Printing 8x10 vs 16x20

[Michael R]

It can depend on the magnification. Especially in the case of smaller format negatives, as you enlarge to big print sizes the degree to which the image structure "holds together" can affect how we print - not only how light/dark but also contrast choices. However there are still a number of subjective aspects to how well the image structure holds up with increasing magnification.

In response to Bob's question, my personal comfort zone is in the 5x7-11x14 range (usually around 8x10) for 4x5 negatives, and 5x7-8x10 range for 35mm negatives.

[Bruce Watson]

The idea was that a larger print required more light than a smaller print, I am speaking strictly about viewing the final print.

Not in my experience. In my experience, it depends on the image. Some images like to go darker as they get bigger, some lighter, most want some changes in over all contrast, most want some changes in dodging and burning.

There's really no way to avoid a full sized proof print. If you can do it with just one, great. I've done that a few times. But usually, it takes several. I had one particularly difficult image wrestle me out to eight. But I eventually got a print I was happy with.

But if you think you can proof at 10x8 and then just print a final print at 20x16 I suspect you're in for a surprise. OTOH if you can do that, great. I was just very seldom able to do that, and again it always depended on the image.

[Vaughn]

[QUOTE=bob carnie;1230330]or what size print is your personal comfort zone??? for me its 16 x20 and 20 x24 print size .../QUOTE]

I enjoyed printing 16x20 from 4x5. A lot of room to move and play!

I believe that each print size requires its own printing technique, or look. The size of the image/print will impact the viewer differently for each size, so the printing should reflect this.

[Mat5121]

I think Bob hit it on the head when he said that the image opens up as the negative is magnified. Say you had an 8x10 halftone pattern that rendered middle grey at a viewing distance of three feet. If you were to magnify the pattern to 16x20 and remain at a distance of three feet the grey tone would appear lighter(I'm thinking of Zipatone if anyone's ever used that). Of course, in the case of a photographic print you would adjust your viewing distance but probably not to the same viewing distance to print size ratio. I think I would tend to look at a 16x20 print from a closer ratio simply because I could do it without straining my eyes. This is complete speculation on my part but it does seem like a good thing to keep in mind that it might be necessary to go a bit darker when printing larger magnifications.

Regards,
Matt

[paulr]

I've been making some 60" wide color prints and in some cases have found they needed to be lighter than the 8x10 master print in order to avoid looking oppressively heavy. But I don't know if there's anything to be generalized from this. It was obvious with these particular images.

[Drew Wiley]

Every single image is a different problem. This whole thread is like trying to write a physics formula that tells you how to make a pizza. You could either spend
a lifetime trying to figure out that kind of thing, or just let your taste buds instantly tell you whether you're on track or not. I prefer the latter approach.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Thanks. If anything it dispels the notion for me. I plan on attacking this just as I would an 8x10. Test strips to find a good starting point then using the 8x10 print to understand what needs dodge/burn. Printing one ballpark 16x20 and maybe its close enough if not adjusting from all the previous information. Printing basics, but I do see several of you mentioned that the larger the print usually requires more contrast so there may be some truth there.

[Greg Y]

I almost always increase the contrast with larger size prints.
To address Bob Carnie's question:
"This opens up a conversation for silver print makers.. what size print is easier to print??? or what size print is your personal comfort zone??? for me its 16 x20 and 20 x24 print size .. I dislike making 11 x14 and smaller prints with an optical enlarging system as the moves are harder to make."

In 4x5 & 5x7 I start by making a contact print. In roll film I never contact print but make a straight proof on a sheet of 8x10. I then work out the details on an 11"x14." When I'm happy with a bleached & toned copy of the 11x14", I make a 16x20 starting with a full size proof print & then adjusting details from there. Lately I make few 20x24" because of the recent cost increases in paper & chemicals.

[Michael Wesik]

My approach to jumping print sizes is to make a smaller mock, say on 8x10, then resize it however much bigger and use the aperture and/or enlarger power to dial in the larger print using the same original exposure. Minor adjustments with contrast are made after, if they're necessary. I've found that this is a good stating point.

[Drew Wiley]

Once again, I'd contend that each print situation is different. Even the same image in one size might potentially have a different feel bigger, deserving a different
rendering of contrast, DMax, blah blah. Only your eyes can judge. It's pretty rare to hit a hole in one. I never personally use contact sheets to evaluate negs, but
for the sake of economy, do a test strip or two, and once in awhile do land the best full print first. But more often it takes a little more work. Having some device or program or straightjacket theory to further simplify that would be utterly doubtful. Furthermore, I don't necessarily want all my prints coming out exactly the same, and don't even know which will be "best" until they are completely air-dried, toning and all. Of course I heat dry my test strips. But until the full sized print is evaluated, and re-evaluated with relaxed eyes again, all bets are off. Over time, with experience, this all gets intuitive and second-hand.