4 x 5 vs 5 x 7 Enlarger: Which One?

[Gregory Gomez]

Is there any advantage to using a 5 x 7 enlarger for 4 x 5 negatives along with a 180 mm or 210 mm enlarging lens? (I will never be enlarging 5 x 7 negatives by the way.)

Will the bigger cold light head of the 5 x 7 enlarger reduce the amount of edge burning required on prints made from a 4 x 5 negative and will it cover the 4 x 5 negative better than the typical 4 x 5 light source?

Will a longer focal length enlarging lens, like a 180 mm or 210 mm, produce sharper prints than a 150 mm enlarger lens? (The magnification rations will be between 3x and 3.5x the linear dimensions of the film plane to produce prints no bigger than about 13 x 16.5 inches using Tri-X film.)

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Ralph Barker]

Personally, I see little advantage in using a 5x7 enlarger only for 4x5 and smaller negs. Set up properly, any good 4x5 enlarger will illuminate the negative pretty evenly, and a 135mm lens with excellent coverage or a 150mm lens will similarly cover with little or no fall-off. Longer focal lengths will move the image area into the center "sweet spot" of the lens, but the enlarger head will be correspondingly higher for a given enlargement size, with greater risk of vibration. Plus, there are far fewer 5x7 enlargers on the market compared to 4x5, so the prices are often quite a bit higher. Thus, if you're certain you'll never get a 5x7 camera, I'd stick with a good 4x5 enlarger.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hi Gregory,

If you can get your hands on a 5x7 enlarger, go for it. Somebody once said, go bigger than what you need. No matter how good of a 4x5 enlarger you get, you will always have some degree of fall off in the corners. I printed a 4x5 test negative in a 5x7 enlarger with a 210 lens and there was no fall off. I am now constructing an 8x10 enlarger (with 12x12 aristo head) out of an old graphics copy camera for 4x5 and 8x10 negatives.

[jnantz]

gregory

i'd get the 5x7 enlarger not because you will be able to get better prints froma 4x5 negative, but because you might end up with a 5x7 camera, and you'll need to enlarge those negatves too :)

[paulr]

In some cases you might get more even illumination ... many of the 4x5 light sources i've used just barely cover the negative (including the zone vi cold light that i've printed most of my work with. it is not even close to even).

but as far as lenses, you'll do best with one designed for 4x5. with a longer lens, sharpness will be more consistent from center to corner, but it will be lower. especially in the center, where it tends to count a bit more. the sharpest lenses for general purpose 4x5 are the 150 mm schneider and rodenstock apo lenses.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I agree with Ralpf for the most part. The advantage I saw is that I didn't need to switch to a 135 for larger printing. True there are less 5x7 enlargers out there. Let's say there was only one, and that one was a durst 138, that would be good enough.

[John Boeckeler]

The column for the 5 x 7 enlarger is apt to be pretty long. So if you get the 5 x 7, make sure you have enough ceiling height.

[Ken Lee]

Give me the 5x7 enlarger :-)

I have a 5x7 camera, but only a 4x5 enlarger. I'd love to enlarge some of my 5x7 images. An 11x14 is only a 2X magnification. They will look heavenly.

Best wishes,

Ken

[Jim Rhoades]

I was very happy for many years with my D-2 and a VC head. Then I started printing 8x10 Pt/Pd. Then due to the cost of learning Pt/Pd printing I thought 5x7 would help the learning curve. Then I started to really look at these 5x7 negatives. And I thought, wow these would really hold some detail if only I had a 5x7 enlarger.

My durst 138 is really cool and I thank all you guys who recommened it over the Zone VI.

If you have the room, bigger is better.

[Eric Woodbury]

Go with the 5x7. More even light, especially if it's a coldlight. Also, next year you'll have a 5x7 camera and then you'll be kicking yourself if you didn't.

[lee\c]

"Very few people shoot 5x7, and very little film exists, or you have to cut 8x10 to size. "

I would have to disagree with this statement. I just led a workshop and 2 of the five large format shooters had 5x7. I have used the format for years. Sure, there is more film for the smaller formats.

I have had 3 5x7 enlargers in my time. I currently use a Durst 138s so I can enlarge 5x7.

I dont do digital

leec

[Gregory Gomez]

I would like to thank everyone who took the time to respond to my query about enlargers. I really do appreciate it.

It seems that opinions are divided into three camps: 1) those who think a 5 x 7 enlarger would be a good idea, 2) those who think the 4 x 5 enlarger is more than enough, and 3) those who feel that a digital darkroom is the answer.

Let me address the last group first. If I were doing color photography only, then I would choose the 4 x 5 camera, use color film, both transparency and print, and make enlargements using a "digital darkroom setup." I would follow this course without any hesitation. But alas, I like the silver gelatin print so the digital solution will not be an option for me. However, there's no denying the ease of use that the digital darkroom gives one and the joy, as it were, of not having to deal with all those potentially harmful chemicals.

Ralph's argument about the adequacy of the 4 x 5 enlarger and the little-to-no light fall off is a compelling one. I think his advice is very sound and would be the obvious choice if cost and darkroom space were major factors. Moreover, people like Ansel (God) Adams, John Sexton, and Fred Picker used, for the most part, a 4 x 5 enlarger to handle 4 x 5 negatives. These photographers, in there own way of working, were, and in the case of John, are, very demanding when it came (comes) to image quality. Yet, Ansel used a home-made 11 x 14 enlarger and a Nikon 480 APO enlarging lens for his 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 negatives. He did so most likely because of the arguments I made in my original post, which are, with in reason, a bigger light source and a longer enlarging lens produce sharper results. However, I am willing to bet that Ansel eventually realized that a standard, well made 4 x 5 enlarger for his smaller negatives was more than good enough even for his very high standards.

But then it's easy for me to get swept away with the notion that bigger is better. (Perhaps it's a male preoccupation, or maybe it's just my fixation.) A bigger enlarger providing the ideal of absolute quality does have its price, not just in cost but in darkroom space. While it would be great to have more than one enlarger, my darkroom will not permit that luxury, nor will my bank account.

Maybe it's my age or simply a mid-life crisis that started at age seven, but it has been damn hard for me to make a decision about equipment, something I'm sure with which no one else has ever struggled. My problem is I like too many styles of photography that require different cameras and technique to accomplish. With painting and drawing, it's a matter of simply changing brushes, canvas, paper, paint, or pencil lead size to create almost any desired effect or to scale the work to almost any size. In this regard, we are not locked in, more or less, by the limits of the material, which is not true with photography. If we don't have the right paint or brushes, well, we can purchase them easily enough, for they are not that costly. On the other hand, if we have a 4 x 5 camera, for example, and then suddenly one day we want to do 11 x 14 contact prints, the 4 x 5 cannot be "scaled" to handle the job, and a good 11 x 14 outfit is very expensive. Or, if we want to make some "hand-held" images, our 11 x 14 camera is going to present just a wee bit of a challenge. Before long we find ourselves with more equipment than B&H Photo with no particular direction. Invariably with too many cameras on hand it becomes easy to have the wrong equipment at our fingertips when we think the decisive moment has arrived.

What complicates matters still further is film's uncertain future. As time goes by black and white film will be increasingly more difficult to find and more expensive. It won't be long before Kodak dumps its black and white products entirely, including T-Max and Tri-X. They may start with the 5 x 7 format. Eventually there will be just 4 x 5, and then nothing. I'm sure that other companies, like Ilford and Bergger, will continue making film, but our selection will decline in the face of digital's increasing popularity. In 20 years, film could very well go the way of glass plates of 80 years ago, making any darkroom equipment buying decisions today critical. We may find ourselves either having to dump our darkroom investment in favor of digital or stock up on film and paper that will meet our photo requirements for the rest of our lives. While I believe I can buy a large quantity of 35mm and 4 x 5 film should this event occur, 5 x 7 or 8 x 10 material is another matter. Along these lines is the issue of spare parts, should the 5 x 7 enlarger ever need to be repaired or the light source replaced. It might be comforting to think that such parts can be fabricated in a local machine shop; the reality is, however, that such service is becoming expensive and hard to obtain for many of us.

Should I decide in favor of the 5 x 7 enlarger, the unit of choice for me, based upon price and performance, would be the Omega E5 Series with an Aristo cold light head. I have discussed this matter with Aristo, and it seems clear that their cold light head, which will fit the Omega enlarger, will need some modifications in order for it to do so. Also, the use of any variable contrast paper will require filtration, not a big problem, but some 4 x 5 enlargers have variable contrast heads available that make printing with such paper a lot easier. Then there is the cost of the 5 x 7 enlarger verses the expense of a variable contrast 4 x 5 enlarger. The 5 x 7 is a little more expensive, but not appreciably so.

I have much to think about, but I plan to make my decision soon. Once again, thanks for all of your help.

[Robert McBride]

Unless there is a big difference in price, I would go 5x7 because while it is unlikely that you would switch from 4x5 to just 5x7, you would need the bigger enlarger if you wanted to go with 6x17 cm equipment.

[Oren Grad]

Should I decide in favor of the 5 x 7 enlarger, the unit of choice for me, based upon price and performance, would be the Omega E5 Series with an Aristo cold light head.

If you're comfortable with the Omega E chassis, why not just get the Chromega E head? VC filtration will certainly be a lot more convenient. What specifically are you hoping to get from the Aristo head that will repay the hassle?

[Gregory Gomez]

Oren,

The Aristo head is much cheaper, about $475. The Chromega E head is three-to-four times that price. Also, I like the soft qualities that a fluorescent tube (cold light) gives to an image verses what a quartz halogen lamp does. I feel the quartz light source is slightly harsher, the effects of which can be adjusted in the printing process of course.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

First post in a long time...

Did you notice that a lot of replies did mention the excellent Durst 138. I own one myself and it really makes things easier, even though I don't have any 5X7 negatives.
If you can find a 138, my advice is that you should go for it.

(I just have to mention that a couple of weeks ago I found a nice companion for my 138s, a Leitz Focomat IIc in excellent condition for some $400-$500. :-)

Björn

[Ted Harris]

I agree, go with the 5x7 but make sure you have room for it. Many 5x7 enlargers require more ceiling height than is available in lots of home darrkrooms.

[John Bowen]

I can't imagine a more versatile enlarger than a Beseler 4x5. I have a Zone VI cold light, Zone VI VC head, Azo "the Cold One" head, Beseler condenser head (I've never used this one) and an 8x10 conversion package. The sheer variety of B&W and color heads is awesome.

Good luck with your decision.

John

[Ted Harris]

"Very few people shoot 5x7, and very little film exists, or you have to cut 8x10 to size."

Let me expand a bit on Lee's post. I shoot primarily 5x7 and shoot mostly color. No argument that you have to work a bit harder to find 5x7 filmthan 4x5 but there is plenty available and plenty of different emulsions. See the table I did at http://www.viewcamera.com/pdf/2006/5x713x18filmtable.pdf it lists all the currently available 5x7 and 13x18 films (the supplies of APX 100 and Velvia 50 may now be totally gone from the market though). There are moe than 25 different emulsions.

[Anthony Oresteen]

I bought a Beselt 5x7 MOT enlarger with a cold light head years ago for a song. I'm glad I did. Yes I do shoot 5x7 but that's not the reason I bought it.

The reason I got a 5x7 was so I could print 6x17 negatives. You can NOT do that in a 4x5 enlarger.

Sometines I crop a 5x7 negative to 6x17 - a poorman's 6x17 back!

Why did Fred Pickerd sell a 5x7 enlarger when all he shot was 4x5? Even coverage of the 4x5 neg is much easier and better in a 5x7 head than 4x5. End of story.

Get the 5x7. and a 5x7!

[Sanders McNew]

I shoot both 5x7 and 4x5. I've been using an Omega D2 enlarger for the 4x5s and contact-printing the 5x7s. But I just bought an older Eastman 5x7 Model E Autofocus Enlarger. Apart from giving me the ability to enlarge the 5x7s, the 5x7 enlarger will also make it much easier to print 4x5s full-frame. It is possible to print 4x5s full-frame with the Omega 4x5s but you have to make yourself a glass carrier to do it (the Omega glass carrier still crops slightly into the image) and then the space available on the negative stage is tight.

You can buy a 4x5 enlarger for a song in most parts of the country, but the 5x7 is still expensive and big.

Sanders McNew (www.mcnew.net)

[Ralph Barker]

. . . You can buy a 4x5 enlarger for a song in most parts of the country, but the 5x7 is still expensive and big.

I think that's an excellent point, Sanders. There are probably at least one order of magnitude more 4x5 enlargers floating around than 5x7s. As such, prices on 4x5s are far more attractive, usually, than for 5x7, and parts availability tends to correspond with that fact, too. But, if one can get a good deal on a 5x7, and it fits in the darkroom space, it's not a bad choice - even if used only for 4x5 and smaller negs.

[CXC]

I use a pro lab so take my comment with a grain of salt. When I want a print to show the edges of the film sheet, with a bit of extra black around the outside, the lab has to use their 8x10 instead of 4x5 enlarger (they have no 5x7). If you might use this effect, maybe the 5x7 is a good idea.

[CXC]

Ralph, I just noticed -- did you move from San Jose to New Mexico?

[Ralph Barker]

Ralph, I just noticed -- did you move from San Jose to New Mexico?
Yep. Last September. Rio Rancho is across the river (Rio Grande) from Albuquerque. Enchanting place, as they say. Love it. See your PM, too.

[Michael Daily]

I recently got a Durst 138 with color head in trade for a DII and an Elwood 5x7 and less than $200. It is more solid, more adjustable, more evenly illuminated than any enlarger I've used, except for my Focomat Ic. There is a Durst 138 on ebay right now for $219. (The 138 IS bigger, though.)

[Capocheny]

Hi Greg,

If I were standing in YOUR shoes and I had the adequate darkroom space to hold a 5x7 enlarger (and, of course, the necessary financial resources to fund it)... I'd definitely go with the 5x7 enlarger. ANY day of the week! :)

When I first got into using a 4x5... I NEVER (in a hundred million years) thought that I'd now be shooting with a 5x7. But, lo and behold, I am!

So, the moral to the story is NOT to limit yourself to the current constraints! A 5x7 is only one order of magnitude away from 4x5.

Allowing yourself the room to grow makes sense in my books. :)

Good luck on the decision!

Cheers

[lee\c]

Ted,
you copied a line that I copied also. I am a dedicated 5x7 user. That said I like 4x5 also.


lee\c

[Andrew_4548]

For alternative eqiuipment, a De Vere 54 (not the 504 as these are later model) should cover 4x5 and 5x7. Apparently, they were made "officially" 4x5 for tax reasons after WWII but will enlarge 5x7 with the correct neg carrier (the condenser is the same as for 4x5 and there's a De Vere coldlight head available but next to hopeless for multigrade papers (G4 filter required to give equivalent to G2 colour temp then add in other filters to get harder grades thus print times are very long...) At that time, 5x7 was seen as 'professional' and 4x5 was 'amateur' so came under a different tax structure.

I've got one and it's "built to last." I was given it free a few years back as long as I collected it as the person wanted to reclaim some house space. I use a 135mm lens and it easily enlarges full frame 4x5 up to 16x20 without hitting the roof using the condenser head.