Enlarge, contact print? Or both?

[Richard K.]

OK I'm way too old to to indulge in the luxury of another bout of format confusion, but here's what happened. That amazing human being Bob Carnie made me a beautiful 16x21 print of one of my WP negs from my trip out West last month and damn if it didn't stir a response from me that I thought I rationalized away a few years ago when I made the decision to only contact print! That atavistic response has caused me to re-examine my commitment to only contact print. It seems that sometimes bigger CAN be better in the sense of conveying the scope and grandeur of the scene and drawing one into it even at the trade-off of reduced resolution and smoothness of tone. My Pt contact prints by comparison are small jewels of ultimate sharpness and tonal gradation but they do lack the on the wall impact and drawing in of the enlarged print.

So, I wonder, how many of you do both? How do you triage your subject matter and adjust your approach for each process? Do you do this pre or post exposure? Is it better to just decide on one process? :) Thanks for your thoughts!!

[Oren Grad]

As a general rule, I enlarge my roll film negatives and contact print my sheet film negatives. There are some choices to be made at the boundary - I have sheet film negatives as small as 2.25x3.25", and my enlarger handles up to 4x5" - but recently I've been contact printing even the smallest sheet film negatives. No deep theoretical or ideological reason, though - I could wake up tomorrow and decide that I want to try something different.

If you find the prospect of making some enlargements for a change especially appealing and you have the time/energy/money, why not go for it? Particularly if you're working for your own pleasure, why not be guided by what moves you rather than feeling you have to stick to some arbitrary idea of coherence or consistency?

[Richard K.]

Excellent answer Oren, thanks. I guess though that my question pertains to a given format, i.e. would one enlarge and also contact print say 8x10? As of this moment (6:58 Eastern time), I'm inclined to do both in the sense that I would like to make big prints of a few and most suitable subjects but go on contact printing in Pt/Pd for the most part.

[Jim Bradley]

Dare one suggest a digital approach at least for proofing to a larger size?
For example a EPSON 700/750 scanner and 3880 printer would let you print to the size you mentioned. This would let you evaluate the results of image resizing and if you have issues with the look of digital output you can have Bob do you a final version.
For me this is one of the strengths of a hybrid approach.
Jim

[ic-racer]

I don't contact at all. I projection print from reductions to 1:1 to enlargements.

[Oren Grad]

I guess though that my question pertains to a given format, i.e. would one enlarge and also contact print say 8x10?

Some pictures might work better one way or the other, while others might work well, but differently, either way. Again assuming you're not working to someone else's requirements, why not just do whatever you think works best for each picture, whether the negative is 8x10 or whatever? And if you have pictures that work well with both approaches, then print 'em both ways and enjoy the different flavors!

The only real constraint is that for negatives beyond a certain size, gaining access to a suitable enlarger either for yourself or through a commercial lab can be difficult and/or expensive. But as Jim mentions, scanning can also be a good option if you like the look of digital output.

[John Kasaian]

Some negatives are best enlarged, others are best contact printed.
I'll go out on a limb here: negs with a great deal of tiny information usually are better enlarged while some negatives just seem talk louder when in a more intimate format. 8x10 and certainly 11x14a re large enough where enlarging becomes less neccesary but for example 8x10 aerial negatives just need to be enlarged IMHO.

[Jay DeFehr]

Oren makes some good points. If you're making prints for your own pleasure, indulge yourself, whatever that means. I've never made many large prints, because what the hell would I do with them? I'd say 80+% of all of my prints from any format negative are 8x10. 8x10 is easy to process, display and archive, even for one on a meager budget. And, portraits seem to live more happily at small print sizes than some other genres do.

All the above being said, I am planning to make some big prints for exhibition, which will be a first for me, and I hope my prints find good homes, because I definitely don't have room for them at mine.

[AF-ULF]

When I shoot 5x7 or 8x10, I generally make two negatives of the scene--this is a precaution against making a mistake in processing or a flaw in the negative. I generally process the first negative for my chosen process--platinum or silver enlargement. If it looks good, I will process the second sheet for the other process. I use the same EI for both processes, even though my testing shows I should use a higher EI for the platinum work. This translates into longer exposure times under the UV lights for a platinum print, but as long as I don't make an error in metering, the times are still manageable--generally 8 to 12 minutes under the lights.

[Daniel Stone]

follow your heart Richard...

-give this a month's thought

-consider ALL the options(buying an enlarger if you don't already have an 8x10-capable one already I'd say is the "biggie" that I can think of)

If I had the space to house a horizontal enlarger for my 8x10 negatives, sure, I have a number that I'd like to enlarge. But frankly, who I am right now doesn't call for large prints, and my photographs are perfectly fine being contact printed. If I want a 16x20 enlargement, I just shoot 4x5 and print it at the local photo center. IQ-wise, the 16x20's I've done from 4x5 negatives look perfectly fine to me. The photo center still maintains a somewhat-suitable b/w and color darkroom. But if space is a concern by ANY means, then I think that contact printing is the way to go in the end.

but just my $.02

-Dan

[William McEwen]

I've always said that if you're going to make an enlargement, start with the largest possible negative. LF negs aren't just for contact printing.

[David de Gruyl]

In my case, I contact print 8x10 because I have no way (nor room for a suitable enlarger) of projecting them. 4x5 and smaller get enlarged.

On the other hand, everything gets scanned, and I don't print color optically.

[Hugo Zhang]

Richard,

I just mounted one of my 16x20 contact prints last night in a frame and it's on my wall right now. Size does matter, I have to say. :)

I am probably never going to enlarge my negatives. Remember, your 10x12 contact prints will look nice too on the wall. It's not that small either. :)

Hugo

[Brian Ellis]

I haven't printed in a darkroom in quite a few years so I don't make "contact prints" any more though I did quite a lot of contact printing from 8x10 negatives in the late 1990s. But even then I never made contact prints exclusively. I varied the size of the print depending on what seemed to work best for a particular image. Some seemed suited to 8x10 (in which case I'd contact print), others (most actually) seemed better suited to being enlarged and since I didn't know how to make negatives digitally that meant I used the enlarger. Today I follow the same practice when printing digitally - the image determines the size of the final print.

[Richard K.]

Richard,

I just mounted one of my 16x20 contact prints last night in a frame and it's on my wall right now. Size does matter, I have to say. :)

I am probably never going to enlarge my negatives. Remember, your 10x12 contact prints will look nice too on the wall. It's not that small either. :)

Hugo

Hey Hugo, could you possibly take a photo of that print on the wall and post it here? (like I did below) We all would love to see it!! What medium did you print in? If I were just a few years younger and a few dollars richer, I would get an 18x22 Chamonix and channel Carleton Watkins. For now, I will make do with channeling Timothy O'Sullivan (he apparently used 10x12). AND, I'll mount those 10x12 prints on 18x22 board. :) What size board did you use?

Yes I can't hardly wait for the 10x12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn15/RichardK47/WallPhoto.jpg

Bigger better?
- on the left is an older 11x14 Pt print and on the right is a 19x22 enlargement that Bob Carnie made for me from a WP neg taken on my recent West trip

[John Jarosz]

Back when I began photography I limited myself to 11x14 prints, enlargements from 4x5 and 6x6. Why I don't know except that the scale of the prints seems right for the areas I show them. Moving to 8x10 I decided that they were too small for my taste contact printed. 8x20 gives me the scale I like and is still not too technically difficult for making carbon prints. While printing in-camera 8x20 negs is a little limiting, I'll accept that because I get the values I like from contact printing while keeping logistics simple. FWIW, I've started to print digital photographs and I've found that I'm gravitating to 11x14; or at least 14 inches being the long dimension. Maybe it's simply the size or viewing distance, but the detail in the print seems to deteriorate which my digital camera too much for my taste if it's larger. I think it's all about personal preference.

[Michael Roberts]

Well...after seeing the two prints side-by-side above, I think you should let Bob do all your enlarging and printing ;)

Seriously, it's easy to see why you are thinking about going bigger with your prints. The larger one here really rocks.

[John Powers]

Richard,

I shoot 8x10 and 7x17. I use my 8x10 cold light enlarger as a light source for contact prints or enlarging. The classes I take require ten 11x14 prints or larger every two weeks, so I enlarge the 8x10 negatives using VCFB Kentmere for what become proof prints. The ones I like especially are enlarged to 16 x20, usually for a series of twenty per course. The best of that batch are sometimes enlarged to 20x24. As you go up through the sizes, every now and then, there is the embarrassment that what looked in focus at 11x14 is just a little fuzzy at 20x24. The 7x17 are straight contact prints in silver or Vandyke. You are welcome to see prints and/or gear when you are here next month.

John

[Richard K.]

Totally looking forward to it John, have already booked my hotel suite...:D ROOM ROOM, just kidding about the suite!! See you soon...

[Bill Burk]

My enlarger handles 4x5 nicely, and my trays handle 11x14. So that's what I do.

[Hugo Zhang]

Here are two prints. One is a 16x20 print of Huntington Beach Pier and the other is a 14x17 print of my old front yeard.

[tgtaylor]

Nice looking prints Hugo. Are they contact prints, enlargments, or both?

Thomas

[Richard K.]

Very very nice, Hugo. What lens(es) did you use? What is the weight of your 16x20 camera?:) :rolleyes: :D

[Hugo Zhang]

Nice looking prints Hugo. Are they contact prints, enlargments, or both?

Thomas

Thomas,

They are contact prints.

Richard,

I used a 24" Red Dot Artar for the Pier picture and a 14" Blue Dot Trigor
for the 14x17 picture. My 16x20 camera weights just a little under 30 pounds.

Hugo

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Just to put in my $.02 on this subject. I have contact carbon prints in 8x10, 11x14 and 8x20 so far. I like the way they all look. Each has its own character. Now I just developed two 14x17 sheets of x-ray film from a studio set up I did and I have to say that 14x17 is a great size negative. I'm going to make my first 14x17 carbon print tomorrow night if all goes well and not only do I only contact print I also build the cameras to shoot the images. Took a shot of the three boys the other day!

[Richard K.]

Sincerely, D R O O L .... :D