In answer to your question Karl, I hope to be printing around A2 size (16x24" I think)...basically I'm hoping to do a portrait project in my home city of Leeds, UK, and I really want to shoot 5x4. Part of the apeal of 5x4 is the level of detail in the image, so the scan quality is kind of important. The other thing that interests me in using 5x4 is a different kind of interaction with subject...it's much slower, and more deliberate, and I think that creates a differnt kind of atmosphere in the image.
James makes the accurate point that a 16x24 will be a crop from a 4x5 image, I'd suggest sticking to full frame 4x5>16x20 unless you have need to change the format. As to the resolution for the format, I think you'll find the rather pleasant effect of shooting 4x5 is the images look better no matter what resolution they are scanned or reproduced at - I'm thinking of the little 4x5 sized images, contact prints effectively in a book I have - the reproduction cannot be more than 120 dots, but comparing those images to high res 35mm digital images splashed full page across various magazines.. the 4x5's kill them.
large format just has a whole different look :) <clippage>
For the amount of scanning I'd like to have done I reckoned I could actually buy a half decent scanner and do it myself, though the problem is whether the scans will be good enough to be useful...I would at least like to give each of my subjects a print (as a thank you for being involved), so the scans need to be at least good enough for that.
I know a lot of folk with 4x5s and scanners growing old in dusty cupboards, hence my suggestion to beg/borrow someone else's scanner before making the investment. You may find you utterly hate scanning and dread spending the time on it.
One might ask, why scan at all, if working with film...why not just print in a darkroom...? Well, I used to love spending time in a darkroom, but I actually find the best way, and perhaps the most convenient way, is to shoot and scan the film, and the use Photoshop as my darkroom. I just don't have the resources or time to spend in a darkroom unfortunately. There was a thread on here a few weeks back about Avedon's American West series (which is partly my inspiration...though he was shooting 10x8" of course) - he had a whole team of people working with him, both on the shoots and in the darkroom...I don't have that, just me and hopefully a couple of friends to assist... so scan/PS seems to be the best way forward.
I'd rather spend less time and money in a wet darkroom than in a digital one ;) I costed the RA4 processor chemistry for the college V the Epson wide format printer, and it cost us less to run the RA4 than it cost for 2 days of the Epson with comparable throughput. A lot of students also found both B&W and colour were quicker to print wet than dry - admittedly they had techs maintaining the darkroom but I still find it quicker to rattle off a dozen wet prints than dry ones - different if I just want to make one print of course, and then there's the whole look. Silver trumps grey tone inks to my eye any day. Polyester based papers and dyes for digital printers is comparable to RA4/Cibachrome, but I don't often see folks printing dye/polyester.
One more thought; unlike Avedon's series, I want to shoot colour - (interestingly my lab in Leeds doesn't even process 5x4 colour neg any more...they'll do E6, and B/W, but not colour neg...so I have to use a lab about an hour up the road...) and I wonder if scanning colour 5x4 is any more complicated than scanning a B/W 5x4...are there any pitfalls with colour reproduction, and detail that I should be aware of? Hopefully a flatbed will be good enough to make some small colour prints from, and to make a final selection for exhibition (and high res scans...)
colour? definately - the colour fidelity of scanners is generally a lot less impressive than digital cameras, and digicams can leave a lot to be desired for certain applications. Now I know we deal with perceptual colour and really, if it looks good, it IS good - but if that scanner thinks pale mauve is blue then blue is what you get. Sure you can go selecting colour ranges and shift the hue to more closely resemble what you wanted, but honestly. Then there's neg, even the best mask plugins won't really know what colour the base of your film is so be prepared to wrestle with that - OK, near enough is good enough for pictoirial applications but some folk are fussy.. E6 already has a clipped dynamic range and only ever produces very contrasty images - a neg shooter is often left flat by cavernous blacks - media designed for transmission or reflection viewing have their purposes, I see little point in mixing them unless it's an effect you're after. I do confess though I loved to shoot B&W neg and make positives with Kodak's ridiculously cheap 'fine grain positive release film' and stick them in with colour slides.. i always guaranteed a "whoaah!!" from the audience :) But E6 to print.. I have vivid memories of photographers telling printers they'd made a mistake when handed their prints (but where are all the tones I could see??)
I haven't shot any 4x5 or 8x10 colour in a while, I'd probably process it myself if I did.
k
