To enlarge or not to enlarge, that's the question.

[Gregory Gomez]

I will be using an 8 x 10-inch camera.

I like the look of an 11 x 14-inch print for some landscapes, but prefer contact printing 8 x 10-inch film.

The tonal quality of contact prints is wonderful, but carefully enlarged negatives up to two times the linear dimensions of the film is acceptable.

So, should I buy an 8 x 10-inch enlarger to make my 8 x 10-inch images somewhat larger, up to 11 x 14 inches, or should I consider an 11 x 14-inch camera and do contact prints?

What are your views and experiences in regards to this matter? Thanks.

Best regards,

Greg

[Donald Brewster]

Contact printing is contact printing -- and you can't have too much gear -- so get the camera. Probably cheaper too, and it will certainly take up less room.

[Ken Lee]

Get an 11x14 camera and an 8x10 reducing back. One camera is enough: you can use all the same lens boards, tripod, etc. If you want a big print, shoot big. Save your money for film and holders.

That much being said, if you still want to enlarge, then get an 8x10 camera with a 5x7 back, and a 5x7 enlarger. A little easier to find than an 8x10 enlarger.

That much being said, if you can allow yourself an enlargement factor of 3x, you can get a 4x5 back , and a 4x5 enlarger. In that size, film will be available in a wider variety, an enlarger will be more affordable and easier to find, and cost per sheet will be even lower.

However, once you appreciate the look and simplicity of making contact prints, you may decide to skip the enlarger altogether. Then, you're back to the first suggestion: an 11x14 camera with an 8x10 reducing back.

[Mark Sawyer]

The tonal quality of contact prints is wonderful, but carefully enlarged negatives... is acceptable."

I guess the short question is: are you going for "wonderful" or "acceptable."

Yes, to a fine craftsman, acceptable can mean very, very good, even to where only "wonderful" is "acceptable." But hey, a contact print is a contact print, and a really nice one has a quality that comes no other way. But I can tell by by your question you already knew this. You just want us to suffer along with you in your decision. That's okay, a lot of us have been suffering through this for years...

[Oren Grad]

Lugging an 11x14 kit will restrict the range of subjects you can photograph successfully compared to an 8x10, just as 8x10 does compared to smaller formats. I own an 11x14 camera, and can tell you from experience that the equipment is disproportionately more unwieldy compared to 8x10 than the nominal increase in dimensions would suggest. Just as one aspect of it, I can backpack an 8x10 kit, but I have to work out of the car or off a cart with the 11x14. (Actually, it's worse than that - if I'm at all under the weather, I don't have the strength to manage the 11x14 at all.) The longer focal lengths needed to cover a given field of view pose depth-of-field challenges, too.

So to get 11x14 negatives, you have to be willing to throw away some subjects entirely.

[Jon Wilson]

Just being the "devil's advocate," the Flipside goes.....Although I agree with all of the above, you can take your 8x10s and on the extra special ones, get a drum scan of the 8x10 to a CD and have larger prints made, e.g., professionally or with your ink jet printer.

[David Luttmann]

Doing a 2x to 4x enlargement with todays films, professionally scanned, and output to Lightjet, Chromira, or inkjet will provide as much resolution as the paper can handle. Most of these printers are capable of laying down , continuous tone, 360dpi or better. Imperfections in surface quality of most paper does not allow for much better to be put down. I think that having in between 8 and 12 lines per mm rez on a 16x20, should be adequate as papers don't allow for much more. Try before you buy and see what you think.

YOUR eyes are all that matter.

Regards,

[Bill_1856]

Buy two enlargers and print it in stereo.

[David Luttmann]

Or maybe 4 and we can relive Quad from the 70's.

[John Kasaian]

You can get an 8x10 Elwood enlarger for peanuts. An 11x14 is quite an investment when you consider what 11x14 film holders are going for( 5 used 8x10 film holders might run you $90-$125 if you shop around while 5 old 11x14 holders will cost you well over $1000!---kind of took the fun out of it for me!)If you've got the $$ go for it, if not I'd look for a trusty, rusty old Elwood.
OTOH an 11x14 'dorff would be a blast to work with!

Cheers!

[Ellen Stoune Duralia]

d) none of the above

LOL

Use a 'take anywhere' folding 4x5 (or any camera you like for that matter) and make digital negatives in the size of your choice! For sizes no larger than 11x14, the image degradation will be minimal.

[Mike Butler]

Gregory,

Ay, there's the rub...

FWIW, to my eye (which I fully admit may not be as sophisticated as yours or to any experienced contact printer) a 2x or 3x enlarged print from a 4x5/5x7 negative developed in pyro or a large-format negative printed with an unsharp mask is comparable in terms of tonal quality and detail to an 11x14 contact.

But, as previous posters have said, it's ultimately up to you to sort out what "comparable" is and weigh the agony and the ecstasy...

[Bruce Watson]

It sounds like what you want is a bigger print, but you still want it to be a contact print. Well, we can do that now. First, drum scan your 10x8 film. Then output it at the size you want to a film recorder. Take this new negative to your contact printing frame and go for it. This is not an uncommon practice; there are books (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=0964963868&pdf=y) on how to do it.

IMHO, the optical degradation from drum scanning and film recorder output is going to be less than from conventional enlarging. This will be the closest you can get to exposing the bigger negative in the camera, without having to lug the bigger camera around.

[robert_4927]

Greg , If you're willing to accept acceptable over wonderful then any and all the suggestions above will serve your purpose. I've seen amazing inkjets and kick a- s drum scans, so this is what you do: Find a good drum scan and a killer inkjet and lay them beside a good contact print. Now grab a good 10x or so loup and take a look for yourself. scan across every inch of each print and judge for yourself what is wonderful or acceptable to you. What may be wonderful to some may only be acceptable to others, so it's all up to you.

[robert_4927]

Oh sorry I forgot to include the projection enlargement. Throw that in there to for your viewing pleasure

[Brian C. Miller]

You can also use an 8x10 camera as an enlarger. You would need to build a negative holder/light source back for it. Adams made his 8x10 enlarger out of an old banquet camera. You could make an enlarger stand for your 8x10, and project the light onto a magnetic easel.

The drum scans are going to add up, and fast. If you want to go the digital route, you should check out scanners that can do a good job scanning 8x10.

[David Vickery]

Since you already know that you like the 8x10 contact print, then I would suggest that you go with the 11x14 camera. I use both 8x10 and 11x14 and find that the subject usually determines which camera I'll use. I am able to carry my camera and a couple of lenses on my back with a tripod in one hand and a bag with 3 or 4 film holders in the other hand and walk around in the desert for several hours. Its not that much different than any other kit--depending, of course on which camera you have. My 11x14 is largely homemade and fairly lite in weight--about 13 or 14 pounds. I love it! And would never be happy with enlargements after having used my 11x14 for a couple of years now. Nothing compares!

[David Vickery]

Oh, I meant to add to that last statement that nothing compares to an 11x14 contact print except for a larger contact print--12x20 or etc.

[Gary Nylander]

Hi Greg,

If you want to fool around and make enlargements from your 8 x 10 negs, you could try building your own enlarger as suggested. When I had my full sized darkroom set up, I made a 8 x 10 horizontal enlarger out of an old 1915 Century studio 8 x 10 view camera, I mounted this on five foot long oak plank ( about 14 inches wide ) for my light source I bought a 8 x 10 Aristo cold light head ( I think about $500 back in 1992 ), my easel was mounted a sliding device and held upright and for a lens I had a old Kodak 12 inch enlarging lens. All in all it worked quite well, and was not that expensive to build, as I got the camera from a store that sold store fixtures for $75.

Gary
http://www.garynylander.com

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Get the 11x14 camera, or even better, get a 12x20 that you can crop into 11x14 if you want to. An 11x14 with a reducing back is not an option for me, sometimes setting these cameras is a PITA and setting an 11x14 just to take an 8x10 shot is a waste of effort IMO. You will see that you dont use the 11x14 as much as the 8x10, at least that is what I have noticed with my 12x20 vs 8x10 shots.

While some people in this board with little LF experience would like you to believe digital is the solution for everything, this is not the case. Digital negatives are not as clean, nor do they have the depth a real negative can give to a contact print.

IMO, investing on a ULF is the best choice, an enlarger, even if it is a home made will represent either time or money and will require somewhat of a large space to set up. Contact printing can be done in a bathroom.... Go for it, you wont be sorry.

[David Luttmann]

Michael,

Part of the problem looking back to Ansel is that the films then were 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more grainy. Modern emulsions have erased a lot of that advantage in larger film sizes. Now that said, a contact print can be superb and the modern film technology still has a benefit in contact printing.....just less so.

It all comes down to how much information people think can be crammed onto a rough piece of paper. No matter how smooth you think it is, placing much more than 400 dpi in continuous tone adds little if nothing in the way of detail. Our eyes and the papers can't do much better than 12 - 14 lines per mm. If all you want is 11x14 contacts, then go for the ULF. Personally, I went with 4x5 after experiencing years of carrying around my step fathers 8x10. (Funny how he had me carry it all time ;-)

But as I said, try the drum scanned or high end flatbed scanned 8x10 and see how the output looks using various printing methods.

[David Luttmann]

Michael,

I'm just offering other solutions.....much like others on this thread. Scanning is one method. Digital negs are another. And so is contact printing.

You'll notice my suggestion was to try output using each method and to decide for himself what he enjoys most. I would hardly call that "insisting on digital alternatives."

[robert_4927]

Greg, If portability is of concern for you then 8x10 and enlarge may be your best option. I use a Wisner Pocket Expedition 8x10 that weighs 9.5 lb. This allows me to carry everything I need into the field to photograph alone. I also use a Wisner 8x20 Expedition that weighs 14.5 lb. Now I actually could carry this into the field alone also (considering the weight) but I usually take an assistant along that is 20 years younger and in great shape. I also have an 14x17 in the works that will probably not go far from the car although with a game hauler that the hunters use there may be possibilities of small treks away from the car. As far as composition goes UlF is not much different than an 8x10. It just takes some practice getting use to the 8x20 format since to some it seems strange at first. But just stick to the basics. find your composition and then work your corners and be patient and take your time is all. I personally have found no substitution for an in camera negative and a contact print, others may have with modern technology but I just love working this way and it has always satisfied my vision. What ever you decide have fun doing it and good luck. P.S.....Wisner also builds a light weight 11x14 that weighs 17lb..... very packable....(I mean when he starts building cameras again that is)

[Richard Schlesinger]

Did anyone say 16X20 camera?

[robert_4927]

Richard, If my darkroom was a tad larger that 14x17 would have been a 16x20. ( the little woman is screaming in the background, " DON'T EVEN SAY THOSE TWO NUMBERS IN THE SAME BREATH !").....lol....as they say, " there's no substitution for cubic inches."

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

James Chinn a member of APUG is making "modular" ULF cameras for very reasonable prices. If my order works out well for my 12x20 and modifications are possible, I see myself doing some 20x24 pt/pd prints, I figure what the heck going from 12x20 to 16x20 is not a big enough jump. So Robert, I will keep you appraised, so long as you dont blame me for the divorce... :-)

[robert_4927]

20x24......( an envious sigh)... I heard he was trying to get production up and going a couple of years ago. Last I heard he was going to send out a few protoypes for testing and review from a couple of photographers but I haven't heard anymore in quite some time. I wish him the best. There is room in the market for him that's for sure.

[Mark Sawyer]

Hmm, 8x10 enlarger or 11x14 camera? Greg, you won't be happy til you have both. Then you'll need an 11x14 enlarger to make 16x20 prints. But they still won't be contacts, so you'll need a 16x20 camera. And a 16x20 enlarger to make 20x24 prints. And a 20x24 camera. And a 20x24 enlarger...

Sorry Greg, it's just a logical progression. Follow it.

(When I finish my 20x24, I'm gonna make a 35mm back for it, just out of spite...)

[e]

You also might want to consider a 11x14 or 12x20 in Wisner/Deardorff/Shen-Hao forms. I'm a retailer for these cameras. For immediate delivery, Wisner 11x14 1nd 12x20. Deardorff 12x20 available in 2006. Shen-hao 12x20 available in late 2005 for incredible prices. Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com

[robert_4927]

Emile, I know you're in the neighborhood of Ron. How are things going at the new Wisner factory?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

20x24......( an envious sigh)... I heard he was trying to get production up and going a couple of years ago. Last I heard he was going to send out a few protoypes for testing and review from a couple of photographers but I haven't heard anymore in quite some time. I wish him the best. There is room in the market for him that's for sure.

Yeah, he had some hiccups but they are finally finished, I beleive the first 11x14 got shipped and mine is ready as well. Jim is trying to fly down and stay with me a few days so we can give it a run down, if not he will ship it the first week of August. I will post a review here and at APUG with pictures....

[robert_4927]

That's great Jorge. From what I've heard his prices are going to be really competitive. I'll be looking forward to your review. (20x24 pt/pd's......man!.... Melody and Kevin are going to love you....lol)

[Gregory Gomez]

The response to my question has been overwhelming to say the least. When I have more time today, I will respond to the many replies that have been made here. And maybe by then I will have made a decision to go with either the 11 x 14 or to enlarge. Please stay tuned.

[e]

Hi Robert,
As I understand it the new factory will be set later in 2005. At that time perhaps I will go down for a look see. The Wisner co. will be downsized and simplified and Marie (his head woodworker for years ) will be doing much more in the running of the company. This should result (we all hope) in a much more efficently run organization. I just hope the more exotic creations of Ron Wisner are not totally waylaid in the process. Much has been hush, hush but if you keep an eye on the Wisner website new news should be posted as things progress. Emile

[Gregory Gomez]

There's no doubt about it, the question I asked of this board is a tough one for me to answer. I thought I could come to some conclusion by this afternoon, but I think I will need a little more time.

Whatever I choose, I am dedicated to the 8 x 10-inch camera to the chagrin of my wife who would like me to use a small, portable 4 x 5. I don't have anything against that format. I just like looking through a big ground glass.

Over the years I have been collecting 8 x 10-inch gear while shooting 35mm. Everything I have is still new, and has only been used in "trial" runs to get a good feel for the format. I have a Zone VI 8 x 10 and a Phillips Advantage with a long bellows draw and a camera back that allows for both horizontal and vertical compositions. Both cameras are light: the Zone VI weighs in at 10 pounds and the Phillips is about nine. My lenses include 210, 240, and 305 G-Clarons as well as a M-Nikkor 450 and a Fujinon 600 C. I have 25 double film holders, and I use a Zone VI-modified light meter. As for tripods, I have a 15-pound 500 series Gitzo and the smaller Zone VI Wooden tripod. I have lusted after a Ries, but they are now a little pricey, and I worry about dinging that wonderful wood finish.

So I am well set for 8 x 10-inch shooting, but I still have a hankering for a slightly larger camera, namely an 11 x 14, which I mentioned in my first post.

Let me now try to answer all the posts I have received, one at a time.

[Gregory Gomez]

Donald,

You're right about contact printing; there's nothing else quite like it. Even a carefully made enlargement loses some tonality, volume, spaciousness, and an ineffable lifelike quality. A well made contact has vitality and life. The tonal richness and subtlety of hue are inescapable to the discerning eye. I have yet to see any enlargement from an 8 x 10-inch negative that exhibited finer quality than a carefully made contact print. The only advantage an enlargement might have over a contact print is scale. Some subject matter, like sweeping landscapes, are more impressive when printed to a larger size. For me that's about 11 x 14 inches, and clearly 16 x 20 is about is big as I would ever want to go no matter how grand the subject matter. But that's my personal observation. Others prefer mural size prints, but I'm not one of them.

As for not having too much gear, I think I have already reached that state, and I am moving toward more of a minimalist condition. However, owning two 8 x 10s and an 11 x 14 doesn't seem too extreme to me, but then I know some people who have only one camera. How impoverished indeed!

[Ed Richards]

> The only advantage an enlargement might have over a contact print is scale.

True for silver. As you move to digitzing the negatives, you get a whole new world of printing controls that are unavailable in chemical printing. There are negatives that can make terrific prints, but only digitally. For those negatives, digital opens up new opportunities. At this point, I think the choice would be contact prints or digital, rather than enlarging.

[John Kasaian]

Gregory,

You could just slum it and shoot a paltry lil ol' 12x20 without too much fuss and bother. Makes a 11x 14 look downright itty bitty and an 8x10 so...so..well, intimate ;-) but the contacts are IMHO worth it. Man are they worth it!

[Gregory Gomez]

Greetings!

I had originally planned to answer each post that was made here, but that doesn't seem to be too practical, and besides, my right forearm is bothering me this afternoon, making e-mail writing somewhat of a chore.

For what it's worth, I have made my decision thanks to all the help I have received here: I will go with the 8 x 10-inch camera, make contact prints from this format, and enlarge whenever I need a bigger print, up to 16 x 20 inches. While I feel the look of the contact print provides the best quality, carefully made optical enlargements of modest proportions from an 8 x 10-inch negative can be stunning indeed.

As for using a 4 x 5/ 5 x 7-inch reducing back on my 8 x 10 camera, this suggestion is not appealing to me from a conceptual perspective; besides, there are no reducing backs readily available for my two cameras.

The digital solution sounds good in theory, but I prefer to have complete control over the entire image making process. I also prefer the look of silver to ink-jet output. The cost of using digital output, when done by a very good professional lab, can become quite expensive, and there is no way I could ever afford a drum scanner, let alone make room for such equipment in my home.

The problem I have with the 11 x 14 camera is the size, weight, and bulk of the equipment. A basic outfit (camera, tripod, film holders, lenses, etc.) is going to weigh about 50 pounds (22.62 kilograms), or more. I am confident that for the next several years I will be able to lug this much weight around, but as I continue to age (I'm currently 53) the weight of the 11 x 14 will become a real challenge despite the 10 or more hours I spend each week exercising. Moreover, I can envision a situation in which I am shooting with the 8 x 10 and an irresistible sweeping landscape shot will present itself. Sure I can use the 8 x 10, but the 11 x 14 might be better for this type of image. Conversely, I can also foresee a situation in which I am trying to capture a wonderful landscape using the 11 x 14 only to be presented with an irresistible close-up shot that taxes the depth of field capability of the bigger camera.

Unless I were independently wealthy so I could buy any camera I wanted and spend all my time making photographs, I am going to have to make some compromises based upon my limited resources. So the 8 x 10 is it, and if I need slightly bigger prints, I will try to make good enlargements.

Thanks again for all your help.

Greg

[John Kasaian]

Gregory,

IMHO, 8x10 is a pretty neat compromise;-) Good Luck!

[David Luttmann]

Best of luck & enjoy!