Which format makes sense?

Doc W · Aug 20, 2013

A friend wants me to do a colour photo of a 'babbling brook" that will be enlarged to 2' x 6' for a poster for her shop window. I can shoot from 6x7 to 8x10 (including 5x7 although I can't seem to find any 5x7 colour film).

Which format would you use for such an application? Negative or reversal? Will 4x5 or even 6x7 do the job and is 8x10 overkill (it certainly is more expensive to scan)?

E. von Hoegh · Aug 20, 2013

Doc W said:
A friend wants me to do a colour photo of a 'babbling brook" that will be enlarged to 2' x 6' for a poster for her shop window. I can shoot from 6x7 to 8x10 (including 5x7 although I can't seem to find any 5x7 colour film).

Which format would you use for such an application? Negative or reversal? Will 4x5 or even 6x7 do the job and is 8x10 overkill (it certainly is more expensive to scan)?

I used 6x7 to make some 2'x3' displays for a booth at a machine design show, the minimum viewing distance was about 6' and they looked very good.

I'd use 4x5 for your project if it will be viewed from any normal distance.
Sadly, most don't know what a sharp print is and the quality goes unrecognised. If I was hanging a 2'x6' with my name on it I would use 8x10.

dpurdy · Aug 20, 2013

I think I might get 8x10 color film (if 5x7 isn't available) and cut it down to 5x7 size. The 2x6 shape is going to waste a lot of the 8x10 format anyway. At least 5x7 is more the right shape though still not perfect. 6x7cm would be good enough from a little viewing distance but probably wouldn't hold up for close viewing.

E. von Hoegh · Aug 20, 2013

dpurdy said:
I think I might get 8x10 color film (if 5x7 isn't available) and cut it down to 5x7 size. The 2x6 shape is going to waste a lot of the 8x10 format anyway. At least 5x7 is more the right shape though still not perfect. 6x7cm would be good enough from a little viewing distance but probably wouldn't hold up for close viewing.

Use an 8x10 with divider boards, you'll waste less film and get two shots. Now that I think of it, that's possibly what I'd do. 1:3 is a hard aspect ratio.

Ian Grant · Aug 20, 2013

Why not shoot 10"x4" with a 10x8 camera, it's quite easy to do with a modified sheath for a DDS (double dark slide), OK it's more likely to be slightly narrower in practice but that fits the 6x2 format better anyway.

Ian

cliveh · Aug 20, 2013

8" X 10" perhaps.

Doc W · Aug 20, 2013

I like the idea of two 4x10's but I have no idea where to get the proper equipment ("divider boards"? "DDS"?)

vpwphoto · Aug 20, 2013

I hope you are being paid well, or love this friend a lot, or are independently wealthy.
Color LF isn't cheap or for the faint of heart.

In the end if it's going to be scanned and screen printed... well you can see where I am going...... d s l r and rent a TS lens for the price of film and processing.

E. von Hoegh · Aug 20, 2013

Doc W said:
I like the idea of two 4x10's but I have no idea where to get the proper equipment ("divider boards"? "DDS"?)

Divider boards go in the back of the camera, they allow you to make two 8x5 or 4x10 exposures, or four 4x5 exposures on one sheet of 8x10 film. I have a set for my Deardorff V8. "DDS" in this case means "double dark slide" - what we call a "filmholder". You can modify the darkslide by cutting it in half, so it masks half the sheet, but you'll need an expendable darkslide.

Vonder · Aug 20, 2013

vpwphoto said:
I hope you are being paid well, or love this friend a lot, or are independently wealthy.
Color LF isn't cheap or for the faint of heart.

In the end if it's going to be scanned and screen printed... well you can see where I am going...... d s l r and rent a TS lens for the price of film and processing.

Or that you just love the challenge of using film to make this poster. Sometimes, the challenge is enough.

Tom1956 · Aug 20, 2013

My first thought is that none of it is going to be much good after spending any time in a shop window. Silver print, inkjet, offset ink--any of it is going to fade in no time in a shop window. May as well just shoot the 6x7 to keep cost down and spend that money having made, or making several prints so she can take one down and replace it after it fades.

ic-racer · Aug 20, 2013

I'd not waste time and money trying to conserve film by shooting 4x10. Use the whole 8x10 sheet and crop when printing. Just make sure you use the appropriate lens and aperture for your crop size.

vpwphoto · Aug 20, 2013

ic-racer said:
I'd not waste time and money trying to conserve film by shooting 4x10. Use the whole 8x10 sheet and crop when printing. Just make sure you use the appropriate lens and aperture for your crop size.

+1
do what you know.

thuggins · Aug 20, 2013

I've seen 35mm enlarged to 4'x6' with very good results. It has a lot more to do with the quality of the lens, the printing process and the skill of the photographer than the size of the original.

thegman · Aug 20, 2013

If you have an 8x10, and know how to use it, then you may as well go for it. If money is an issue, then go down to a format which suits your budget. I've never gone higher than 4x5, but if I got a job like you're to do, that's what I'd use. 6x7 is likely more than capable, but may as well have resolution to spare.

removed account4 · Aug 20, 2013

i'd use a small format and a good lens, and a lab you trust ...
i made some huge display transparencies years ago for a hotel that were displayed at
an airport ... used 35mm ( and it came out great ! )
as stated before, viewing distance is everything in a case like this ...

MattKing · Aug 21, 2013

Doc W said:
A friend wants me to do a colour photo of a 'babbling brook" that will be enlarged to 2' x 6' for a poster for her shop window. I can shoot from 6x7 to 8x10 (including 5x7 although I can't seem to find any 5x7 colour film).

Which format would you use for such an application? Negative or reversal? Will 4x5 or even 6x7 do the job and is 8x10 overkill (it certainly is more expensive to scan)?

As others have indicated, use the format that you get the best results from.

2' x 6' is well within the capability of 6x7. If you have the right lens for 4x5, that could be more than enough. If you have a 6x17 back for your 4x5, shoot roll film using that.

I tend to prefer negative film to transparency film unless I intend to project the results (or print Ilfochrome). A babbling brook may offer some extreme brightness ranges, so negative film might be best for that.

I don't have the format choices available to you. With my 6x7 equipment I would shoot two rolls - one Ektar 100, the other Portra 160 - and I would use the results that give me the colour saturation I liked best.

Which format makes sense?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency