How to make prints smaller than the negative?

[captivelight]

Everyone knows that you can make make enlargements from negatives but can you do the opposite of an enlargement? Lets say I have an 8x10 negative that I want printed to a 4x5. How would I go about shrinking the original image, optically (no digital trickery here), to get a smaller version. I would like the smaller version to be sharper and have a higher resolution than a standard 4x5 contact print?

Is shrinking doable? What would I need to accomplish this task?

Best, Ben

[paulr]

Ssme film/lens/paper arrangement as making a 2x enlargement, but reversed. Lens will be closer to the paper than to the negative. You'll get better results, theoretically, if you reverse the lens, so the rear element faces the paper. Not sure how visible the difference would be. The biggest challenge may be focussing, depending on the focal lenght of the lens.

Years ago I wanted to play with this, but never got around to it.

[Richard Wasserman]

I did this many years ago with 35mm negatives printed about 3/4 inch across. They were matted and I hung them and provided magnifiers for viewing. Hey, I was 22......

[Bill Burk]

I've got an extension bellows for my Omega DII. This lets me reduce 4x5 to fit 3 1/2 x 5 7/16 in postcard paper. Similar setup would work 8x10 to 4x5 as paulr says. It is tricky focusing, because as you move lens closer to the paper you also have to move the paper farther away to make up for the fact you are getting closer to the paper. It's weird but works fine once you have enough bellows and after you get used to it.

[Leigh]

Back in the 60's I did this all the time, printing 4x5s from a Graphic press camera for a newspaper.

The real problem will be the bellows on the enlarger, and of course a long rail to support it.
You need a fair amount of extension, more than for 1:1.

- Leigh

[Sevo]

Use the enshrinker! It is trivial, provided that you have a enlarger lens for the destination format - you'll need a shorter lens as enlarger bellows usually won't stretch beyond 1:1 using the native lens for the biggest format the enlarger is built for. For best optical results you will have to figure out some way to mount the lens reversed.

[Leigh]

Use the enshrinker!
Hi Sevo,

In English that's a "delarger". :D

- Leigh

[captivelight]

Thanks for everyone's input here, I guess it's as hard as I thought it would be... At least I have enough information so I know where to start.


Hi Sevo,

In English that's a "delarger". :D

- Leigh

It could also be called an unlarger.

[bobwysiwyg]

Or CIALess.

[Steve Smith]

In English that's a "delarger

I call it an ensmaller.


Steve.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for everyone's input here, I guess it's as hard as I thought it would be... At least I have enough information so I know where to start. . . . .

It's not hard. Just raise your easel enough to bring the lens closer to the paper than the negative. I did it by putting some books under the easel. Books work well because the distance from the lens can be easily adjusted by using books of different thicknesses.

[Rick A]

The easiest way to shrink the image is to use a longer focal length lens. Use a 300mm lens for 4x5 instead of a 150mm.

[Tracy Storer]

Load your 8x10 holders with photo paper, set the camera up for 1/2 life size, shoot your negative on a lightbox.

[E. von Hoegh]

Load your 8x10 holders with photo paper, set the camera up for 1/2 life size, shoot your negative on a lightbox.

That gives me an idea....

[Ed Bray]

The easiest way to shrink the image is to use a longer focal length lens. Use a 300mm lens for 4x5 instead of a 150mm.

I found that out the hard way, when I was new to enlarging back in the dark 70s, I had a gnome enlarger and wanted to print bigger than 8x10 from 35mm so I bought a 100mm enlarging lens, it wasn't until I tried it I found out the image was even smaller than with the 50mm. I couldn't afford a WA lens at that time as they were all much more expensive, ended up buying a bigger enlarger.

[Harold_4074]

I have made a number of tiny prints sized for photo lockets (Mother's Day gifts).

Using an Omega D2, I made a cardboard "lens board" and used the retaining ring of a series-type filter holder to attach a 28mm Nikkor wide angle lens in "reversed" position. This easily allows 10:1 reduction from a 4x5 negative, although the printing time so short that it is easier to use contact-speed paper than enlarging paper.

The tiny prints are almost gem-like.

[ic-racer]

4x5 inch prints from 8x10 inch negatives. It is pretty simple and I do this a lot for making proofs. Use your 150mm enlarging lens on an 8x10 enlarger. For reductions, the rule of thumb is to use a lens with focal length equal to the diagonal of the print.

[ic-racer]

The easiest way to shrink the image is to use a longer focal length lens. Use a 300mm lens for 4x5 instead of a 150mm.

To reduce a 4x5 negative to a print 1/2 size with a 300mm lens you need 900mm bellows draw on your 4x5 enlarger. You call that easy? I call that impossible.

[Harold_4074]

Yep. And when I tried to use a 25mm lens to reduce a 4x5 negative, I found (big surprise...) that the coverage was not enough. (The same may or may not occur with a 150mm enlarging lens trying to image 8x10.) A little thinking led to the realization that a wide-angle, reversed, would be the right strategy---and it works just fine. In my case, the extra working distance below the lens due to the reverse-telephoto design was also convenient.

Of course, I was working at around 10:1 reduction instead of 2:1.....the diagonal of my print was about 10mm, and I'm pretty sure that even if I had a 10mm enlarging lens, it wouldn't have worked :(

[ic-racer]

Yep. And when I tried to use a 25mm lens to reduce a 4x5 negative, I found (big surprise...) that the coverage was not enough. (The same may or may not occur with a 150mm enlarging lens trying to image 8x10.) A little thinking led to the realization that a wide-angle, reversed, would be the right strategy---and it works just fine. In my case, the extra working distance below the lens due to the reverse-telephoto design was also convenient.

Of course, I was working at around 10:1 reduction instead of 2:1.....the diagonal of my print was about 10mm, and I'm pretty sure that even if I had a 10mm enlarging lens, it wouldn't have worked :(

If your 25mm lens does not have enough coverage to make a 10mm reduction, no way it covers a 35mm frame as a camera lens. The physics of the optics are identical in both cases. Were you using a condenser enlarger or perhaps getting intra-bellows vignetting?

If your 150mm enlarger lens has enough coverage to make an 8x10 print from a 4x5" negative, it will make a reduction from an 8x10 negative to 4x5 print. The physics of the optics are identical. You can reverse the lens if you want, but the limiting factor is the poor [relative to film] resolution of most printing papers. So you won't be able to enjoy the doubling of resolution you are entitled to have with the reduction process. So, in the end I have found no benefit in the actual prints with reversing the lens.

[Harold_4074]

Oh, I agree completely. The 25mm lens was an enlarging or projection lens, probably for half-frame 35mm or possibly 16mm.

The Nikkor wide-angle worked just fine, though. Reversing the lens was for convenience, not optical performance: my first cardboard F-mount was a bit flakey, so I reversed it using the Series filter adapter which is a lot more robust.

[ic-racer]

Oh, I agree completely. The 25mm lens was an enlarging or projection lens, probably for half-frame 35mm or possibly 16mm.

The Nikkor wide-angle worked just fine, though. Reversing the lens was for convenience, not optical performance: my first cardboard F-mount was a bit flakey, so I reversed it using the Series filter adapter which is a lot more robust.

Oh yes, I misunderstood your other post.