Newbie Question: is 8x10 Contact Printing for Me?

[TortoiseAvenger]

Hello y'all:

I have been doing some studio work with my digital camera. It does a fine job, but I think with the subject matter I enjoy shooting I want to print big. (Big, to me, means somewhere around 20" x 30".) So, I've been considering MF and LF photography. I have a film background, and have successfully developed 35mm and MF color and B&W film. Frankly, I enjoy the film process more than the digital process anyway.

I've been considering my options, and I think the main reason I want to print big is that I want the viewer to really be able to savor the detail. I don't necessarily want the real estate on the wall--that to me is simply a side effect.

Eventually, this lead me to do research on 8x10 contact printing. I'm wondering if this would be ideal for me. Small size, insane detail. I've done some research on the contact print vs. enlarged debate, and it seems to mostly go in circles. I'm hoping, though, to get a notion as to whether or not this would work for me.

I'm left to wonder, if a high quality digital image isn't upsized, and is printed at 300 dpi, and the eye cannot distinguish any finer division than that, how could a contact print be any better? Perhaps it comes down to tonality more than just straight resolution? (The same holes true for negative enlargements. If the grains are smaller than the eye can see, how could there be a difference?)

Many of the forums I've read about contact prints vs. enlargements end up with something like "you'll have to try it for yourself to see." While this might be true, it isn't all that helpful to me. If I buy an 8x10 setup, I can't turn around and purchase a 4x5 one. I'd like to hedge my bets by knowing what to expect as much as possible going in. Therefore, if someone could describe what differences I might expect, it would be greatly helpful.

Some important notes:

If I were to shoot MF or 4x5, I'd have to scan in the negatives and work digitally from there. I've had an enlarger in the past, but for various reasons, I'm not interested in getting another, and I do want to print myself. So, really, we're comparing the possibilities of a 4x5 digitally enlarged negative to an 8x10 contact print, with the goal being juicy, rich, intense detail that sucks you in.

Attached is an image I shot today. It's not finished; I need to touch up the background, but this is generally what I'm interested in doing. I really want the detail on these natural artifacts to POP.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

TA

145406

[Jim Jones]

It doesn't cost much to buy a basic 4x5 outfit to see if that route satisfies you. A $100 camera, a lens that might cost a little more, and the trays and chemicals for developing satisfy the basic analog needs. Great photographs have been made with less. For optimum results LF demands more attention to detail than do smaller formats. The subtle refinements that make LF photography worthwhile take time to master. Get a copy of Way Beyond Monochrome by Ralph Lambrecht and Chris Woodhouse for guidance and inspiration.

[Bill_1856]

For better or worse, 8x10 is just small potatoes these days.

[TortoiseAvenger]

For better or worse, 8x10 is just small potatoes these days.

What do you mean by that? Cheap to get into? Or small?

I'm actually finding the cost of an 8x10 setup a bit discouraging... More just the camera and lens.

[Lachlan 717]

I'm actually finding the cost of an 8x10 setup a bit discouraging... More just the camera and lens.

You could easily get an 8x10" set-up with lens and film holders for the price of a Nikon D810 BODY. Quality has never been (relatively) more affordable!

[mdarnton]

I've been good at buying stuff. If I were to pick my "best buys" and assemble an 8x10 kit, it would come in at around $400, and I think that number would be hard to beat, except by more luck than I had.
--8x10 Ansco view, $120
--302mm Enlarging Raptar, $50 (yes, it works fine)
--Packard shutter with sync, $50
--3- 8x10 holders, $90 (you can find these all day at that price)
--a big tripod, for another $100 (also easy to find)

That's not counting developing. I opted for Vinnie's larger tanks and hangers, which added about $250, but there are cheaper ways.

For $1200 and some careful shopping it would be easy to assemble a pretty nice kit. Those numbers may seem daunting, but the quality of 8x10 has to be seen to believed, and it's worth the money. As Lachlan says, we spend that kind of bucks easily on modern new equipment that's going to be obsolete and valueless in ten years.

The part you need to think about that will really bite you is the film. I had a couple of LF cameras in 4x5 and 5x7 but couldn't justify feeding them until I discovered x-ray film. That's what flipped me into being a LF user, and with x-ray film prices being around 1975 regular film prices, I quickly decided to move up to 8x10. If I had to pay modern film costs I just wouldn't have ever done it. Color? Forget it. That's too rich for me, still.

[Alan9940]

Everything in photography (at least, analog) is a trade-off... If you plan to shoot film, then scan, in my experience the larger the film area the less demands on the scanner. For example, a relatively low cost flatbed scanner will enable beautiful, large prints to be made from 8x10 film; as one moves down in film size it seems that higher and higher quality scanners are required. When you get to MF and certainly 35mm, IMO flatbed scanners really aren't up to the task. If you shoot film and print in the wet darkroom, basically the same rules apply. No enlargement will ever, again IMO, match the quality and "look" of an 8x10 contact print. Keep in mind here that I'm talking at the highest level of printing. For fact, many years ago when I got into 8x10 I shot the same scene on the same film, processed in the same developer, etc, on both 4x5 and 8x10; then, I enlarged the 4x5 to 8x10 (only a 2x enlargement) and contact printed the 8x10...the differences were subtle, but easy to see! I remember also being stunned by the "presence" of the contact print. I was sold and didn't shoot any other format for about 10 years.

Lots to think about and consider...good luck!

[mdarnton]

I certainly agree with that, so let me add my own printing setup:
--HP G4050 scanner, $175 (good down to 4x5; crap on smaller film than that)
--Canon Pro-100 printer, $100 (Canon blows them out, regularly; they print up to 13x19")

I have a wall covered with 35mm prints and large format, all as 8x10 digital glossy work prints pinned to the wall. You wouldn't think there'd be a difference in this size and media, but there is--enough for non-photographer visitors to see it, too!

[Ben Calwell]

I had a brief fling with 8x10, but it didn't deliver the "wow" factor I had hoped for. I couldn't see that much difference between an 8x10 contact print and an 8x10 enlargement from a 4x5 negative.
Plus, at my age (a phrase I thought I'd never use), 8x10 is just too damn heavy to lug around.

[Oren Grad]

TA: if you're looking for "wow", you are likely to be disappointed. Contact printing is about subtlety of tone and detail, and IMO serves most effectively in quiet pictures that reveal themselves fully only with extended acquaintance. Many viewers will never see the differences, or will see them but not consider them important.

[Alan9940]

TA: if you're looking for "wow", you are likely to be disappointed. Contact printing is about subtlety of tone and detail, and IMO serves most effectively in quiet pictures that reveal themselves fully only with extended acquaintance. Many viewers will never see the differences, or will see them but not consider them important.

What a succinct way to say what I was trying to say! And, so true!!

[mdarnton]

I think it's time to insert something Georg Solti said to the Chicago Symphony:
We do what we do for ourselves; very few people in the audience will understand any of it.

If you are shooting for other people's standards, your cell phone should suffice.

[tgtaylor]

This is a low resolution scan of an 8x10 contact print which will give you an idea of what to expect. The distance to the downtown buildings is 8 to 10 miles.


San Francisco (from the east)

http://spiritsofsilver.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Test.2194304_large.11

Toyo 810G, 360mm Schneider Symmar-S, Ilford Delta 100. Untoned contact print on Oriental glossy RC.

Thomas

Thomas

[Neal Chaves]

Once I had a good 8X10 enlarger (a self-converted Beseler 4X5), I never made contact prints again. 8X10 contacts are very nice and that AZO paper was great, but now if I want an 8X10 print from an 8X10 negative, I make it 1:1 with the enlarger.

[Alan9940]

Thomas, and taken with that MONSTER of a lens! :D I have a 360mm Symmar-S, too, and have taken many of my finest negs with that lens. But, now that I'm getting along in my years I've settled on a 360mm Fuji which is still a hefty piece of glass, but not nearly as large as that "sandwich plate front element" Symmar lens! :)

[Ben Calwell]

"Many viewers will never see the differences, or will see them but not consider them important."
Thanks, Oren, for pointing out the inappropriate description "wow." I knew I was lacking in the "subtlety of tone and detail" department. Maybe someday (after about 40 years shooting LF), I'll see the differences and consider them important.

[Oren Grad]

"Many viewers will never see the differences, or will see them but not consider them important."
Thanks, Oren, for pointing out the inappropriate description "wow." I knew I was lacking in the "subtlety of tone and detail" department. Maybe someday (after about 40 years shooting LF), I'll see the differences and consider them important.

Profuse apologies if I wasn't clear: I didn't mean to be criticizing you in any way. On the contrary - I borrowed the term "wow" because I thought it nicely captured what the OP seemed to be getting at.

Similarly, the bit about not seeing differences or not considering them important was not meant as a criticism or a value judgment. For all of us there are distinctions in the world that we don't even perceive, and others that we do perceive but don't care about; it's just what they are that varies. It goes with being human.

[asf]

I like mdarnton's Solti quote

Have heard it before but it strikes me more now as I lug around the enormous 810G and under the load sometimes find myself wondering why
Also really enjoy shooting 5x7 but in the end only 8x10 feels really special
I've been scanning negs for a while but think it's time to get back to contact printing

[Maris Rusis]

A friend prompted me to think about why I chose the 8x10 black and white contact photograph as my principle form. This is what I wrote:

The 8x10 contact is a canonical form with a deep history in photography.
Grievous error aside all 8x10 contacts are technically equivalent; mine, yours, Ed Weston's, Ansel Adams'.
No upgrade is possible or necessary.
No grain ever. Infinite sharpness and gradation are available with no particular effort.
Cheap materials. From go to whoa for less than $5 if you buy smart and watch your expenses.
Enough possibilities for a lifetime of work.
Thousands of 8x10s can be stored, they can be mailed, displayed conveniently, and they won't become a logistics nightmare like a huge pile of big pictures.
No elaborate darkroom is required, no enlarger; just a safelighted work space, a lightbulb, and a few trays.
I can do everything from film exposure to mounting, matting, and framing. No need to buy expensive services from back-room people.
No competition. Why would I strive against 50 million hard working and talented digital shooters climbing over each other's backs trying to get noticed?
Anything well photographed on 8x10 seems to acquire a nobility that invites attention.
The 8x10 photographer is pretty well guaranteed to be taken more seriously than someone plinking away with a cell-phone.
Ultimate conceptual integrity. The 8x10 is seen, exposed, processed, finished, mounted, and displayed without changing its original size or its original vision.
There is no cropping. The photographer takes full responsibility for the content right to the edges and corners. The viewer knows they are not short-changed.
No digital technology is used or required. No files need reformating into new media. Everything is eye readable. The medium guarantees it.

What do you think? Did I miss something?

[Alan Gales]

I like 8x10 because I love composing on that big ground glass, it's the largest negative that I can use on my Epson flat bed scanner and when I get the room I eventually want to contact print. Photography is a hobby to me so I do what makes me happy.

[Alan9940]

Like Alan G, I just love looking at that large gg; and I swear it does something to my head seeing my image at actual print size! Can't explain it, but I know it doesn't happen with my 4x5. I've shot 8x10 since the early 80's and was just out with it, yesterday. Packing back to the car I was thinking...man, this is a lot to deal with, but I've finally decided, after 30+ years with the format that it's my all-time favorite! Only when I literally can't move the camera/tripod setup will I stop!!

[Ben Calwell]

Apology accepted. I'm getting old and easily offended. Add a couple glasses of wine this (snowed in) evening, and it's a recipe for taking unwarranted offense.

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to Large Format Photography Forum

As suggested above start with 4"x5" and contact print. If you like it you can move to 8"x10" and do contact prints.

[Jim Andrada]

I scan my negs and print digitally and I'm kind of getting to where I don't see a lot of benefit to 4 x 5 over MF. Probably because I have a nice Nikon Coolscan 8000 for MF and an Epson 750 for all else. The quality of an MF scan in the Nikon is as good or I think better than what I get when scanning 4 x 5 in the Epson. 5 X 7 still fits in the high resolution area of the Epson and I think it's better than MF. 8 x 10 will fit in the Epson, but not in the high res area. So until I can talk myself into getting a drum scanner I'm pretty much working in MF and 5 x 7, which was the my first LF format and which I really like - ground glass is big enough for composing and I shoot Ektar 100 and Delta 100.

I do love the negs I get with 8 x 10 and 8 x 10 chromes are wonderful.

There are days when I think that 14 x 17 would be the ideal format for me - wonderful size for contact prints.

[mdm]

Whole plate can fit on the betterscanning holder for an epson v700 but you can only scan a 6 inch strip so end up with 6x8.5 which is about the same aspect ratio as 5x7. A 22x31 inch print is only a 3.66X enlargement.

[rbultman]

Nice response, Maris. That gives me more encouragement to start contact printing 8x10.

Regards,
Rob

[Ken Lee]

I want unlimited options: no rules. That's one extreme.
I want the ultimate methodology and will never change. That's the other extreme.

I do it for myself, myself alone. That's one extreme.
I do if for my audience, for them alone. That's the other extreme.

Money is no object. That's one extreme.
I do it on the cheap. That's the other extreme.

Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

[Jim Andrada]

Ah yes, Whole Plate! Lovely format and you're right - it will ALMOST fit in the hi-res area of the Epson. I often make WP size prints and they're quite fine for display. I have a WP camera - only issue is that there's no color film available for it, just the Ilford special order films. But B&W contact prints are really, really nice.

[John Kasaian]

8x10 contacts are delightful. Tremendous detail. Enlargements display even more incredible details from an 8x10 negative, but part of the experience is self discipline and, well, kismet. What you see in the negative is what you get.

[pepeguitarra]

A friend prompted me to think about why I chose the 8x10 black and white contact photograph as my principle form. This is what I wrote:

The 8x10 contact is a canonical form with a deep history in photography.
Grievous error aside all 8x10 contacts are technically equivalent; mine, yours, Ed Weston's, Ansel Adams'.
No upgrade is possible or necessary.
No grain ever. Infinite sharpness and gradation are available with no particular effort.
Cheap materials. From go to whoa for less than $5 if you buy smart and watch your expenses.
Enough possibilities for a lifetime of work.
Thousands of 8x10s can be stored, they can be mailed, displayed conveniently, and they won't become a logistics nightmare like a huge pile of big pictures.
No elaborate darkroom is required, no enlarger; just a safelighted work space, a lightbulb, and a few trays.
I can do everything from film exposure to mounting, matting, and framing. No need to buy expensive services from back-room people.
No competition. Why would I strive against 50 million hard working and talented digital shooters climbing over each other's backs trying to get noticed?
Anything well photographed on 8x10 seems to acquire a nobility that invites attention.
The 8x10 photographer is pretty well guaranteed to be taken more seriously than someone plinking away with a cell-phone.
Ultimate conceptual integrity. The 8x10 is seen, exposed, processed, finished, mounted, and displayed without changing its original size or its original vision.
There is no cropping. The photographer takes full responsibility for the content right to the edges and corners. The viewer knows they are not short-changed.
No digital technology is used or required. No files need reformating into new media. Everything is eye readable. The medium guarantees it.

What do you think? Did I miss something?

This is the beauty of this forum. Almost three year old comments helped me today. Thank you. I will be contract printing next week.

[Willie]

A friend prompted me to think about why I chose the 8x10 black and white contact photograph as my principle form. This is what I wrote:

The 8x10 contact is a canonical form with a deep history in photography.
Grievous error aside all 8x10 contacts are technically equivalent; mine, yours, Ed Weston's, Ansel Adams'.
No upgrade is possible or necessary.
No grain ever. Infinite sharpness and gradation are available with no particular effort.
Cheap materials. From go to whoa for less than $5 if you buy smart and watch your expenses.
Enough possibilities for a lifetime of work.
Thousands of 8x10s can be stored, they can be mailed, displayed conveniently, and they won't become a logistics nightmare like a huge pile of big pictures.
No elaborate darkroom is required, no enlarger; just a safelighted work space, a lightbulb, and a few trays.
I can do everything from film exposure to mounting, matting, and framing. No need to buy expensive services from back-room people.
No competition. Why would I strive against 50 million hard working and talented digital shooters climbing over each other's backs trying to get noticed?
Anything well photographed on 8x10 seems to acquire a nobility that invites attention.
The 8x10 photographer is pretty well guaranteed to be taken more seriously than someone plinking away with a cell-phone.
Ultimate conceptual integrity. The 8x10 is seen, exposed, processed, finished, mounted, and displayed without changing its original size or its original vision.
There is no cropping. The photographer takes full responsibility for the content right to the edges and corners. The viewer knows they are not short-changed.
No digital technology is used or required. No files need reformating into new media. Everything is eye readable. The medium guarantees it.

What do you think? Did I miss something?

It can be done, start to final print - without electricity. When the power is out, disaster strikes or you live "off the grid" you can still get to the final print.

[Mike in NY]

I "backed into" 8x10 contact printing through a different path. I got my start in LF about seven years through wet plate work, for which I was trained at Manhattan's Center for Alternative Photography, and loved the workshops so much that I acquired my first 8x10 camera (an old ANSCO) and the enormous lenses needed, and began making my own glass plates, collodion solutions, and silver nitrate baths. I created a dark room in my basement, and before long I was shooting lots of wet plate portraits and still lifes. Then I wanted to shoot 8x10 negatives with my ANSCO, and spent a couple of days in one-on-one training with Richard Ritter, who got me grounded in the basics. Contact prints were my only option (other than scanned negatives), and I enjoyed it very much. Now I'm moving down to 4x5, which means getting some smaller lenses, but the film is cheaper, and I can now make 11x14 prints from 4x5 negatives with my Durst enlarger. I like having multiple options.

[John Kasaian]

With 8x10 contacts it's all on (or in) there----nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. I love that visual honesty and I love the physical size and tactile sensations of the entire process.
I also love the minimal equipment---no amount of money spent on fancy or expensive equipment is going to improve my results, so any "magic bullet" is the result of technique and talent, rather than hard or soft ware.

I do have an 8x10 enlarger and I can't remember the last time I used it.

[John Kasaian]

It can be done, start to final print - without electricity. When the power is out, disaster strikes or you live "off the grid" you can still get to the final print.

Not quite---unless you like drinking warm beer in the dark room :o

[Peter Collins]

The simplicity and Maris' eloquence in framing it are gems. Thank you, Maris!