4 x 5 vs 5 x 7 Enlarger: Which One?

[Sanders McNew]

I shoot both 5x7 and 4x5. I've been using an Omega D2 enlarger for the 4x5s and contact-printing the 5x7s. But I just bought an older Eastman 5x7 Model E Autofocus Enlarger. Apart from giving me the ability to enlarge the 5x7s, the 5x7 enlarger will also make it much easier to print 4x5s full-frame. It is possible to print 4x5s full-frame with the Omega 4x5s but you have to make yourself a glass carrier to do it (the Omega glass carrier still crops slightly into the image) and then the space available on the negative stage is tight.

You can buy a 4x5 enlarger for a song in most parts of the country, but the 5x7 is still expensive and big.

Sanders McNew (www.mcnew.net)

[Ralph Barker]

. . . You can buy a 4x5 enlarger for a song in most parts of the country, but the 5x7 is still expensive and big.

I think that's an excellent point, Sanders. There are probably at least one order of magnitude more 4x5 enlargers floating around than 5x7s. As such, prices on 4x5s are far more attractive, usually, than for 5x7, and parts availability tends to correspond with that fact, too. But, if one can get a good deal on a 5x7, and it fits in the darkroom space, it's not a bad choice - even if used only for 4x5 and smaller negs.

[CXC]

I use a pro lab so take my comment with a grain of salt. When I want a print to show the edges of the film sheet, with a bit of extra black around the outside, the lab has to use their 8x10 instead of 4x5 enlarger (they have no 5x7). If you might use this effect, maybe the 5x7 is a good idea.

[CXC]

Ralph, I just noticed -- did you move from San Jose to New Mexico?

[Ralph Barker]

Ralph, I just noticed -- did you move from San Jose to New Mexico?

Yep. Last September. Rio Rancho is across the river (Rio Grande) from Albuquerque. Enchanting place, as they say. Love it. See your PM, too.

[Michael Daily]

I recently got a Durst 138 with color head in trade for a DII and an Elwood 5x7 and less than $200. It is more solid, more adjustable, more evenly illuminated than any enlarger I've used, except for my Focomat Ic. There is a Durst 138 on ebay right now for $219. (The 138 IS bigger, though.)

[Capocheny]

Hi Greg,

If I were standing in YOUR shoes and I had the adequate darkroom space to hold a 5x7 enlarger (and, of course, the necessary financial resources to fund it)... I'd definitely go with the 5x7 enlarger. ANY day of the week!

When I first got into using a 4x5... I NEVER (in a hundred million years) thought that I'd now be shooting with a 5x7. But, lo and behold, I am!

So, the moral to the story is NOT to limit yourself to the current constraints! A 5x7 is only one order of magnitude away from 4x5.

Allowing yourself the room to grow makes sense in my books.

Good luck on the decision!

Cheers

[lee\c]

Ted,
you copied a line that I copied also. I am a dedicated 5x7 user. That said I like 4x5 also.


lee\c

[Andrew_4548]

For alternative eqiuipment, a De Vere 54 (not the 504 as these are later model) should cover 4x5 and 5x7. Apparently, they were made "officially" 4x5 for tax reasons after WWII but will enlarge 5x7 with the correct neg carrier (the condenser is the same as for 4x5 and there's a De Vere coldlight head available but next to hopeless for multigrade papers (G4 filter required to give equivalent to G2 colour temp then add in other filters to get harder grades thus print times are very long...) At that time, 5x7 was seen as 'professional' and 4x5 was 'amateur' so came under a different tax structure.

I've got one and it's "built to last." I was given it free a few years back as long as I collected it as the person wanted to reclaim some house space. I use a 135mm lens and it easily enlarges full frame 4x5 up to 16x20 without hitting the roof using the condenser head.