Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Gulstene" <kevin@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 9:48 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] What contributes most?


> The other week I rented a 4x5 camera to satisfy a long interest in trying
> large format.  I was startled by quality of the prints that resulted.
They
> seemed to be much "richer" (can't think of a more descriptive word), and
> portrayed fine details as well as subtle tonal transitions much better
than
> I was able to with 35mm or medium format.  Over the past two and half
years
> I've worked with different scanners, different film, lots of scanning
> techniques, and even more Photoshop techniques, but this simple change
> eclipsed all the others in terms of contribution to my perception of the
> quality of the print.

I remember that feeling when I first moved to 4x5. I started with 35mm, then
6x6, then 6x7. It continues to get better as you get larger. There is a
difference between 4x5 and 8x10 but not nearly as large as going up from
35mm to 4x5. As you said it is not just about sharpness but about capturing
more detail that provides more subtle tonal transitions. The other important
fact is that once you move from roll film to sheet film, you have
development control over each negative. The logistical disadvantages are
obvious but for what I like to do they are worth it.
>
> Obviously some cameras are best suited to some tasks.  In this little
> experiment it was a simply lit still life and I was judging quality
> primarily in terms of that 'richness', and the subtly of tonal transitions
> (scrupulously avoiding DyR and DnR <g>).

(Oh thank you!<G>)

>
> That led me wonder what other people felt contributed most to improving
the
> quality of their images over their digital learning curve?

I would have to say negative size and then scanner quality. I also think
these are linked. In traditional photography most people stopped at 4x5
because 4x5 enlargers were more available and cheaper than enlargers that
would take 5x7 or 8x10 much less 11x14.

With scanning this situation is completely reversed. In general, you need a
more expensive scanner to get good results with a small 35mm or medium
format negative than you would with a large sheet film negative. An
inexpensive flatbed might have a tough time with the small negs but do well
with the big ones. In fact if I was buying a view camera now I would go to
5x7 for the extra negative area without getting as large and cumbersome as
8x10.

Just as an aside it is easier to see the ground glass in the larger 5x7 and
8x10 cameras than in the 4x5 which can be a challenge outdoors at times. The
view through an 8x10 is quite impressive.

Martin