4x5 compared to 8x10 in absolute image quality

[Ria]

...If (or when) I get a 5x4 enlarger, any ideas of moving to 10x8 may go away!
Steve.

No it won't.

 

[8x10Ken]

To me the arguments boil down to, you either like working in 8x or not. I do, so I that's what I have, it suits my moods. like many others here I like challenges that the size and weight of the gear present. My kit(sinar P2) is not light by any stretch but that's part of the charm.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So what you are really saying is that the Sinar P2 is part of your fitness program.

Steve

 

[JBrunner]

I use 8x10 for making 8x10 contact prints. Other than that? There isn't much after that.

 

[Steve Smith]

No it won't.

You could be right!


Steve.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

You could be right!


Steve.

Steve - it hasn't stopped my cravings either

However, practicality has - have you seen the size of a 10x8 - they are enormous

I would have to move house to get enough height to fit one in

I can see why people are so keen to contact print 10x8 - although the results are both beautiful and stunning

It then begs the question, if you are going to contact print - why stop at 10x8, why not go really big 11x14 or very silly 12x20 & above

Martin

 

[bill spears]

My ceilings are 12ft high so no problems in fitting one in but my pockets are very shallow : (
I can't really believe though that a 10x8 enlargement has any quality gain over a 5x4 one unless we talking massively huge sizes ?

One reason I would love to have a 10x8 enlarger for though, is to do photograms where you could place large (flat objects) in the negative carrier and then print on to paper in the normal fashion. I did this once with fish tails in a 6x7 neg carrier and the detail was amazing !

 

[Tom Kershaw]

One reason I would love to have a 10x8 enlarger for though, is to do photograms where you could place large (flat objects) in the negative carrier and then print on to paper in the normal fashion. I did this once with fish tails in a 6x7 neg carrier and the detail was amazing !

Could you comment on the tone reproduction?

Tom

 

[bill spears]

It's a rather hit and miss affair and the results vary depending on what subjects you use. Kind of looks like an x-ray but with more middle tones.
Thin slices of fruit worked quite well. I also got some interesting solarized effects by flashing the print to light while it was developing in the tray.

Also the prints you'll make will often be 'one - offs'

 

[Jim Chinn]

One reason I would love to have a 10x8 enlarger for though, is to do photograms where you could place large (flat objects) in the negative carrier and then print on to paper in the normal fashion. I did this once with fish tails in a 6x7 neg carrier and the detail was amazing !

Thats interesting. I remeber seeing somewhere on the web work done by a photographer who would use patially exposed sheets of 8x10 film and do all kinds of out of camera manipulations such as etching, smoking, melting, chemically treating, etc. he would then print with it on an 8x10 enlarger. Produced some very neat results.

 

[John Kasaian]

Regarding taking an 8x10 as opposed to a 4x5 into the sierras is sort of like the difference between going on an expedition and going on a hike in the woods.

IMHO expeditions are funner!

 

[Mike1234]

I so want to shoot 8x20 but I can't afford the equipment nor the materials. Even if I could finance everything I can't carry it. I also want to scan the negs to manipulate in photoshop and images of that much resolution would take "several" really good PC's tied together to edit.

Nope... for me it's just little old 8x10 or smaller and since I prefer longer formats it's 4x10.

 

[DannL]

Food for thought. Since my 8x10 and 4x5 are the same camera, just by switching out backs in order to use the different size film holders, comparing one to the other . . . the resolution is the same. Why is that?

 

[keithwms]

Wellll.... the field of view is very different... which I well know that you realize

 

[ic-racer]

Food for thought. Since my 8x10 and 4x5 are the same camera, just by switching out backs in order to use the different size film holders, comparing one to the other . . . the resolution is the same. Why is that?

When shooting 4x5 you can open up to f22, this will improve your resolution on the 4x5 film over 8x10 shot at f45.
Now when you enlarge the 4x5 negative up to 8x10 you will lose the resolution gained by opening up (and some more) so that in the end the 8x10 negative contact will win in the end.

 

[DannL]

Wellll.... the field of view is very different... which I well know that you realize

Okay, I'll accept that with some minor restrictions. The image as projected by the lens at the focal plane has not changed if you replace the 8x10 back on your camera with a 4x5 back. How does that sound?

Here's a simple way to illustrate my original question. It's silly, but I thought it would be fun. Find a standard test pattern and focus on it. Adjust for proper exposure and make the exposure of the test pattern on a sheet of 8x10 film. Replace the back on the camera with a 4x5 back. Refocus on the test pattern. Load your 4x5 film holder with the same type film used previous. Make the exposure and then develop both films. Compare the test pattern area on the 4x5 negative to the same test pattern area on the 8x10 negative. Those two areas should be equal in resolution.

I realize it didn't really need explaining, but maybe someone will find it interesting. If you're comparing resolution of 4x5 to 8x10 on two different cameras, there's a reasonable chance you will also be comparing two different lenses in the process.

 

[Pupfish]

DannL, I like the way you think-- it has helped me greatly when scaling formats to visualize not "equivalent focal lengths" but going wider and/or cropping in the same focal lengths.

 

[mikebarger]

Steve, are those 31x10.50's

Mike

 

[Vaughn]

DannL, if you take an 8x10 negative and cut it up into four 4x5 pieces, each piece will have the same resolution as any other piece and each piece has the same resolution as the original 8x10 negative. But what 8x10 has over a 4x5 is the amount of information it contains. Another test would be to fill the entire frame with the whole test chart while using both 4x5 and 8x10. Assuming the test chart is framed identically on both formats (using the same lens and moving the camera forward or back to fill the frame), the 8x10 will have 4 times the information as the 4x5 of the exact same scene.

Vaughn

 

[Mike1234]

A fairer comparison, if you need it, is to use the same camera and film but use two different lenses... a 300mm and a 150mm... all else being equal. Cut the central 4x5 area from the neg shot with the 150mm lens that contains the same visual information as the full 8x10 neg shot with the 300mm lens. Then enlarge them both to 16x20 inches. There is definitely a difference. You'll probably even see a difference on 8x10.

 

[DannL]

I agree 100 percent with what Vaughn and Mike1234 have just stated. But, in my "food for thought" statement I just wanted to highlight that the format alone might be misconstrued as having an effect on resolution. When in fact you have to move the camera as Vaughn points out, or change the lens as Mike points out, to realize a change in resolution.

Having filled the 8x10 camera ground glass with a view of a test pattern, if you switch to a 4x5 back, how much farther must you move the camera (lens) away from the test pattern to fill the 4x5 ground glass?

Variables: A 300mm lens. Test pattern is 16"x20".

I have no clue.

 

[Vaughn]

Move the camera back the present distance again (if the camera is 10 feet away for 8x10, it will be 20 feet away for 4x5). That's my best guess.

 

[DannL]

Move the camera back the present distance again (if the camera is 10 feet away for 8x10, it will be 20 feet away for 4x5). That's my best guess.

Oh, I forgot. The 8x10 is in portrait, and the 4x5 is in landscape.

Just kidding. It's a wonderful day.

 

[Vaughn]

Oh, I forgot. The 8x10 is in portrait, and the 4x5 is in landscape.

Oh! For that you just skip back two steps and do a pirouette -- that should do the trick...

Vaughn

 

[Mike1234]

Vaughn... A piro-WHAT?? Sometimes I wonder about some of my fellow LF photographers... and other times I know.