Digitizing 4x5" Negatives?

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Drum scans sort of suggest to me the only reason the photographer is using 4x5 is the potential size they can print at, but if that were a consideration why not use digital?

 

Fine art gallery prints can be made from V700 4x5 scans easily up to 20x24 and without anybody whining about quality. If you want to print bigger than that it becomes like SHOUTING and the picture doesn't get any better because its bigger, so find a smaller wall that needs filling.

[Martin B]

Thanks for all the good advice and suggestions I have received here! I consider to get the V700/800 scanner in the near future to digitize the 4x5" negatives. Drum scanning is probably the ultimate best to achieve a superb digital file, but I think I am not going there (yet). My task is rather to make good silver gelatin prints from these negatives on 11x14" paper or maybe even larger in the future (I have two Beseler 45M and 45MXT enlargers). The digitizing is more on the side for me to post my taken images online that others can see them, too. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[LorenzoLandini]

Drum scans sort of suggest to me the only reason the photographer is using 4x5 is the potential size they can print at, but if that were a consideration why not use digital?

 

Fine art gallery prints can be made from V700 4x5 scans easily up to 20x24 and without anybody whining about quality. If you want to print bigger than that it becomes like SHOUTING and the picture doesn't get any better because its bigger, so find a smaller wall that needs filling.

 

 

I am not sure I follow you... 4x5 is indeed great and rewarding if your prints are large. If you don't print large, you can avoid the drum scanning and most likely you can avoid a cumbersome 4x5 altogether. And digital would not make your life easier if you want to print large. To get the same resolution, rendition and overall quality of a 60-inch print from a 4x5 drum scanned negative, you need a medium format digital back with 60+MP, which costs 10-15 times more than a 4x5. Secondly and without having a digression on film vs digital, a large print from a negative has a very particular look and rendition that is different from a print from a digital back. It has to do with the rendition of grain vs noise, with the former more pleasing to the eyes for many photographers. 

 

In my experience, in a print 16x20 and bigger you would start noticing a difference between drum scan and flat bed scan. Very subtle at 16x20, more obvious as the print gets bigger. 

 

Now, if you don't care about large prints or if you don't have a big wall to fill, then that's great, good for you. However I respectfully disagree with your comments that a print larger than 20x24 is not worth or it's like shouting. And I believe there are many photographers in this forum that would disagree with you (and probably with me too as it's a matter of opinions). 

[250swb]

I am not sure I follow you... 4x5 is indeed great and rewarding if your prints are large. If you don't print large, you can avoid the drum scanning and most likely you can avoid a cumbersome 4x5 altogether. And digital would not make your life easier if you want to print large. To get the same resolution, rendition and overall quality of a 60-inch print from a 4x5 drum scanned negative, you need a medium format digital back with 60+MP, which costs 10-15 times more than a 4x5. Secondly and without having a digression on film vs digital, a large print from a negative has a very particular look and rendition that is different from a print from a digital back. It has to do with the rendition of grain vs noise, with the former more pleasing to the eyes for many photographers. 

 

In my experience, in a print 16x20 and bigger you would start noticing a difference between drum scan and flat bed scan. Very subtle at 16x20, more obvious as the print gets bigger. 

 

Now, if you don't care about large prints or if you don't have a big wall to fill, then that's great, good for you. However I respectfully disagree with your comments that a print larger than 20x24 is not worth or it's like shouting. And I believe there are many photographers in this forum that would disagree with you (and probably with me too as it's a matter of opinions). 

 

There's a countryman of yours called Ansel Adams, now sadly dead, who was a photographer. Other than specimen prints the vast majority of his output using large format cameras was, say, 20x24'ish or below. Why? Because they are human scale images, meant to draw people into the landscapes he photographed, and not to make them stand back. His was a very different way of working than simply demonstrating a technical proficiency, such as 'how many yards worth of image will this or that technique make', or nowadays 'what can this volume of pixels be inflated to before the balloon bursts'?

 

Like Ansel Adams there are other photographers who can and do go beyond being a technician ('art' has a long tradition in photography) and who recognise the viewer feels the artistic photograph from the heart and in a very different way to those emotions when buying acres of decorative wallpaper. Those 'art' photographers realise that bashing viewers over the head with shock and awe is a crude approach, much more befitting a technician who prefers to demonstrate a particular skill by ramming it down the throat of the viewer. So it may be worth you investigating the print sizes of a vast array of photographers who can be pigeonholed into the 'great American landscape tradition'. Along with Adams you could include Weston, White, Evans, Caponigro, Shaw, Meyerowitz, and many more, the list is long and very esteemed. They all (more or less) resisted the temptation to use large format has a hammer but instead as a delicate tool, exploiting the technical aspects such as endless detail, tonal gradation, and camera movements with a final image that isn't then robbed of its intimacy by overblown scale. Many indeed were simply contact printed and avoided the enlarger entirely.  So check the local library, Photography (History of).

Edited February 28, 2017 by 250swb

[LorenzoLandini]

There's a countryman of yours called Ansel Adams, now sadly dead, who was a photographer. Other than specimen prints the vast majority of his output using large format cameras was, say, 20x24'ish or below. Why? Because they are human scale images, meant to draw people into the landscapes he photographed, and not to make them stand back. His was a very different way of working than simply demonstrating a technical proficiency, such as 'how many yards worth of image will this or that technique make', or nowadays 'what can this volume of pixels be inflated to before the balloon bursts'?

 

Like Ansel Adams there are other photographers who can and do go beyond being a technician ('art' has a long tradition in photography) and who recognise the viewer feels the artistic photograph from the heart and in a very different way to those emotions when buying acres of decorative wallpaper. Those 'art' photographers realise that bashing viewers over the head with shock and awe is a crude approach, much more befitting a technician who prefers to demonstrate a particular skill by ramming it down the throat of the viewer. So it may be worth you investigating the print sizes of a vast array of photographers who can be pigeonholed into the 'great American landscape tradition'. Along with Adams you could include Weston, White, Evans, Caponigro, Shaw, Meyerowitz, and many more, the list is long and very esteemed. They all (more or less) resisted the temptation to use large format has a hammer but instead as a delicate tool, exploiting the technical aspects such as endless detail, tonal gradation, and camera movements with a final image that isn't then robbed of its intimacy by overblown scale. Many indeed were simply contact printed and avoided the enlarger entirely.  So check the local library, Photography (History of).

 

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your original comment as I perceived a bit of mocking of large format photographers. I was also not diminishing the many other - and often more important - reasons to use a 4x5. 

 

But the fact that someone disagree with you doesn't mean that doesn't know anything about photography. I appreciate your comments but please be open mind to others... I have a pretty extensive knowledge of photography. I probably have 100+ photography books (monograph on photographers, not "how do" books), I know every photographers you mentioned and many others and - by the way - I have a good understanding of several alternative photographic processes for contact printing. So, perhaps I don't need to go the library... 

 

While I don't disagree with you, the size of prints have been historically highly constrained by the printing process and most photographers were printers. Ansel Adams was actually a great master printer and a good photographer, not the other way around. As you mentioned, in the early days it was the size of the negative to dictate the size of the print. A silver gelatin print is constrained by the size of the enlarger. Ansel Adams used an enlarger for 8x10 negatives that was mounted horizontally to be able to print larger than 16x20... not easy.. If Ansel Adams had the option of printing 30x40 inches or larger I bet he would have done it or have experimented with it. 

 

Things have changed in the 90s with digital. Among the pioneers of large prints early adopting a digital printing workflow were a few photographers coming out of the Dusseldorf school of photography, among them Andreas Gursky who was the first to take advantage of the workflow to print large, very large. He was still using a Linhof Master Technika 4x5 and scanning its negatives. He start doing panorama because that was the only way to have even larger prints as the width of the paper was its limitation. Regardless of my opinion, I believe it has been clearly stated by a number of photography curators that a print of that size offers a different viewing experience from far away as well as from up close and everything in between. This put photography under a new light with large prints now able to compete with painting for attention on the wall as well as for cash. Photography entered into a totally new dimension. Printing large with a digital workflow was a game changer and it's not a matter of being better than before, it's just different. And the art and photography words have room for a new creative experience. I believe the Tate Gallery has two of Gursky's photograph, maybe you should go to see it with your eyes... it is.. eyes-opening... 

 

25 years forward,  while there is still room for beautifully crafted and printed 8x10, 8x12, 16x24 etc prints, there is a market (demand and supply) and an appreciation for bigger prints. Thankfully, there is an increasing interest for contact-printed photographs and the appreciation for silver gelatin prints is as strong as ever. There are options for every pocket, taste and wall size.

 

I totally agree with you that there are other reasons why someone may like using a 4x5 but often the ultimate size of the prints is one of the factors for many of them. Personally, the movements are my number one reason, then the tonal gradation and finally the beautiful details. Once you have those beautiful negatives and files, there is a true temptation for printing some large photographs, not all the photographs are suitable for large prints, but some are. If I had an 8x10 camera, probably I would craft carbon prints though ... 

 

Happy shooting... 

[pico]

There's a countryman of yours called Ansel Adams, now sadly dead, who was a photographer. Other than specimen prints the vast majority of his output using large format cameras was, say, 20x24'ish or below. Why? Because they are human scale images, meant to draw people into the landscapes he photographed, and not to make them stand back.

 

Thank you for a profound statement which has a long time waiting to be stated. Human scale, viewing distance. I  have had the pleasure of recently  viewing Adams' prints in local gallery. His work was unfortunately enlarged to a scale that persuaded me step back too far for the gallery's dimensions.  There was nothing to gain by moving closer. Normal viewing distance is defined for a reason.

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am enjoying my 4x5 camera a lot - shot both with Leica M and with 4x5 this past weekend. Digitizing by photographing two seperate photos of the backlit 4x5 negative and merging them together in PS works well for me. I get an image about 9300x7200 pixels in size - more than sufficient. Below two photos which I took on Sunday afternoon with Kodak TMax 100 4x5" film and developed in Rodinal (1:50).

 

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Martin B

[Keith (M)]

A quick grab shot (Q) of something that has been hanging on the end wall of my study for the past ten years (a 60th birthday present). With an image size of circa 22.5 x 17.5" it is eminently viewable from my desk at the other end of the study.  A ready source of inspiration

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[250swb]

Thank you for a profound statement which has a long time waiting to be stated. Human scale, viewing distance. I  have had the pleasure of recently  viewing Adams' prints in local gallery. His work was unfortunately enlarged to a scale that persuaded me step back too far for the gallery's dimensions.  There was nothing to gain by moving closer. Normal viewing distance is defined for a reason.

The Adams estate has a lot to answer for, the great shame being vintage prints are now locked away in museums.

[chrism]

The bigger the negative the less you have to worry about whether your scanner is 'good enough'. There isn't much difference between my X1 and my Epson V850 with 4x5 negatives (can't say the same for smaller formats). This is a JPG exported from an X1 TIF, just to show the whole image:

Campbell House 6 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

Here is another X1 scan of the same negative, this time as a full blown .fff, then saved as a best quality TIF in FlexColor, with a 100% crop of some details:

 

and here is the same negative scanned at 3200dpi on the Epson (giving roughly the same size file), and cropped to the same area:

 

Not much to choose between them—big negatives are very forgiving, and pretty much any scanner will be able to see the wealth of detail they hold.

 

Chris

[pico]

The Epson wins, but I would be happier if the grain were sharper, but I've not been able to capture it any better.

[pgk]

Use a macro lens and shoot at sufficient magnification to image the grain viably. Multishoot RAW files, adjust all at same settings and stitch. I've found this to be a very effective solution. Beat any scanning I've tried or had done.

[Jeff S]

OP checked out of thread a year and a half ago.

But to address Steve’s (250swb) post regarding Adams’ vintage prints, these are available for viewing at the Center for Creative Photography in Tucson (along with negs, correspondence, etc), and exist at various public galleries and through photo dealers.  Museums, however, will give private viewings of vintage prints upon request; I’ve done this at various museums, for many photographers.

Jeff