Digital BW, The Print

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

> view through an 8x10 is quite impressive.
> 
> Martin

From: "antonisphoto" <antonisphoto@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What contributes most to image quality?


> Martin,
>
> good point about the format choices in the "darkroom days" - remember
> those?? Even 5x7 was prohibitive because it forced either an 8x10 enlarger
> or some extinct Durst.
>
> Now the question is does the baby Howetek cover 8x10 and.... are you
> starting to look longingly at a Deardorff? !! <s>
>
> Antonis
>
> < oh, but lugging those 8x10 neg holders will kill you...! >
>
Antonis,

Well the Howtek specs say a scanning area of 11x10.2" so in theory it works
but I have heard anecdotal comments that it won't. I may find out in a
couple of weeks. I think my thoughts are more on trading up from my Canham
DLC 4x5 to the Canham MQC 5x7 with the accessory 4x5 back. At least 2 of my
4x5 lens should cover 5x7 and the weight of the film holders does not grow
so dramatically as the 8x10's and I could switch to 4x5 if I needed to
travel far from my car. All these choices. Its a tough world. <G>

Martin

(snip)

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "antonisphoto" <antonisphoto@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What contributes most to image quality?
> 
> > Martin,
> >
> > good point about the format choices in the "darkroom days" - remember
> > those?? Even 5x7 was prohibitive because it forced either an 8x10 enlarger
> > or some extinct Durst.
> >
> > Now the question is does the baby Howetek cover 8x10 and.... are you
> > starting to look longingly at a Deardorff? !! <s>
> >
> > Antonis
> >
> > < oh, but lugging those 8x10 neg holders will kill you...! >
> >
> Antonis,
> 
> Well the Howtek specs say a scanning area of 11x10.2" so in theory it works
> but I have heard anecdotal comments that it won't. I may find out in a
> couple of weeks. I think my thoughts are more on trading up from my Canham
> DLC 4x5 to the Canham MQC 5x7 with the accessory 4x5 back. At least 2 of my
> 4x5 lens should cover 5x7 and the weight of the film holders does not grow
> so dramatically as the 8x10's and I could switch to 4x5 if I needed to
> travel far from my car. All these choices. Its a tough world. <G>
> 
> Martin
> 
> (snip)
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/