Best kind of enlargement for an exhibition?

[John Kasaian]

I've been called to assemble an exhibition of historic photographs and I'm puzzled about whether to display the orginals (which vary in format and often in fragile condition) or to display more uniform sized enlargements, and if I go the second route, since nearly all the negatives have been lost, if it would be better to make internegatives and print conventionally, or go digital----and if digital, what sort of scanning/printing would prodive the best quality enlargements and how large can I go without the pixels "coming apart" whn viewed up close like in the Cold Stone Creamery/Williams-Sonoma/Eddie Bauer displays? As a practical consideration I'm thinking 16x20 would be adequate for the needs of the exhibit. Or perhaps 20x24? As you can probably tell, I don't really know what I'm doing here!
There are local labs that I know do this sort of work, but I'd like some idea of what sort of processes there are these days.
There is a chance that the exhibit may travel to a few locations which makes duplicating the prints more attractive.

These are B&W prints from old photo albums from the 'teens and twentys.

Thanks!

[bob carnie]

John

I am completely biased in my views here, but if these are silver gelatin prints as originals, I would consider high rez scans and then doing Lambda fibre prints and toned uniformily and sized. this will answer the fragility issue of the originals and as well you will have silver gelatin prints that exhibit the same archival properties as the originals and if done right the same look.

Bob

[Kirk Gittings]

I print exhibition photographs for a pretty well known civil rights photographer. In the past (for the Smithsonian) they were all direct silver enlargements from 35mm. Some where along the way she lost some of the negatives and now I am printing some of them from my scanned original prints. These were always very difficult to print as she never was a great technician who paid much attention to exposure and development. I actually find that by scanning the original prints on a 750 at a high res (prints are 11x14 so I stitch scans) I can virtually match the originals and sometimes surpass them on a semi-gloss inkjet paper.

[John Kasaian]

Thanks guys!

[ROL]

Pop Laval by any chance?

I'm an unrepentant silver guy myself, but at this point (not that anyone has asked) I wouldn't hesitate scanning the original photos at as high a resolution as possible, and consider having it done by a professional lab if resources allow. Printing digitally on a good paper to 16x20 seems more than adequate for most showings. As audience, I have struggled many a time to "appreciate" a photographer through original works too small to be viewed in dimly lit venues. I've seen larger D prints from 35mm negatives extremely well done (Glen Denny's Yosemite Camp 4), but the spirit of the photographer, if no longer available to assist in the reproduction process, seems to me to be more faithfully represented, albeit in contemporary form, by precision scanning of original photos and as faithful a representation as possible, in any print form.

[Jim Galli]

If the photographer is famous, ie. Dorothea Lange, Imogen Cunningham, et al, I would want to look at the originals. If the photographer isn't really important but the scenes are, (like some one finding my negs of Tonopah in 50 years) then, I'd scan originals and print whatever works well digitally.

I'm convinced 99.8% of viewers want to look at pitchers and could care less how they are made.

[Drew Wiley]

I've done plenty of copy/restoration onto darkroom papers. It's pretty amazing what can be done, and at least one can simulate the look of a silver prints onto a new silver print pretty convincingly, which is exactly what people were willing to pay for. That formula wouldn't work so well for an old tintype or something like that. Nowadays everyone is doing this kind
of thing digitally, which Fauxtoshop is so well engineered for. I once restored a group shot in an old print so damaged by fire that nobody's face in it was recognizable. Out came all the infrared copystand techniques, and sure enough, I good a clean
good neg finally, and a very nice looking print ... all except one face which was totally destroyed. I simply faked that in on
the 8x10 neg - literally painted it on with pencil and dye, and nobdody knew the difference. Lenses weren't all that sharp
back then, and nobody knew exactly what they real person looked like anyway. So faux didn't begin with Fauxtoshop. It's
been around a long time...

[DrTang]

I'm convinced 99.8% of viewers want to look at pitchers and could care less how they are made.

I'm convinced 85% of the people at any opening are there to eat cheese squares on toothpicks, drink free wine out of plastic glasses and see who else showed up... if they happen see some photos - all the better

[Drew Wiley]

Not always. I can remember a few openings where a bunch of billionaires' wives showed up. And at that point in my life I didn't even know what a good wine tasted like. I knew about cheese (I'm a direct descendent of the founders of the Tillamook cheese empire). Then some smelly hippy-looking guy in a dirty serape kept coming into the gallery and the director
kept trying to get him to leave. Turns out he had a Rolls Royce parked around the corner and about twenty grand in wadded
bills in his pocket. So he did walk out with several prints and no cheese at all!

[DannL]

I can't speak for the digital methods, having banished myself from those realms, but several years ago I was surprised when I discovered how easy it was to make an enlargement from a small vintage photo. The original circa 1880's photograph about 3"x4" and I enlarged it to 16"x20" almost effortlessly. To this day it still hangs over my desk.

I made a close-up exposure of the original with a 4x5 camera. The photograph was lit front one side with a single 60 watt incandescent bulb. After developement I enlarged the 4x5 negative onto 16x20 Ilford MULTIGRADE IV RC glossy paper. It did take two sheets of film to get the correct exposure, and I did have to use a bit of paper from a sheet for test strips. The only oddball item that I used was a Jobo drum that could accommodated a 16x20 sheet, but I am sure I could have used trays just as easily.

I don't know how that could possibly help in the OP's situation, but when the negative is no longer extant it may be enough to encourage someone to take the traditional path to enlarging. It worked nicely for this silver gelatin type photograph.