5x7 Printing Options (Contact Print? Scan and electronically print?)

[morecfm]

Does anyone have any experience in perhaps contact printing 5x7? I scan 4x5 and smaller and have the capability of enlarging B&W 4x5 and smaller in a "temporary bathroom darkroom" but 5x7 eludes me because my scanner doesn't have frames for 5x7 and I'm hesitant to just lay a negative on the glass.

I got a B&J Grover while on a business trip because it was attached to a lens I bought. (Same price to take the lens or stuff the camera and the lens in my luggage thus the camera value is sunk costs to me) This leads me to making a decision...Buy a few film holders and some film and give it a whirl or just sell the camera body and lensboard to get back some of the purchase price. I have a few lenses that are supposed to cover 5x7 w/o movement (90, 150 and 210) as well as, I assume, the Ilex 7 1/2-inch paragon that came with the camera.

I'm a newcomer to 4x5 but would like to do more and I enjoy it as well as working in the darkroom. So I'd like to know if anyone has experience with contact printing 5x7. I was in an earlier discussion when I saw what turned out to be a full plate camera where there were mentions of that size being about the minimum for contact printing. I don't have the capability to enlarge 5x7 other than through scanning and electronically printing.

So, keeping future costs in mind, what factors should I consider in keeping the camera to contact print or scan and electronically print being my options? What are your experiences with these options of creating prints with 5x7 without an appropriate enlarger landing at my feet?

Reed Jones

[dasBlute]

5x7 contact prints work very well. They're 'intimate', but get the point across and have plenty of luscious detail.
These days, I'm pt/pd printing, and 5x7 is a perfect size for learning that process. They [and whole plate]
are the first sizes "generally" acceptable as contact prints [someone will come along and argue otherwise, just wait].
And 5x7 is still a bit easier than 8x10 [sez the guy with the 8x10 kit coming soon...]

Developing 5x7 can be a problem, unless you tray develop or have a jobo expert drum.

I never print digitally. Better scanning has some kit for scanning 5x7, and I bought it, but never
followed through on the inkjet. They have you tape it underneath a sheet of AN glass. In a workshop
on Pt/Pd printing from digital negatives [with Kerik Kouklas - let me say it again, a great guy],
I made some Pt/Pd prints from 5x7 negatives I had scanned by laying them on the glass. I shoot
TXP, and it doesn't make a lot of newton rings, emulsion side down.

Contact printing doesn't really make dodging/burning easy, everything is smaller,
and it's hard to see through the denser negatives so, straight prints mostly,
you can preflash through...

I'm not sure I answered any of your questions very well :)

I love the format. I started contact printing 5x7s because of Sudek's affinity for them...
I still like modest enlargements [I've a durst 138s], and frankly 5x7 stands up to 16x20
quite easily - not that I do that, but have some friends that do.

And hey, maybe you'll find an old durst... :)

-Tim

[reedvalve]

5x7 contact prints are easy and economical to make, and are really quite nice. You could probably also get an inexpensive holder for your scanner, but give the contact printing a shot - you are already set up to do it and you may like the results a lot.

[David Karp]

I love 5x7 contact prints. I mat them to 8x10 and they make a nice impression. I agree, contact printing makes it harder to dodge and burn, but I find far less need to do either when contact printing compared to enlarging from 4x5. I have used the Betterscanning station for the Epson V700 scanner, but so far only with 4x5. It works pretty well for 11x14 prints. I have not gone larger. I assume that the 5x7 negative will provide much more information than the 4x5 and that you could print fairly large using a consumer scanner like a V700.

[koraks]

I can only add to the praise of 5x7 contacts. If I had to start all over, I would probably should 5x7 and no 4x5 or 8x10.
Don't hesitate to slap the negative on the glass of the scanner; with most films (tmax excluded!), the image side is coarse enough to prevent newton rings. Focus of the scanner may not be optimal, but it'll be good enough for reasonably large prints; I scan 8x10's at 1200dpi this way. Works well enough for me.

[aclark]

I don't have a 5 x 7 enlarger either so the only options for me are to make contact prints, or scan and print digitally.
I find 5 x 7 contact prints too small. And they don't do justice to the detail that is in the negative. I sometimes feel that if I'm going to stick to a print size of 5 x 7 inches, I might as well use 35,, or medium format.
I have an Epson V700 flatbed scanner. This allows you to make good sharp scans with the negative flat on the glass. 5 x 7 negatives tend to curl up at the corners when being scanned. A home made cardboard frame solves this. Or a small weight in each corner. This makes it possible to get very good scans, and then make big prints.
10 x 14 inch prints from scanned 5 x 7 negatives can look really special, in terms of technical qualities such as beautifully rendered detail, tonal gradation, etc. Far better than small 5 x 7 contact prints in my opinion. It's not either/or, of course. You could do both.

Alan

[Ironage]

I use only 5 x 7 for my large work because I work in ziatype and cyanotype which require contact printing. If you have minimum space for a darkroom, 5x7 contact printing will be the best choice. The print size is not ideal for wall display, but perfect for a book page. 4 x 5 for contact printing, even when the print is right in front of you, doesn't work. I have enlarged the negatives as well and the results are fantastic, but negatives for alternate processes don't work ideally for enlargement. Can't help you scanning since I have never done it.

[Bruce Barlow]

5x7 is my favorite size for prints. They keep the viewing experience intimate - it's so easily seen from reading distance, and yet you're still taking in the whole print.

Tray developing is easy to learn, and small, 8x10 trays work well in a small space. I've scratched 2 negatives in 32 years of tray developing 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10.

Lodima or Azo, in my experience, will make gorgeous prints. There are other papers out there, but I have no direct experience.

[Fred L]

I scan my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives by laying the negative emulsion down on the glass. A piece of AN glass sits on top to keep it flat (not always necessary with 8x10 so ymmv). The caveat however is that you will need to be diligent about cleaning the neg and glass surfaces, of dust, otherwise you'll be cloning and healing for hours lol.

I also recently bought a 5x7 camera (with the 4x5 back as well) because I planned to make contacts, and felt 4x5 was just too small for my liking. I now need to find a new home for the other camera since it doesn't get used anymore.

[Willie]

If you think 5x7 too small a print size check out the print size Michael Kenna sells. He shoots 2 1/4 square film and does not make large prints. Not contact prints, but not large prints.

A 5x7 contact print is just fine for many images.

[Pere Casals]

Does anyone have any experience in perhaps contact printing 5x7?

For the moment you can scan the 5x7 negative in two halves and then use Photoshop for automatic stitching to get a composed full image, it will work nice. This is the straight solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imWsQqtcJPg Old versions of Photoshop also does it, at least CS4 I've been using.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/create-panoramic-images-photomerge.html


For the future IMHO you have 3 choices, I've been having a similar situation with 8x10:

1) Contact printing, this is ok, but you know, your prints will be 5x7

2) Invest in a new or used scanner, here my choice it would range from used Epson 4990 to new V850, all good enough for BW.

3) Use your 5x7 camera as an enlarger, like in the past times. Once upon a time there was a kit (for example) named Graflarger for Graflex cameras: https://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/graflarger.html
This would be a DIY project that can be fun or nasty depending on your own resources to build a negative holder and a backlight to be attached to the rear of your 5x7 camera.

This is very far from a pro solution, really, but it can do the trick. If you use RGB led illumination for the backlight you can switch to red for red image while you frame the image in the paper, and then using different exposure times with green and blue (or yellow and magenta, as included red is safety light) to control contrast with VC papers. This is the solution I'm pefectioning as I guess I won't have a true 8x10 enlarger, but I also feel that the "graflarger" like solution is not to limit me at all, limitations are more inside us, IMHO.

[aclark]

If you think 5x7 too small a print size check out the print size Michael Kenna sells. He shoots 2 1/4 square film and does not make large prints. Not contact prints, but not large prints.

A 5x7 contact print is just fine for many images.

It may be a bit pedantic to point this out, but "7 x 5" contact prints don't actually measure 7 inch by 5 inch. They are only 6.7 inch by 4.7 inch. Michael Kenna's prints, at 7.75 inches square,are actually quite a bit bigger. One inch wider, and a full three inches higher.

Alan

[neil poulsen]

I have an Epson 4870 scanner which scans 4x5. I used matte board and a Logan matte board cutter to make a holder for 5x7, and it worked fine.

The 4870 can scan two 4x5s at once, one above the other in landscape orientation. So, I figured that it could scan 5x7. All I needed was a holder.

[Ben Calwell]

I've contact printed 5x7 using the light from my old Bogen 35mm enlarger. I bought a piece of heavy glass and simply place it over the neg and paper. I would like to start scanning, though, if I could find a reasonably priced Epson scanner.

[Willie]

It may be a bit pedantic to point this out, but "7 x 5" contact prints don't actually measure 7 inch by 5 inch. They are only 6.7 inch by 4.7 inch. Michael Kenna's prints, at 7.75 inches square,are actually quite a bit bigger. One inch wider, and a full three inches higher.

Alan

From looking at copies, books, calendars and such and never having seen the originals would you have guessed how small he prints?

It is not the size, it is the image.

5x7 contact prints work just fine if you have a good image.

[aclark]

From looking at copies, books, calendars and such and never having seen the originals would you have guessed how small he prints?

It is not the size, it is the image.

5x7 contact prints work just fine if you have a good image.

Hello Willie,
You are right about it being the image not the size, with Kenna's prints. I think this is because his compositions are spare and minimal. You can "read" them from a distance. But for photographs with more detail in them, I find that 7 x 5, or actually 6.7" x 4.7" is too small for me, for a finished print. I stick my finished, selected prints in photobooks so actually like small photos. But even so, 6" x 9" is the smallest I like to print. I print 35mm negatives this size. And to get the potential out of a 7 x 5 negative, I find I need to print it bigger. This is a personal choice of course, and I can see how others might have different ideas.

Alan

[mdarnton]

I scan all of my LF with an HP G4050. Yes, it doesn't measure up to better scanners, which in turn don't measure up to their own specs, but it does easily deliver the 1000dpi I need to make prints up to 13x19 on my Canon Pro100 printer from 4x5 through 8x10 negs, which is realistically all I need to do. I don't need to make 40x60s, never intend to, and don't want to pay for that capability. A used G4050 costs about $60 on Ebay, but I do recommend Vuescan over the HP software. If anyone ever wants something big, which isn't going to happen, sending one neg off for a good scanning job is still going to cost less than any other option.

[Willie]

Hello Willie,
You are right about it being the image not the size, with Kenna's prints. I think this is because his compositions are spare and minimal. You can "read" them from a distance. But for photographs with more detail in them, I find that 7 x 5, or actually 6.7" x 4.7" is too small for me, for a finished print. I stick my finished, selected prints in photobooks so actually like small photos. But even so, 6" x 9" is the smallest I like to print. I print 35mm negatives this size. And to get the potential out of a 7 x 5 negative, I find I need to print it bigger. This is a personal choice of course, and I can see how others might have different ideas.

Alan

I use 5x7 a bit but most of my exposure with it comes from my Uncle who does Pt/Pd, Carbon and silver contact prints in that size. He does enlarge as he has a 5x7 enlarger and they sure look nice. I have not enlarged any 5x7, just contact printed with the negatives. Then mat and frame using at least 11x14, weighted and they look very good this way.

[Leszek Vogt]

5x7 contact prints look good, you can scan the negs on reasonably priced scanner like Epson 4990 or some such....and if you really want to enlarge that special negative and get the most out of it....the drum scan may be a necessary option. It might be worth to have that done vs obtaining your own drum scanner.

Les

[djdister]

I made a simple 5x7 film holder and scan the film on an Epson V750 - and get great scans. The only limitation is the max paper size of the digital printer...

[Drew Wiley]

Lot's of Kenna's images, which are so appealing on small scale, would be disappointing significantly enlarged due to featureless areas. I could say the same about Wynn Bullock or Edward Weston. It's not a criticism but just an observation that contact printing is a different ballgame than enlarging, with somewhat different rules. I personally find digital prints quite disappointing to look at by comparison.

[mike rosenlof]

Another fan of 5x7 contact prints here. I contact prints onto 8x10 paper and mask with rubylith to get large white borders. It presents nicely.

I scan 5x7 with an Epson 1680 that I bought as new old stock a couple of years ago. I use the scans mostly as proofs, and they're fine for thar. I don' have the ability to print 5x7 bigger than 5x7, and I'm fine with that.

[morecfm]

Thanks for all of the replies and opinions on options and pros/cons. I do have an Epson 4990 that I got preowned for 4x5 work so the scanning was always an option should I decide to further invest in 5x7. I think I'll hold onto the camera for a while, as I have minimal cost in it, and get a few holders and film later. Perhaps try to shoot a few exposures on paper? Meanwhile I need to sharpen up my skills on 4x5. Now if an 8x10 fell in front of me...