Do you enlarge 8x10 negs or only contact print?

[Cletus]

Oren -

Thanks for the comment. Your thoughts on the subject are much like mine. I rarely make 16x20 prints from any negative and even 11x14s are getting to be less and less. There's something precious and...singular?...about a perfectly done 8x10, especially when the particular subject matter is suited to a smaller print. Even more, when matted out to 11x14 or even 16x20 I think a print like this can hold up quite well against a larger print in some cases.

That fact alone is one of my biggest 'pro' arguments to myself when considering moving up to the larger format. I even thought about skipping 8x10 altogether and just going for the 11x14 camera, but for me that would be getting carried away I think. When it gets right down to it, I think the ability to make contact prints, in Pt/pd too if I want - and I really do - is probably alone worth the price of admission for the bigger camera. My whole reason for asking this question in the first place was really whether the investment of time and money into the larger format generally left one feeling limited later, when 8x10 contact prints were the max you could do yourself, without having to scan or farm your work out. That, and were they really THAT much better than an 8x10 enlargement from a 4x5 neg to be worth the trouble.

Yeah, and it never occurred to me there was even such thing as a "Benchtop" 8x10 enlarger. I thought they were all the big machine shop looking, huge stands with the height adjustable easels? My darkroom has really high ceilings and my enlarger bench is REALLY heavy and solid and could probably support upwards of 500 pounds. My big enlarger is an Omega D5XL with a 22"W x 36"L baseboard. Do you think there are 8x10 bench-top enlargers out there that would fit into this footprint? That would really be something and if I could get my hands on an enlarger like that (for less than $3 grand) that'd be all she wrote!

[ic-racer]

If you put a table-top 8x10 enlarger on a table, that may not help much with a low ceiling, compared to a floor-standing 8x10 enlarger. It may be easier to transport, however.

John Kasaian wrote that he mounted his 8x10 Elwood on a 22x48" baseboard.

The base footprint of a Durst L1840 is only 23" x 38", though, the removable projection baseboard is larger.

[Oren Grad]

Yeah, and it never occurred to me there was even such thing as a "Benchtop" 8x10 enlarger. I thought they were all the big machine shop looking, huge stands with the height adjustable easels? My darkroom has really high ceilings and my enlarger bench is REALLY heavy and solid and could probably support upwards of 500 pounds. My big enlarger is an Omega D5XL with a 22"W x 36"L baseboard. Do you think there are 8x10 bench-top enlargers out there that would fit into this footprint? That would really be something and if I could get my hands on an enlarger like that (for less than $3 grand) that'd be all she wrote!

More on the two that I mentioned: The Zone VI was designed as a bench-top 5x7 enlarger, but at least for the second version of it (not sure about the first) Calumet also offered an 8x10 head. IIRC there were two options for column length as well. Beseler offered an 8x10 conversion kit that could be used with either the 45MXT or 45VXL enlargers. If you can handle a D5XL in your space, you should be able to manage either the Zone VI or a converted Beseler.

Both are long out of production and may take a bit of patience to find. I'd guess that the Beseler conversion is a bit more common on the used market than the Zone VI with 8x10 head. If you are able to find either, it should cost a whole lot less than $3000.

[Cletus]

Oren and ic-racer,

Looks like I'll be on a new treasure hunt now and for the foreseeable future. I've considered an 8x10 enlarger several times over the past year or two and finally just wrote it off, deciding I just didn't have the space. It never even once occurred to me that there could be another option for such a big enlarger. I've even thought of somehow finding a suitable head and some rails and mounting it to the wall, but that just sounds too much like a major construction project. My ceilings are over 12' high, so that's not an issue, it's just the actual floor space and possibly power requirements that might be tough to get around. It sounds to me like an enlarger of the type you mentioned would be ideal.

Thanks a bunch for the tips - that's exactly why I post these questions here!

So...Anybody have an 8x10 Zone VI or Beseler benchtop enlarger for sale???

[Drew Bedo]

When I could get it done , in the "old days", I had a lab enlarge my 8x10 negs to 11x14 (larger cost too much to print, mount and frame). One by one, each pro lab in the Houston area closed down or stopped printing LF to paper.

The last lab I used, Hot Flash, couldb't sell off their commercial 10x10" enlarger . I think they had to pay someone to take it away as scrap.

Now no-one will do even a contact print. AZ photo will still tank develop 8x10 sheet film, but will only print from a scan.

[Neal Chaves]

I made contact prints on AZO when I first started 8X10, and they are still among the best prints I have ever made. For a few years, I used my cameras as enlargers to make occasional 11X14s, 16X20s and 20X24s. Then I converted a 4X5 Beseler myself with an Aristo 12X12 head. With a 250mm lens on this I could make up to a 20X24 on the base board, but I also discovered the value of being able to make 1:1 prints (an 8X10 print from an 8X10 negative).

This is really a great way to proof my work, and the print quality rivals that of a contact print. I only have to handle the negative once when making multiple prints, and I can go right to a larger size with it still in the enlarger. The dust, finger prints, Newton's Rings problems of contact printing are not a factor. Most of the time I go right to an 11X14, but if I do have to make an 8X10 from 8X10, it's always in the enlarger now.

My present rig is an 810V Beseler with daylight Aristo head. It sits on the same counter as my 4X5 Chromega.

[Dan Dozer]

I converted my 8 x 10 Kodak 2D camera into a horizontal enlarger. It sits on a board that hangs out over the counter top and projects onto the opposite wall. Once you find a light source (I found a 10 x 10 cold light head) the rest is pretty easy and doesn't cost hardly any money. The printing is easy, but one of the difficult things is learning how to hold our focusing scope on the wall while reaching back to adjust the camera.

One of my main reasons for switching to 8 x 10 was not image quality, it was lens selections. There a ton of different lens types to use for 8 x 10 as compared to 4 x 5 and if you're doing portait type of work, I see it as a huge advantage.

[Richard M. Coda]

I have done both, enlarging up to 16x20 (would love to do some 20x24s one day). But I prefer contact printing... just something special about them. I have also made 32x40 inkjet prints from 8x10 negs... they are very nice, too.

[jose angel]

Only contact prints from 8x10".

I often enlarge 4x5" sheets, very seldom 5x7" (in fact, right now I`m thinking to uninstall my 5x7" enlarger today, waiting for better times), and never 8x10".
I think scanning 8x10" prints at home (V750) desn`t make too much sense to me these days. By far I prefer wet printing, and for small enlargements, I don`t notice a huge improvement from 4x5" to 5x7"; I know enlarging 8x10" will show all the detail that is not shown in a contact print, but for the time being, I think I can do without it.

I always think I want to use 8x10" for "alternative" processes, but reality is that I use 4x5" way more, also digital, 6x6/6x7 and a bit of 35mm... too much stuff already. I`d need a second life to shoot more. I`m decided not to bit off more than I can chew. And I think there is still a huge space for improvement in my 4x5" photography.

[John Powers]

A benefit to 8x10 not yet mentioned is that after composing and focusing a 4x5, looking at an 8x10 ground glass with an f5.6 or 6.8 lens is like looking at a High Definition TV. I can see so much more clearly than the 4x5 Linhof I sold even with a f4.5 lens and a Beattie screen. Adjusting perspective is a dream. Beware though, it is a slippery slope. After 8x10, 7x17 or 14x17 looks so much better. Kerry is offering one of those.

I enlarge 8x10 up to 20x24. The enlarger will do much bigger. I run out of tray space and space between tray and ceiling to pull the prints out. My ceiling is 7’2”. Another enlarger to consider is a Durst 138S converted to 8x10 with an Aristo cold light. Michael Mustmansky converted the one I have. The cold light stays on the stand one inch below the ceiling. The table goes up and down to adjust to paper size, then I focus adjusting the bellows.

That rig is also a good setup for contact printing. I do 8x10 and 7x17 that way.

John Powers