>Well, if you want to show your work on the web,
>you have to scan it at some point. Try to find a cheap used 4x5 scanner...
>
>There are fine art photographers who scan their 8x10 negs or slides
>to make prints, it is much cheaper than buying an 8x10 enlarger and
>setting up to do 30x40 chemical prints. The ones I have actually talked
>to pointed out the deficiencies of their digital prints. You had to put your
>nose against the print to see them, but then folks who shoot 8x10 by
>choice are usually perfectionists by nature.
>
>graywolf
There are flatbeds which will do 4x5. But you can end up with moire because
of the glass. Then there's Microtek and you're getting into the $400 range.
They're nice but not as good as a drum scan. Do those very frequently
(4x5 is often $25 per scan) and one had better be making money doing
large format.
So, for us hobbyists, the chemical darkroom is still the cheapest option.
A 4x5 or 8x10 neg or chrome still makes a nice, displayable contact print.
Personally, I've met none who care to do mural-size prints or even wall size.
That's a special requirement. But many do enlarge 8x10 to 16x20 for display.
And for that some have just used their camera body with a new back as the
neg holder & light source.
Sincerely,
Collin Brendemuehl
http://www.brendemuehl.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"
-- Jim Elliott
