8X10 Guys

[phil sweeney]

I contact print only 8 x 10 and 7 x 17.

[Robert Skeoch]

I started with just contact prints from 8x10. Then I had one shot that didn't look right at 8x10 so i sent it out to get a 16x20. As soon as I saw it I knew I was going to get an enlarger.
So now I make 20x24's and 16x20's as well as the 8x10's. I sell a few every year but make my living in other areas of photography.
I'm glad I went the enlarger route.
As far as quality between 4x5 and 8x10 .... the great thing about 8x10 is using the camera... seeing the image on the ground glass.... I don't think I could go back to 4x5 after shooting with the big ground glass the last few years. I'm sure the 4x5 would make a great print but I love shooting with the bigger ground glass.
-Rob

[Tori Nelson]

So far I have only contact printed my 8x10's but I did buy a De Vere 5108 last August. It's been sitting in storage until about 2 months ago when I moved it into my brand new darkroom. And there it still sits... and sits... and sits. I have no lens for it and am still trying to figure out what I need.
OMG, I believe I'm in danger of hijacking this thread. Sorry, I'll move the lens issue to another post.
Anyway, contact prints are beautiful but some negs really do scream to be enlarged.

[Maris Rusis]

I often think a 8x10 contact is exactly the right size. There is an aesthetic continuity in making the final photograph in the size it was first seen and committed to.

If the 8x10 ground glass image is the wrong size I stop looking.
If the image does not appeal then I won't burn an expensive piece of sheet film.
If the 8x10 neg is the wrong size I won't chase its possibilities for hours (and $$'s) in the darkroom.

I have a 8x10 enlarger but have yet to put a 8x10 neg in it.

[Michael Wynd]

Kev,
I have an 8x10 and I'm "satisfied" at the moment. Mainly because I don't have the money or a place big enough to put an 8x10 enlarger. If I could afford the money and space, then I would definitely buy an enlarger.
Mike

[audioexcels]

Enlarger sounds like a nice idea, but why not just scan the film with a decently cheap consumer flatbed? As one mentioned, 800MB isn't PS friendly, but he has never seen anything from his printer that has looked so beautiful. IMHO, I don't see why one would lose IQ from using a cheapo flatbed, wet-mounting the neg, properly post-processing it if it needs any, and print it on a nice printer. Enlarged version may be better, but by how much really?

As a side note, how much of your walls is covered with 16X20's, 20X24's, 30X40's, etc. etc.? You can use the 8X10 Contact to fill your house's walls, and have your best work professionally scanned or enlarged for a bit of money, but also put on CD in the case of a pro scan, and take even 10 images in very large sizes (60X80) of enlargement to fill a mansion....

I think it all comes down to how many large prints you intend to make and if making large prints will be of personal or commercial interest. If it is personal, I would go the more simple route of finding something either super cheap, even free to just get the heck out of my house enlarger so you can experiment, or take the majority of your images for Contact/Alt Process/Wetplate if you can do that/etc. etc. out of camera 8X10's, and use the ones "screaming" (as those put it) to be professionally enlarged via analog or digital.

As one person already said it, you've got your answers already

[Turner Reich]

8x10 enlarging worked for that guy in California, what was his name, Ansel Adams was it?

[Diane Maher]

I have an 8x10 Elwood enlarger, but no darkroom to use it in. At the moment, I do strictly contact printing.

[Brian Ellis]

If you shoot on 8x10" with a modern good quality lens and enlarge it 2x with a well aligned enlarger you get a print that can be compared to a 16x20 contact print only.
No 4x enlargement from a 4x5" or a digital print comes close to that quality. I think
Brian Ellis should make a "side by side test".

I hope you'll pass this information on to John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum, and the many other prominent photographers who've been producing magnficent 16x20 prints from their 4x5 cameras for many years. They apparently are unaware of the fact that their prints don't come close to the quality they could be getting if only they used an 8x10 camera.

[kev curry]

Thanks for all the input and encouragement, congrats and support folks, its great reading through all the different takes that you all have..... its comforting to think that many of you find contact printing to be a satisfying end result. I'm pretty excited at the thought of looking at that big ground glass, it must be awesome. I've only ever contact printed a few 5x4s so I really don't have much experience with it.... I'm thinking, I've read a ton of photo books but don't remember reading much about making contacts from big negatives. It must be quite a challenge dodging and burning a contact? Yet another learning curve. If anyone wanted to share a few tips or recommend some reading material, that would be grand.

Best
kev