How much detail is lost enlarging a 4x5 negative to 8X10

[Blackmarxz]

Hello,

How much detail would be lost enlarging a 4x5 black and white negative, to a 8x10 negative?

Or would it vary a lot according to film type, developer<method etc?

Cheers

[Ironage]

I think that with a good lens you will see more detail because the small size cannot be perceived by your own eye.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Alan9940]

In my testing of this very question many years ago, I found that though I wouldn't say a 2x enlargement from 4x5 lost detail vs an 8x10 contact print, but, to my eye, I found the contact print to reveal more "crispness" and "presence" and I preferred it more. I think it has something to do with putting the 4x5 image through another piece of glass; something is definitely lost in the process. I'm sure an argument could be made regarding the quality of the enlarging lens, enlarger alignment, heck even the easel itself, but I use high quality stuff in my darkroom and, for me...allow me to emphasize that...FOR ME, the contact print is/was better. For fact, I spent about 15 years using nothing but the 8x10 for my serious work and a Hasselblad for "snapshots" (I tend to like larger negs!) YMMV, of course.

[Jim Noel]

There is n way that I know of to measure the amount of degradation as an image passes through a lens. But if a contact print is laid alongside an enlargement, the difference is very evident. That is the reason that i moved to larger and larger cameras a good number of years ago. My 2 enlargers are rarely turned on by me, but occasionally by students.

[Alan9940]

There is n way that I know of to measure the amount of degradation as an image passes through a lens. But if a contact print is laid alongside an enlargement, the difference is very evident.

Exactly what I was trying to say... Thank you!

[Oren Grad]

In principle, there is always some loss when you pass the information in the negative through another transfer stage. In practice, though, assuming a high-quality enlarging lens and good enlarging technique, the loss is minimal.

But to elaborate on the point raised by Ironage: Leaving aside situations where you're intentionally capturing a soft-focus rendering for esthetic reasons, a good negative will record more spatial detail than the naked eye can discern. So there is a tradeoff. You can render a negative with the maximum possible subtlety of tone and detail - that requires a contact print. Or, you can render the negative so as to allow the naked eye to discern the maximum possible amount of the spatial information recorded in the negative - that requires an enlargement, with careful technique. You can't have both maximum subtlety of rendering and maximum perceptible detail at the same time. Which way to go depends on your taste and what you are trying to accomplish.

[Pere Casals]

Hello,

How much detail would be lost enlarging a 4x5 black and white negative, to a 8x10 negative?

Or would it vary a lot according to film type, developer<method etc?

Cheers


Read here from page 40:

http://www.delmar.com/resources/samp_chaps/photography/0766820777/0766820777_02.pdf

And this:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/EnlargeNeg/enlargeneg.html



To minimize the quality loss, that it can be very low loss:


> Use a duplication film if you find it or a film of low ISO, a film 2 to 4 stops slower would be fine.

> Of course, ensuring flatness, alignment, focus and optimal aperture would be necessary. This is a high precision job.

> Use a Duplication class lens that works well at the magnification you are to use, in this case x2, you would need a Rodagon D (Duplication) or an old Rodagon R (R for reproduction) enlarging lens (if you find it) for a totally perfect job, now there is one at ebay anounced R type that it isn't, it looks... Some Process lenses may also excel in that job.

Here it says that the Rodagon D 120mm covers 4x5", but it has to be checked if it covers at x2, I'd say yes but not knowing for sure: https://www.qioptiq-shop.com/out/Graphics/en/00119141_0.pdf

You have one right know at ebay:

204281


https://www.ebay.es/itm/Rodenstock-Apo-Rodagon-D-1-5-6-f-120mm-Lens/132123327768?hash=item1ec329fd18:g:ltEAAOSwz4leFbxK

[Bob Salomon]

Read here from page 40:

http://www.delmar.com/resources/samp_chaps/photography/0766820777/0766820777_02.pdf

And this:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/EnlargeNeg/enlargeneg.html



To minimize the quality loss, that it can be very low loss:


> Use a duplication film if you find it or a film of low ISO, a film 2 to 4 stops slower would be fine.

> Of course, ensuring flatness, alignment, focus and optimal aperture would be necessary. This is a high precision job.

> Use a Duplication class lens that works well at the magnification you are to use, in this case x2, you would need a Rodagon D (Duplication) or an old Rodagon R (R for reproduction) enlarging lens (if you find it) for a totally perfect job, now there is one at ebay anounced R type that it isn't, it looks... Some Process lenses may also excel in that job.

Here it says that the Rodagon D 120mm covers 4x5", but it has to be checked if it covers at x2, I'd say yes but not knowing for sure: https://www.qioptiq-shop.com/out/Graphics/en/00119141_0.pdf

You have one right know at ebay:

204281


https://www.ebay.es/itm/Rodenstock-Apo-Rodagon-D-1-5-6-f-120mm-Lens/132123327768?hash=item1ec329fd18:g:ltEAAOSwz4leFbxK

What do you suppose “this lens is fixed” means?

[LabRat]

"Detail" is smaller than the eye of the beholder and can be enlarged (to some degree) and held...

The bigger issue is how the material translates to another medium step where it can "fit" into the range, tones, and contrast without visible change in the next generation...

Those visible qualities will affect the viewer's response as it compares to the previous generation...

Steve K

[Bernice Loui]

Needs to be a definition of ~Detail~ as there are many, many, many aspects to what detail can mean and what any viewer might value.


Bernice

[Pere Casals]

What do you suppose “this lens is fixed” means?

:) just seen it... quite epoxi on it...

Not repaired by HP, I guess...

But if would be the right lens for that job, isn't it ?

[Bob Salomon]

:) just seen it... quite epoxi on it...

Not repaired by HP, I guess...

But if would be the right lens for that job, isn't it ?

Should work. But it came out of a piece of equipment so it might also have been set for a specific image ratio. And, without knowing what it came out of, you can’t know what that image ratio is.

[Vaughn]

Since the OP wants to transfer all the info from a 4x5 negative to an 8x10 negative, is he after as close of a match as possible (same curve and density as the original, with no loss in resolution (if that is the correct usage of the word)? Or are there changes happening that allows the 8x10 negative to be reproduced in a different process requiring a different density range? For example a 4x5 neg that makes a great silver gelatin print, and the enlarged 8x10 is used for platinum printing. Some of these changes might drop out some detail in shadows or highlights if not handled carefully.

[Bob Salomon]

Since the OP wants to transfer all the info from a 4x5 negative to an 8x10 negative, is he after as close of a match as possible (same curve and density as the original, with no loss in resolution (if that is the correct usage of the word)? Or are there changes happening that allows the 8x10 negative to be reproduced in a different process requiring a different density range? For example a 4x5 neg that makes a great silver gelatin print, and the enlarged 8x10 is used for platinum printing. Some of these changes might drop out some detail in shadows or highlights if not handled carefully.

Going through a lens to duplicate a negative or transparency or to make a print will always result in some loss.

[Drew Wiley]

Will a shotgun kill a duck? Same kind of question. It depends on certain variables including aim. A contact print holds subtle tonality better, while an enlargement allows you actually see more of the detail present, esp when the original is fairly small. Printing from a masked original lets you have your cake and eat it too in certain cases. I certainly know how to make high-quality enlarged negs, but whenever possible, prefer to generate internegs and interpositives via contact.

[Pere Casals]

But it came out of a piece of equipment so it might also have been set for a specific image ratio.

Many times those lenses come from machine vision systems, usually from linear cameras for continuous inspection.

The magnagon (the same? close match?) is said to have constant performance in the magnification range.

[Neal Chaves]

Has anyone ever made 8X10 prints from 8X10 negatives with an enlarger? Once I started doing that, I never made contact prints again. There may be a very sight difference in image quality, but the trade-off of not having to handle the negative for each test or print, the ease of dodging and burning, the freedom from Newton Rings make it well worthwhile.

[Oren Grad]

Has anyone ever made 8X10 prints from 8X10 negatives with an enlarger? Once I started doing that, I never made contact prints again. There may be a very sight difference in image quality, but the trade-off of not having to handle the negative for each test or print, the ease of dodging and burning, the freedom from Newton Rings make it well worthwhile.

I did once do a comparison test between contact printing and 1:1 projection printing of a 4x5 negative. Once I did that, I hardly ever made an enlargement from 4x5 again. :)

[Vaughn]

Going through a lens to duplicate a negative or transparency or to make a print will always result in some loss.

I was thinking more along the lines of loss of detail in shadows and/or highlights due to changing the curve of the enlarged film for use in alt. processes (for example: increasing contrast of the new 8x10 neg relative to the original 4x5 negative).

[LabRat]

The other thing to remember is a contact print might look sharp, but not necessarily is...

Due to the necessity that the neg is against paper, diffused light normally used to expose it tends to "spread" around points on neg that can soften the shadow mask the neg provides... A harder light leaves a harder shadow in these places, so sharper...

The reason it is no big deal is that these "edges" are so small to the naked eye that we don't notice the degrading effect...

Enlarged images usually have a harder directional light that leaves a harder shadow on the material, so can have a better acutance... The effect was exploited when softer edged materials needed to be "sharpened" before digital technology...

A lens can be sharper under some different conditions... A key term here would be "point spread function"...

Steve K

[Drew Wiley]

Contacting onto film will reveal more about the efficiency of your technique than onto print paper. But optimizing the quality of a contact has a suite of variables just like enlarging film to film. You're only as good as your weakest link either way. But I don't want to get into a technical discussion about the potential effects of masking and diffusion in reply to LabRat's remarks above, simply because it's a complicated subject. About all I can state here, is that the specific mode of diffusion can potentially increase edge acutance and even enhance fine detail rendition rather than soften it, and it's a tool I often use.

[Blackmarxz]

Thanks for all the thoughts peoples.....

Was thinking back to some reporting on Andreas Gursky, where he apparently used to shoot in 5x7, and then enlarge to an 11x14 negative ... and then scanned them....

Expect some benefits is deeper DOF when shooting 5x7, , more portability, and presumably better/wider range of lens choices. (and perhaps less DOF issues when scanning the 11x14?)

Hence was trying to get a better idea how more detailed his final scans would be ...


Cheers