
Personally, as long as the digital view cameras with bellows and full movements are not fully transportable and autonomous in the hills, they're no use. And that's before you look at the price tag. At the end of the day, it's a matter of what one enjoys using, what one is comfortable with and what comes with an acceptable efforts:results ratio.
Charles

[percepts]

If you have a good epson photo printer, a 360 dpi print will be very good quality if your camera is upto it. But if you want a full 20x16inch print at 360dpi then you'd need a pixel array of 7200x5760 which is about the size of the new 40Megapixel Hassleblad base system which costs £16600 plus VAT. And that doesn't include lenses.
A 16 megapixel camera only gives you around 4500x3000pixels which doesn't cut it for the highest print quality at 20x16.

On the other hand, an epson scanner, say a 4990 or an F-3200(which I have) will easily scan at a high enough res to also give exceptional quality prints at 360dpi. And at less than £500 for the scanner its a no brainer which is the route to go unless you can can cost justify the much more expensive system.

Note that scanners like the 4990 and F3200 can only actually resolve around 2000- 2500 dpi from the neg/tranny. What that means is that whilst they have 4800 or 3200 sensors per inch, the rest of the optical system isn't good enough to get that amount of detail out of a neg/tranny.

But 2000 dpi out of 4x5 neg gives you 10000x8000 pixel array.

Also note that the theoretical 4.0dmax for these consumer level scanners is vastly overstated. That means that they struggle to get shadow detail out of tranny's and for that reason many use colour negs which have less negative contrast than tranparencies and therefore scan better so I'm told.

i.e. a £200 to £500 consumer scanner is capable of giving excellent quality upto around 20x16 print from a 4x5 neg. For the occasional bigger print then you can send them for drum scanning and you will still have saved yourself a lot of money over the digital kit which will be out of date next week anyway.

In the end it comes down how big you want to print and what your quality criteria are. Oh, and don't forget that you get the benefit of camera movements with 4x5.

[sandeha]

Does 4X5 photography have a modern place without the £20,000 scanner?

Unequivocally yes, though still, as you say Bobbo, much will be down to your expectations of what you want. It's easy enough to argue that if your images are only going online then a digicam or a 35mm p&s (and a lot of PhotoShop) will be adequate. And if you want to print then, logically, the larger neg can produce the finer image.

If you want to print, then the comparison needs to be as much between darkroom and software workflow as say, between 4x5, 6x6, and 35mm. If I've read you aright, since you talk about scanner quality, then the nub of your question might be whether the "shoot film, print ink" ethos/workflow is valid. Flatbed scanners, like the latest Epson whatever, do good work if (and it's a significant learning-curve kind of if) you can achieve what you want with the right post-processing techniques, the right inks and paper, and the right printer.

But then again, if your question is to compare digital capture with film, a DSLR with a 4x5, then the question of final print size is paramount. If the trannies on a lightbox are what matter, would viewing on an LCD monitor cut it for you? Possibly not, as perhaps nothing but the large tranny can provide that particular excitement. For myself, if I worked mainly in colour I would be very tempted by the latest 6x4.5 digital cameras and plasma screens ...

None of the above apply to my own reasons for shooting with large format, since above all else I value the movements of the standards and bellows for home-processed black and white ... modern-day flatbed scanning has brought that within reach for me.

[percepts]

also you say your test results were disappointing. How did you view those results?

remember that a modern screen has approx 96 pixels per inch resolution. If you print at 360dpi you would be squeezing 4 times that many pixels into the same space. That makes the print look much sharper compared to what you see on the screen. So you cannot judge print quality by looking at the screen. Even if you display at print size on screen, it won't look as good as an actual print. Your screen image will always look soft by comparison.

[Joanna Carter]

Bobbo, as Charles mentions, I have had very good experience with scanning 4x5 trannies. I recently did an exhibition, in which two prints were 40"x32", taken from scans done on an Epson 4870 flatbed scanner at 3200dpi and printed on a LightJet printer by Pro2Col labs. They were stunning !!! And that's not just my opinion

I gather that the 2450 is not really up to the job, but the newer scanners, say from the 4870 onwards are definitely worth it. As to the DMax level, I personally haven't had any problem with all but the darkest of shadow detail (the kind that needs a very bright lightbox to see).

As to things like screen rendering of images, finished colour balance/levels, etc; much depends on getting your monitor, scanner and printer profiled. The importance of good profiling cannot be emphasised enough and is worth every penny spent on achieving it. Monaco EZ-Color is by far the most cost-effective package available, the only extras I found useful were film scanner target from www.targets.coloraid.de which are available for different film base types.

As to whether 4x5 photography has a modern place without spending oodles of dosh, then my answer would be an emphatic "Yes". If you should need further help in achieving this "nirvana", this is the best place I know

[dennis]

Hi,
I scan on a 4990 & an agency I supply expects 5 x 4 trannies scanned at 1000 dpi so this is presumably sufficient for most 'normal' purposes. It does take time to go thro tho! Good luck. Dennis

[Tim Myers]

Does 4X5 photography have a modern place without the £20,000 scanner?

Absolutely! There are a great many photographers out there still shooting film and printing traditionally, that's not just in the LF arena but in the smaller formats too. Personally I have very little need for scanned images. I have an Agfa ScanDuo T1200 which I use simply for low-res scans for my website etc.

All my printmaking is still done traditionally as Cibachromes. I've not found a compelling reason to make these prints digitally, even though I dabbled for some time making very big prints from MF on an Epson 7500.

My move in to LF has in many ways simplified my image making, made it a far more contemplative process for me. As a result, I feel that the traditional print is far more complimentary to my images than scanning and printing.

I could forsee situations where I'll need to, say, remove a fag packet or change the colour of a fridge, and at that point I would invest in a professional scan of the rogue image, correct it and have it printed as an Ilfa/Light/Whateverjet, but it's not the direction I see my photogrpahy progressing in over the next few years.

This isn't to say that I'm against digital imaging; far from it. There are many areas where I: a) appreciate the time and cost implications that a soley digital workflow can provide, and b) actively use digital capture in certain arenas. I'm just far happier working in the 'traditional' space at the moment.

[Bobbo]

Just a 'Thank you' to everyone who reponded to my long-winded first post. I have carefully re-read your posts and noted some important points therein.

I have decided to persue the 4X5 format, at least for the time being, although it will of neccesity have to be a hybrid activity using flat-bed scanner(s)

Any other hard won information or techniques which anyone might like to add would be gratefully recieved!...

[Joanna Carter]

Bobbo, you say you have an MPP; what other equipment do you have and what kind of photographs do you intend to take (apart from excellent ones ) ? By this I include B&W or colour, and which film you used/foresee using. Have you considered using Quickload or would you stay with double dark slides ?

[Bobbo]

Hi Joanna,.....I'm only intending taking a few 'excellent' ones, but hope to make up the balance in 'superb' onesjavascript:emoticon('8)')
Cool

Apart from MPP MK 7 and lenses/dkslides I don't have any LF gear....

Thinking I might look around for a lighter camera and ideally a SEI spot photometer (I was trained in it's use and miss it despite the 30 year gap!!)

I'm mainly interested in landscape and still life at this stage....

I'm ashamed to say that I only have a vague idea what a 'quickload' might be,.....so will be happy enough with dd's for now.....loaded with Velvia/Provia. In my last photographic incarnation FP 3 and 'plusX' were 'deved' in D76,...sometimes even HP 3..! So, I might be trying some TriX/D76 once I sort out some suitable processing gear,...looking at 'Jobo' processors at the 'mo.

Edit;...OK! someone fill me in on the use of Emoticans please.....I thought you just 'dragged and dropped' but as usual I was wrong!

[Joanna Carter]

Hi Bobbo

Thinking I might look around for a lighter camera and ideally a SEI spot photometer (I was trained in it's use and miss it despite the 30 year gap!!)

Wow, I just looked up what one of those is; talk about a blast from the past You might be better off getting something a bit more modern and easier to use; take a look at either the Minolta Flashmeter VI or the Sekonic 558. They are both superb.

I'm ashamed to say that I only have a vague idea what a 'quickload' might be,.....so will be happy enough with dd's for now.....loaded with Velvia/Provia.

Quickload are single sheets of film in a lightproof envelope. You insert them into a special holder, ensure that the shutter is closed, pull the sleeve out until it stops (like the normal darkslide), take your exposure and then slide the envelope back in. There is a release catch on the holder which then allows you to remove the whole envelope rather than uncovering the film. They are more expensive than loose sheet film, but the lack of dust and convenience factor are quite an incentive. You can get the film at considerable discount if you know where to look.

Are you still using Velvia 50 or have you yet tried the 100 version ?

In my last photographic incarnation FP 3 and 'plusX' were 'deved' in D76,...sometimes even HP 3..! So, I might be trying some TriX/D76 once I sort out some suitable processing gear,...looking at 'Jobo' processors at the 'mo.

Might I suggest you try something a bit more modern, like Ilford Delta 100, deved in DDX ? It is one of these "t-grain" films that gives astoundingly "grain free" results, when compared with FP4 or HP5.

If you don't want the expense of Jobo processors, you could also look at Combiplan tanks; these are much cheaper, but do require a full 1ltr of chemistry to cover the film.

someone fill me in on the use of Emoticans please.....I thought you just 'dragged and dropped' but as usual I was wrong!

Just place the cursor where you want the emoticon to appear and click on your chosen icon, it will be added to the text.

[Bobbo]

Joanna,....thank you so much for your tips etc.

So far I have only used 'Velvia' in 50.

I have never seen/heard of Sekonic 558 so will take a look....

However, I have seen, examined and had a 'dummy run' with Min. flashmeter VI,.....leaving aside the flashmetering aspect which is useful, the SEI tool is vastly preferable to me since, although far simpler/lower technology it is much more usable and flexible not to mention more accurate and fast in use. Also, I know that I can easily take it apart for repair etc.....

[Quentin]

Quentin will also have a lot to say about the place of the 5x4 in the modern digital routine.

Charles

You're not wrong, Charles

I got in to large format via digital. Strange, but true. I originally purchased a 4x5 camera as a platform for a digital scanning back. However, after a relatively short while, the sheer hassle of lugging the control unit around in the field, plus the need for absolutely no wind, left me frustrated and I turned to the obvious solution - film!

However, I treat film as a data capture device, albeit an analogue one. Fortunately there are now affordable solutions for scanning large format film, so forget the £20k figure. Your best choices, in my view are

- An Epson 700 or 750 with wet mount adaptor, made by Epson, but I am not sure about its availablilty as yet (still a new product). Not tried it, but I have achieved decent results with the earlier Epson 4990 and I know Joanna has done so also with a 4870, I believe. The key to success with these Epsons is film alignment. For this reason I'd strongly recomend looking at a wet mount adaptor.

- A used drum scanner. Still the best option if quality and sharpness are paramount. You can pick up a used Howtek D4000 or D4500 for a couple of thousand pounds or so. I have a D4000 which I use to scan 8x10 film, mounted in oil. Sounds like a nightmare, but its not once you have tried it a few times. If this is your fancy, try joining my ScanHi-End yahoo group and get better advice than I can give from a couple of thousand pros who are members there.

My point is that large format can survive and prosper in a mainly digital age, and blow away the best digtal capture can offer, all at an affordable price.

Quentin

[Lee Turner]

I still print traditionally for b&w (though traditional may eventually become alternative!) and for colour use an Imacon scanner. Whilst not as sharp as a wet mount drum scanner I have had excellent results from 35mm to LF.
The other reason I like the Imacon is that I didn't have to buy it! I work above a small imaging business that has a large format Epson printer, Imacon and Epson scanners etc.
If quality is important then send your negs/trannies for scanning. The cost is quite reasonable and the results certainly better than a flat bed option. In addition you don't have to worry about upgrading hardware and software plus maintenance of the equipment.