10x enlargement to 40x50

[davidwrogers]

Got my darkroom up and running, somewhat. I can tray process my negs, at least. But I need to enlarge these little dudes to poster size, somewhere around 40x50 if not bigger...

beyond buying this paper, what enlarger do I need? 4x5 negs to a 40x50 print. Maybe with some cropping. So, preferably, and with room to spare, something that could enlarge a 4x5 to an 80x100? I'm not kidding around here, though I acknowledge my ignorance might make me sound stupid. I figure aroung 1500 dollars would do the trick but what brand what model, etc?

This is B&W.

[Corran]

Any reason you wouldn't go digital for this large of a print? Drum scan the negs and go to town.

I'm no expert but anything past 11x14 I'm definitely doing the hybrid digital thing.

[Allen in Montreal]

David,
The enlarger is not what will cost you, it is the glass.

A 40x50 is just getting into the peak range for a 150 Rodagon-G (10-40x with 20x being optimal).

A 120 WA is 4-15x with 6x being optimal.
The Apo Rodagon N is as above but requires normal enlarger height while the WA requires only about 70 percent of the height the N requires.
(A normal Rodagon 135 or 150 is 2-10x with 6 being optimal).

I fell upon a Durst 1200 with a color head, I almost did not keep it having a 138 already. It is a great enlarger and would make anyone happy I have no doubt.
A Durst 138 is a beauty too, and even if you only use up to 4x5, it is a total pleasure to print with. Neither are that dear these days. I bet the glass will set you back more than the enlarger.

The Durst 184 would be a great bet for prints that large. Rock solid. Tall and made like a finely machined tank! :-)

And don't forget a vacuum easel. You can make your own, for horizontal or vertical projection, but with paper that big, you will need a vacuum easel.

[jayabbas]

Analog printing that large will require top notch equipment that is tuned very well. Your processing skills will be tested also. Just the act of handling paper larger than 20x24 without introducing kinks, halfmoons or other maladies is a skill. If you must -- have plenty of space, a Durst 138 enlarger and an enlarger lens optimized for 10x or larger enlargement ratio such as a Rodagon -G . 40x50 is BIG and 80x100 is well ...

[Daniel Stone]

The proper enlarging lens for this task(Rodagon-G preferably) will set you back most of your proposed budget, if not all of it :(

Unless you have your heart set on making prints this big, or if you have someone footing the bill for this project, you're gonna need to spend more than $1500 just to get the proper equipment to do this well.

Now, a Rodagon-G isn't "necessary", any enlarging lens will work(as long as its able to cover the full negative), but not all lenses are designed to print big, and will deliver sub-par results. Yes, even for B/W.

There are labs that can drum scan your negatives, and provide you with the file needed to go to your proposed sizes. And probably a good # of scans will cost your UNDER $1500. But you better have lots of time waiting for files to open/render in Photoshop, or a fast computer to chug through 2+ Gb files. Make a sandwich and grab a cold one, cause those files will be big :)

best of luck

Dan

[Brian Ellis]

Before you even get to the enlarger you need to find an assistant to work with you in moving the paper from chemical tray (or vat) to tray, then into and out of the washing system. It's difficult, maybe impossible, for one person to handle wet paper that size by themselves without wrinkling it. And of course you need trays or vats big enough to hold the necessary chemicals, vats in which to mix the chemicals, a working surface big enough to hold the vats, etc. etc. But I'm sure somebody here has done something like this in a darkroom and can tell you exactly what you need.

Clyde Butcher has a darkroom in which he makes prints this size and larger. If you go here http://clydebutcher.com/technical-info.cfm you can see some of the specs for his equipment and some photographs of his darkroom that might give you some ideas. I looked around the darkroom a few years ago when I was in his studio. The darkroom was just a couple hundred square feet smaller than the house I lived in at the time.

[willwilson]

Don't let them scare you. It's possible, just difficult. I have successfully made 30x40 prints tray processed without an assistant but anything bigger and you'd need a helper. Wet printing that big is an art all in itself. Patience is key. You can literally work all day and end up with nothing. It is fun though.

I wouldn't worry to much about a lens. There's a whole laundry list of things you have to worry about before sharpness. I would start by cutting out a piece of cardboard 40x50 and just l moving it around in your space. You'll know pretty quick if it's something you want to do.

Good luck!

[Jim Noel]

You need an enlarger which will tilt so it can project horizontally. A Beseler comes to mind.

[aduncanson]

With a 150mm lens your will need a bit more than 77 inches from the negative to the paper to make a 12X enlargement (10X plus a bit more for cropping). That is a pretty difficult requirement satisfy in a moderate sized vertical enlarger. The 120mm lens can give you 12X with about 62 inches from negative to paper. Even 62 inches is 10 inches more than the maximum height of an Omega D5-XL (which is pretty tall as bench top enlargers go) projecting onto its baseboard. You would need to turn the column around and project on the floor, take the column off of the baseboard and project onto a dropped platform or project horizontally (which has always seemed fraught with risk to me.)

I found that Durst gives the maximum magnification for a Durst L138S (http://www.durst-pro-usa.com/pdf/manual/L138S_manual.pdf) with a 150mm lens as 8.5X.

Good Luck - Alan

[Greg Blank]

Not advocating one enlarger versus another, it depends on lots of factors. For instance you can wall mount the D series Omegas, Omega I believe can still provide a wall mount which is like a small shelf that the column can be positioned up a wall further. Provided you can go up, any size print can be made. I have seen people cut holes in floors under a closet (drastic yes- but it works.) When I bought my house about six years ago, the criteria was high enough ceilings in the basement to build the darkroom, among other stipulations.



With a 150mm lens your will need a bit more than 77 inches from the negative to the paper to make a 12X enlargement (10X plus a bit more for cropping). That is a pretty difficult requirement satisfy in a moderate sized vertical enlarger. The 120mm lens can give you 12X with about 62 inches from negative to paper. Even 62 inches is 10 inches more than the maximum height of an Omega D5-XL (which is pretty tall as bench top enlargers go) projecting onto its baseboard. You would need to turn the column around and project on the floor, take the column off of the baseboard and project onto a dropped platform or project horizontally (which has always seemed fraught with risk to me.)

I found that Durst gives the maximum magnification for a Durst L138S (http://www.durst-pro-usa.com/pdf/manual/L138S_manual.pdf) with a 150mm lens as 8.5X.

Good Luck - Alan

[ic-racer]

what enlarger do I need? 4x5 negs to a 40x50 print. .

Just about any Horizontal enlarger. I know the Durst 8x10 vertical enlargers will do about 40x40 on the baseboard with the baseboard at the bottom and heat at the top.

[davidwrogers]

this is pretty much the info I was expecting to hear. good to clarify this. so basically I need a lens of supreme focal length. what's the deal with any ol' 300mm lens mounted in a lens board and rammed forcefully into a cheapo ebay besler?

[Daniel Stone]

idk if your "ebay cheapo beseler" will accomodate a 12" lens. Besides, if you use a 12" lens vs a 150MM(a "normal FL enlarging lens for 4x5), then you'll be needing even MORE room

-Dan

[ic-racer]

In terms of lens, when I do that I use a 'standard' 210mm lens. My enlarger's lens is about 100" from the wall and that focal length works just about right when I have the head flipped to horizontal.

[aduncanson]

David, I fear that you have misunderstood the important points that several contributors above have tried to make.

Allen in Montreal discussed two excellent recent lens options, the 120mm Rodagon WA and the 150mm Rodagon G. Both of these lenses are optimized for higher magnifications than are typical enlarging lenses and I presume that this is why he focused on these. He seemed to settle on the 150 Rodagon G because of its superior performance at the highest magnifications you mentioned, while I focused on the practical advantages of the shorter, wide angle design. You seem to have taken the message instead to be that longer is better.

A longer lens has a direct negative consequence. For a print magnification equal to M, the paper to negative distance is (2 + M + 1/M) x Focal Length. So for a 300mm lens you would need about 14 feet so you are definitely talking about projecting horizontally. Most 300mm enlarging lenses are likely to be optimized for a fairly modest magnification such as 3X to 4X and would not be as good for your purposes as either the 150 or 120mm lenses that Allen mentioned above.

Consider also the often repeated advice that the negative, the lens and the easel will need to be very accurately aligned for best results and that you will need to use a glass negative carrier for best sharpness.

[Dave Langendonk]

You need one of these ;) (But I may be a bit biased)

[Donald Miller]

One thing to consider is the lamp wattage in which ever enlarger that you decide upon. Most 4X5 enlargers are going to result in incredibly long exposure times for the enlargements that you are aiming to do.

Everything is going to be more critical at this degree of enlargement...minor misalignments are going to become very apparent.

[Allen in Montreal]

One extreme to the other, there is middle ground! :) :)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/320749884691?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

http://www.ebay.com/itm/310309656905?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

[davidwrogers]

David,
The enlarger is not what will cost you, it is the glass.

A 40x50 is just getting into the peak range for a 150 Rodagon-G (10-40x with 20x being optimal).....

And don't forget a vacuum easel. You can make your own, for horizontal or vertical projection, but with paper that big, you will need a vacuum easel.

Thanks for this reply. Very informative but didn't read it with any sort of comprehension until today, for some reason. This has dispelled some confusion over here.

[Dave Brown]

For what it's worth, 40x50 (from 4x5) is not 10x. 64x80 would only be 5x. In addition to what others have said, just be aware that at some point, light falloff becomes an issue when making very large prints (this is why using an 8x10 or bigger enlarger makes a lot of sense). Good luck!

[Ole Tjugen]

For what it's worth, 40x50 (from 4x5) is not 10x. 64x80 would only be 5x. In addition to what others have said, just be aware that at some point, light falloff becomes an issue when making very large prints (this is why using an 8x10 or bigger enlarger makes a lot of sense). Good luck!

I didn't understand any of that at all - 40x50" IS 10x. 10x4" = 40".

"Light falloff"? Using the correct condensers for even illumination with the film size and enlargement factor you are using is the way to get even illumination, at ALL sizes. Using an 8x10" enlarger does NOT automatically give you more even illumination with a 4x5" negative. My enlarger is a Durst 138S; the condensers are changed according to film size, lens focal length, and enlargement factor.

[ic-racer]

For what it's worth, 40x50 (from 4x5) is not 10x.

??

[davidwrogers]

For what it's worth, 40x50 (from 4x5) is not 10x. 64x80 would only be 5x. In addition to what others have said, just be aware that at some point, light falloff becomes an issue when making very large prints (this is why using an 8x10 or bigger enlarger makes a lot of sense). Good luck!

I would like to purchase the Confusulon BS200 lens you offered here.

[Allen in Montreal]

Thanks for this reply. Very informative but didn't read it with any sort of comprehension until today, for some reason. This has dispelled some confusion over here.

I envy you for taking on a project like this, I wish I had the time and the space to even consider it. :(

[Michael Alpert]

Got my darkroom up and running, somewhat. I can tray process my negs, at least. But I need to enlarge these little dudes to poster size, somewhere around 40x50 if not bigger....

David,

I read this thread yesterday in disbelief. I wonder why no one has told you that photographic printing is a craft. You need to know your materials thoroughly, and you need to have a realizable vision of your completed work. You are just now beginning to process film. It takes years of sustained effort to learn how to print very large traditional photographic prints with skill. Every little problem in your negative--such as softness, dust, uneven development--will be magnified in your large prints and will ruin them. And I am not even talking about ART, which is a whole demanding level of consciousness in itself. Your budget for paper alone should be about $1,500, given that you will be using a lot of it before you start to approach a final large-scale print. I suggest that you first have negatives IN HAND that are aesthetically complete and that you know will print well in moderate enlargement. I also suggest that you take a workshop with a master printer. The money you will save in materials and time will more than pay for the tuition. All of my unasked for-advice is given in an attempt to be helpful. I wish you well.

[LF_rookie_to_be]

I wonder why no one has told you that photographic printing is a craft. You need to know your materials thoroughly, and you need to have a realizable vision of your completed work. You are just now beginning to process film. It takes years of sustained effort to learn how to print very large traditional photographic prints with skill. Every little problem in your negative--such as softness, dust, uneven development--will be magnified in your large prints and will ruin them. And I am not even talking about ART, which is a whole demanding level of consciousness in itself. Your budget for paper alone should be about $1,500, given that you will be using a lot of it before you start to approach a final large-scale print. I suggest that you first have negatives IN HAND that are aesthetically complete and that you know will print well in moderate enlargement. I also suggest that you take a workshop with a master printer. The money you will save in materials and time will more than pay for the tuition. All of my unasked for-advice is given in an attempt to be helpful. I wish you well.

Now that has to be some of the best advice I read in a long time anywhere. It reminds me of what I was extremely lucky to be told some nine years ago by a highly skilled draughtsman and designer - my employer - who talked me into going to a proper school. After four years of comprehensive training in drawing, "art" printmaking and design, I ventured into hours and hours of darkroom work and learning how not to get carried away by equipment. A chance meeting with a master photographer (a few words: 17x22" contact FB prints) developed into long and really useful talks about all aspects of photography, after which came only a few sessions of practical work. After that, it took two years and some DIY to get to a 32x40" B&W RC print which was just sharp (thanks to a proper lens - Rodagon G) but otherwise rather too harsh, with a disappointing tonality. A year and a half later, I'm preparing to do my first color print of the same size, after about 300 12x16" more or less satisfying prints. No bragging, just mileage. YMMV.

[Allen in Montreal]

.....I suggest that you first have negatives IN HAND that are aesthetically complete and that you know will print well in moderate enlargement. I also suggest that you take a workshop with a master printer. The money you will save in materials and time will more than pay for the tuition. All of my unasked for-advice is given in an attempt to be helpful. I wish you well.

This is very good advice! :)

[rdenney]

...I suggest that you first have negatives IN HAND that are aesthetically complete and that you know will print well in moderate enlargement. I also suggest that you take a workshop with a master printer. The money you will save in materials and time will more than pay for the tuition....

There's a saying among astronomers that they impart to those just starting out grinding their own mirrors: If you want to grind a 12" mirror, grind a 6" mirror first. For a novice: both the 6 and the 12 will take less time than the 12 alone.

Rick "who has some great photographs that can't be printed larger than about 8x10" Denney

[davidwrogers]

David,

I read this thread yesterday in disbelief. I wonder why no one has told you that photographic printing is a craft. You need to know your materials thoroughly, and you need to have a realizable vision of your completed work. You are just now beginning to process film. It takes years of sustained effort to learn how to print very large traditional photographic prints with skill. Every little problem in your negative--such as softness, dust, uneven development--will be magnified in your large prints and will ruin them. And I am not even talking about ART, which is a whole demanding level of consciousness in itself. Your budget for paper alone should be about $1,500, given that you will be using a lot of it before you start to approach a final large-scale print. I suggest that you first have negatives IN HAND that are aesthetically complete and that you know will print well in moderate enlargement. I also suggest that you take a workshop with a master printer. The money you will save in materials and time will more than pay for the tuition. All of my unasked for-advice is given in an attempt to be helpful. I wish you well.

Word, cutting that 96' roll of 50" paper is going to be gay.

[bigdog]

I read this thread yesterday in disbelief. I wonder why no one has told you ...

Me, too. I just assumed (hoped) that the OP was known to other posters and did have a level of knowledge. However, if the OP has never printed: Start Smaller!!! :eek:

[Michael Alpert]

Word, cutting that 96' roll of 50" paper is going to be gay.

David,

I do not understand this post. Is this a response to what I wrote?

[Donald Miller]

I didn't understand any of that at all - 40x50" IS 10x. 10x4" = 40".

"Light falloff"? Using the correct condensers for even illumination with the film size and enlargement factor you are using is the way to get even illumination, at ALL sizes. Using an 8x10" enlarger does NOT automatically give you more even illumination with a 4x5" negative. My enlarger is a Durst 138S; the condensers are changed according to film size, lens focal length, and enlargement factor.

Ole, I believe that what the person commenting addressed was not what you are addressing. The light fall off he spoke of comes from the distance from the lens to the baseboard and with even a 138S and conventional 200 watt Thorn lamp the falloff at that degree of enlargement would be excessive and the exposure times would be more than I would want. I have 1200 watts inside my 138S and that would handle what this fellow wants to do.

For the original poster, I would never consider enlarging a 4X5 negative that large. I find my limit for the quality that I am after is a 16X20 print. I enlarge my 5X7 negatives to that size and do notice a distinct difference between 4X5 and 5X7 negatives on a 16X20 print. I realize that a lot of us become enamored with big prints but smaller and better quality prints are really very nice.

[davidwrogers]

...

For the original poster, I would never consider enlarging a 4X5 negative that large. I find my limit for the quality that I am after is a 16X20 print...

Yeah, 16x20 seems more feasible from the point of view of my inner accountant. I'm hunting down enlargers on ebay now.

[Ole Tjugen]

Ole, I believe that what the person commenting addressed was not what you are addressing. The light fall off he spoke of comes from the distance from the lens to the baseboard and with even a 138S and conventional 200 watt Thorn lamp the falloff at that degree of enlargement would be excessive and the exposure times would be more than I would want. I have 1200 watts inside my 138S and that would handle what this fellow wants to do. ....

That's not light falloff, that's simple inverse square law.

Simply stated, the light you have available has to be spread over a larger area so that there is only a quarter of the illumination when making a 16x20" print as there is for the same crop on a 8x10" print.

Falloff is light loss in the corners due to other optical constraints, and can be controlled through optics and light collimation - but not eliminated completely, and using a larger enlarger does NOT help.

[Allen in Montreal]

The OP never stated his intentions for larger prints, so I assumed he has a vision he wants to work towards.

He never mentioned he would frame and hang them........

When I was kid I would go by the studio of an architectural photographer with a large studio in Old Montreal. Every month he made a huge print, at least 30x40, most probably larger, and tacked it to a nice wooden framed cork board that was mounted on wheels (much like a rolling rack in the garment trade). He would place it about 3 feet from the studio window so that people walking by could look in and see his work, the studio had some light from the window, but no one could see in the studio at the same time.

I would bet the prints weren't museum quality (the way they were pinned them with large tacks to the board) but it was certainly very effective, everyone who walked near the studio looked in, I traveled there just to look at his work.

[mandoman7]

...
For the original poster, I would never consider enlarging a 4X5 negative that large. I find my limit for the quality that I am after is a 16X20 print. I enlarge my 5X7 negatives to that size and do notice a distinct difference between 4X5 and 5X7 negatives on a 16X20 print. I realize that a lot of us become enamored with big prints but smaller and better quality prints are really very nice.

I would agree with your point for prints that are going to be hung in a house, where viewing distance is not more than 10 ft. usually. Larger viewing distances, however, can allow for large prints of surprisingly lower resolution. A bank used my images for a billboard a few years ago, and I was shocked to see how good a 100mb image can look from a couple of hundred yards away.

[Donald Miller]

That's not light falloff, that's simple inverse square law.

Simply stated, the light you have available has to be spread over a larger area so that there is only a quarter of the illumination when making a 16x20" print as there is for the same crop on a 8x10" print.

Falloff is light loss in the corners due to other optical constraints, and can be controlled through optics and light collimation - but not eliminated completely, and using a larger enlarger does NOT help.


You are getting hung up on a difference in terminology. Granted that you are probably correct but I am willing to cut someone that may not use the correct terminology some slack...that is something that you are probably to perfect to grant.

So you are saying that a larger format enlarger with a higher wattage bulb would not increase illumination on the baseboard? Interesting, most interesting!

[Ole Tjugen]

No, I did not say that a higher wattage bulb wouldn't give more illumination - but the SAME bulb in a 8x10" enlarger would give LESS light than the same bulb in a 4x5" enlarger, even if both had the perfect set of condensers for the 4x5" negative and the lens used.

My solution to this is unusual, and forced by the lack of big strong bulbs: I use a compact fluorescent bulb in my 138S. I turn it on when I come in, leave it warming up as I mix the chemicals, and use the lens cap as a "shutter". I don't turn it off until I'm done for the day.

That gives enough illumination to make 24x30cm prints from 4x5" negatives with an exposure time of around two seconds unless I stop down a further two stops, so it should be good for 1x1.4m (40x56") at reasonable exposure times.

Exposure time for 4x5" negatives to the same size print are about double, a little less with the correct condensers for the setup - but I tend to use the same 180m lens for both sizes.

Next step is to mount the enlarger lens in a shutter, I think. :)

[ic-racer]

Next step is to mount the enlarger lens in a shutter, I think. :)

I knew there was someone out there what would want this: http://www.ebay.com:80/itm/ELEC-SHUTTER-BRASS-LENS-8X10-FIELD-CAMERA-LARGE-FORMAT-/280530014100?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item4150e44f94

[Scott Walker]

Yeah, 16x20 seems more feasible from the point of view of my inner accountant. I'm hunting down enlargers on ebay now.

LOL :D never listen to the inner accountant when it comes to art.

Sounds like a fun project, I did a 32x40 enlargement from a 4x5 neg years ago when I was in art school. I could not afford the gear to make a real one so I improvised by using a vertical enlarger horizontally and for paper I used 4 sheets of 16x20. I was real happy with the results, but got what I expected, 32x40 has 64 times the surface area as the 4x5 negative I used. your 40x50 will be 100 times the size of the negative and I imagine 100 times the headaches. The amount of light falloff is absolutely mind boggling. Be prepared to use lots of paper, I used 8x10 paper for test strips and although I don't remember off the top of my head exactly what the exposure times were, I recall they were very long.

[Donald Miller]

No, I did not say that a higher wattage bulb wouldn't give more illumination - but the SAME bulb in a 8x10" enlarger would give LESS light than the same bulb in a 4x5" enlarger, even if both had the perfect set of condensers for the 4x5" negative and the lens used.
:)

Excuse me for asking but how many 8X10 enlargers have you actually encountered that have the same wattage bulb as a 4X5 enlarger? I can't think of a single one but maybe I am missing something.

[boris]

My solution to this is unusual, and forced by the lack of big strong bulbs: I use a compact fluorescent bulb in my 138S.
interesting! could you post a link of the bulb you use?
thanks, boris

[ic-racer]

L. The amount of light falloff is absolutely mind boggling.

Here is a graph showing the light falloff from center for the Componon-S 150mm lens at three different magnifications. As you can see, the falloff is worse with big enlargements, but the curves are pretty close together. The difference between the three curves is not quite mind boggling. I would probably consider the increased falloff from center with big enlargements insignificant (solid lines).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/ic-racer/2011/Componon-S150LightFalloff.jpg

[LF_rookie_to_be]

What about the light fall-off of Rodagon-G 150/5,6 at 15x magnification of a 4x5" color negative with a 13x13cm diffusion box?

[Asher Kelman]

David,

I read this thread yesterday in disbelief. I wonder why no one has told you that photographic printing is a craft. You need to know your materials thoroughly, and you need to have a realizable vision of your completed work. You are just now beginning to process film. It takes years of sustained effort to learn how to print very large traditional photographic prints with skill. Every little problem in your negative--such as softness, dust, uneven development--will be magnified in your large prints and will ruin them. And I am not even talking about ART, which is a whole demanding level of consciousness in itself.Your budget for paper alone should be about $1,500, given that you will be using a lot of it before you start to approach a final large-scale print. I suggest that you first have negatives IN HAND that are aesthetically complete and that you know will print well in moderate enlargement. I also suggest that you take a workshop with a master printer. he money you will save in materials and time will more than pay for the tuition. All of my unasked for-advice is given in an attempt to be helpful. I wish you well.


Michael,

I'm going to print these excepts of your great advice, large and in red, and put it above my desk!

"It takes years of sustained effort to learn how to print very large traditional photographic prints with skill. Every little problem in your negative--such as softness, dust, uneven development--will be magnified in your large prints and will ruin them. And I am not even talking about ART, which is a whole demanding level of consciousness in itself."

"I suggest that you first have negatives IN HAND that are aesthetically complete and that you know will print well in moderate enlargement. I also suggest that you take a workshop with a master printer."

"I wish you well"


I too want to make giant prints! I too thought it was essential to have a mentor and objective critic. Let me digress. I had arranged, (too late, sadly), with the late so generous and kind inspired teacher, Per Volquartz, to be my guide, as I was inspired by his fine prints. Tragedy struck and instead of having guidance, I was amongst those gathered, discussing his untimely passing. What a loss to his family and the community. The point is that one does need to be connected to someone who is imbued with the art, craft and essence of the worth of imagining and then imaging and finally exporting that to a print. I'll just have to seek out a new mentor but I doubt that I'll make up for what I could have learned from Per.

Whenever we reread your advice above, we have to rewind the movie, put aside the fantasy, and simply set out to prove that we have really great small images. That reality one cannot escape! Enlarging something false would not make it true and enlarging a mediocre image merely advertises shortcomings that might otherwise be overlooked!

Thanks for the excellent pointers. That's the very best anyone can ask for here.

Asher

[LF_rookie_to_be]

I'm realistic to know that processing a 50"x74" inch paper through giant trays, even if one is an expert, is not likely to be an efficient approach to getting the work done without being bogged down in quality issues. One cannot have the throughput without a machine that can simply be fed paper!

Actually, you can process that size in a 24" diameter pipe. If you're in North America, you're lucky, because over there you can buy something called "Ceme-tube" at very reasonable prices, in addition to RA-RT kodak chems being priced normally, unlike here in central Europe. These tubes are 50" long, so a 24" dia. tube it fits the mentioned size perfectly. Throughput issue (quick filling/draining) isn't such a huge problem, a little DIY wisdom and some engineering does miracles.

[Scott Walker]

Actually, you can process that size in a 24" diameter pipe. If you're in North America, you're lucky, because over there you can buy something called "Ceme-tube" at very reasonable prices, in addition to RA-RT kodak chems being priced normally, unlike here in central Europe. These tubes are 50" long, so a 24" dia. tube it fits the mentioned size perfectly. Throughput issue (quick filling/draining) isn't such a huge problem, a little DIY wisdom and some engineering does miracles.

Excellent! This is definitely going onto my list of brilliant ideas that I have acquired from a variety of people over the years.

[JMB]

Re: 10x enlargement to 40x50

Originally Posted by Dave Brown

For what it's worth, 40x50 (from 4x5) is not 10x.

Originally Posted by IC Racer

??


Recommended reading: Plato's Dialogues, "The Meno." Discussion between Socrates and Meno's slave.

[Scott Walker]

Re: 10x enlargement to 40x50

Originally Posted by Dave Brown

For what it's worth, 40x50 (from 4x5) is not 10x.

Originally Posted by IC Racer

??


Recommended reading: Plato's Dialogues, "The Meno." Discussion between Socrates and Meno's slave.

4x5=20 square inches
40x50=2,000 square inches
2,000 divided by 20 = 100

4 inches x 10 = 40
5 inches x 10 = 50
10x10 = 100

no matter how you do the math it is not a 10x enlargment.....

I did a quick read through on your recomended reading and found nothing about enlarging a 4x5 negative;) :)

[JMB]

4x5=20 square inches
40x50=2,000 square inches
2,000 divided by 20 = 100

4 inches x 10 = 40
5 inches x 10 = 50
10x10 = 100

no matter how you do the math it is not a 10x enlargment.....

I did a quick read through on your recomended reading and found nothing about enlarging a 4x5 negative;) :)



Congratulations! You win the first Meno Prize in photography! As you see, the good Dave Brown was badly abused.

[Jay DeFehr]

Scott,

There is one way to do the math. Enlargement factors are given in diameters. The diameter of a circle that will enclose a 40x50 area is 10X one that will enclose a 4x5 area. It's a linear measurement, which is why 10 x 4 = 40 is also accurate. So, 40x50 is a 10X enlargement of 4x5.

[Scott Walker]

Scott,

There is one way to do the math. Enlargement factors are given in diameters. The diameter of a circle that will enclose a 40x50 area is 10X one that will enclose a 4x5 area. It's a linear measurement, which is why 10 x 4 = 40 is also accurate. So, 40x50 is a 10X enlargement of 4x5.

I've heard that, never did buy into it though

[Tracy Storer]

4"x5" to 40" x 50" is 10X

If you have an object which is rendered 1" high on your 4"x5" negative and enlarge that negative to 40"x50", that object will be 10" high in the print.

The AREA of the relative sizes is a different story.

[Jay DeFehr]

I've heard that, never did buy into it though

Does it help to use centimeters?;)

[JMB]

4"x5" to 40" x 50" is 10X

If you have an object which is rendered 1" high on your 4"x5" negative and enlarge that negative to 40"x50", that object will be 10" high in the print.

The AREA of the relative sizes is a different story.


Jay,

Where is your taste for precision and geometry? This is after all the Meno Award. It is impossible to square a circle.

In any case, if as you say, enlargements are given in terms of measures of diameters, then that means that enlargements are functions of the areas of circles. Hence, if you increase the diameter of the circle that surrounds an image10 times, then you will have, again, about a 100 x magnification (of area), not 10x. Now, if you consider the magnification in terms of the circumference of the circle (instead of area), then you would seemingly have a 10x enlargement (which is what you should have said) at least if we printing circles. However, you would not be taking into consideration the full dimension of the object, which is magnified by increasing the circumference of the circle around it. It seems to me that the area of the circle (or rectangle) that is magnified is key because photographs are rendered in two dimensional space, not one dimension. I think that Tracy’s point below helps to underscore this point.

Tracy,

You cannot ignore the area (both dimensions) of the one inch tall object. This is to say, that you cannot simply make the one inch tall object ten inches taller without also making it wider and hence increasing its total area. If the object is one square inch, and you make one dimension 10 inches taller then you have also increased its other dimension. Hence you magnify the object about 100 x. The image is located in an area, i.e. two dimensional space (not on a single dimension line).

I think that the Meno award has to stand.

Anyway guys, I am in France at the moment, and I must get some sleep. I will check in tomorrow; for I am curious with the lens magnification specifications are calculated on the basis of the circumference or area of a circle if indeed they are based upon diameter measurements.

[Jay DeFehr]

In any case, if as you say, enlargements are given in terms of measures of diameters, then that means that enlargements are functions of the areas of circles.

Does it? I disagree. Enlargements are given in diameters because they are a function of linear, or transverse magnification, and area does not enter into the calculation. We use diameters because lenses project circular images, within which our rectangular formats lie, unless we're printing circles, of course.

[Tracy Storer]

Tracy,

You cannot ignore the area (both dimensions) of the one inch tall object. This is to say, that you cannot simply make the one inch tall object ten inches taller without also making it wider and hence increasing its total area. If the object is one square inch, and you make one dimension 10 inches taller then you have also increased its other dimension. Hence you magnify the object about 100 x. The image is located in an area, i.e. two dimensional space (not on a single dimension line).

I think that the Meno award has to stand.

Oh, I'm not ignoring area, I'm just saying, as Jay has, that that is not what is being discussed. "Image Magnification" is linear.
Do I tell people that a 20"x24" is six times the area of an 8"x10"? Sure I do, and it IS, but 1:1 is 1X, 2:1 is 2x, 1:2 is 0.5X, and so on, area is a separate issue, related, but separate.
It is how I have discussed it and heard it expressed by other professionals for 30 years. Printers discuss size in terms of "percentages", still linear.

The language is perhaps not as precise and unambiguous as it might be, but that is how it is.

Oh, and what the heck is a "Meno Award" by the way?

[JMB]

Does it? I disagree. Enlargements are given in diameters because they are a function of linear, or transverse magnification, and area does not enter into the calculation. We use diameters because lenses project circular images, within which our rectangular formats lie, unless we're printing circles, of course.

Well, I can't help but get a little interested in this. It is starting to look like something more along the lines of what Tracy writes is accurate. And as a practical matter it might make sense. It looks like photographic lens magnification is given simply in terms of a popular notion of "height." In other words, if I take a photograph of a man 6 ft tall and I want a photograph that approximates life size, I am not going to ask for the magnification in terms of the area that the man will occupy (which would be the most precise), but in term of how much "taller" he will be under X magnification. And it appears that distance and height are the factors used in identifying magnification in these popular terms, although I am still looking about for more information. When you write that you use "diameter" that is not telling me enough or is misleading. It seems that you mean that you use a "line" and you freely associate it with any dimension relative to any given axis, which is ultimately what Tracy has written. If you mean something different from what Tracy has written then you will have to explain; otherwise I am curious what you are using relative to "diameter," i.e. circumference or area of a circle?

In any case, your technical story still has us squaring a circle as a precise matter, which is indeed impossible.

[Tracy Storer]

JMB, we were writing at the same time....see my post above, it's funny, we both touched on the language lacking precision, I'm citing conventional professional lingo.

Area could be expressed like "10XY" but it quickly becomes too cumbersome to be practical. Increased area is understood.
Peace.

[JMB]

Yes, we are writing at the same time. and perhaps towards the same destiny.

Ah the Meno award. In this Platonic dialogue (the Meno), Socrates tells Meno’s slave that he has in mind a square of certain dimensions. I cannot recall right off hand the actual dimensions. So I will say 2ft x 2ft. And Socrates says that he wants to make a square twice this size. Hence, he asks Meno’s slave, how long should he make each side in order to have a square twice as large? The slave answers “4,” double each side.

Then through a series of questions Socrates gets the slave to realize that he has produced a square that is 4 times the original size (area), not twice. And he even gets the slave to come up with the right answer simply by asking the slave questions.

The story is relevant here because I felt that Brown was a little abused when he pointed out in this thread that 40x50 was not obviously 10x larger than 4x5. Several writers wrote emphatically, in essence, does not 4x10 equal 40? much like Meno’s slave.

Hence, I offered the Meno award to Scott Walker who performed magnificently as Socrates.

[aduncanson]

Mr. Brown seemed to be suggesting yet a different erroneous way of calculating magnification when he said that a 64 x 80 would be 5x from a 4x5 neg. I am guessing that he took magnification to be logarithmic such that 1x is 4x5, 2x is 8x10, 3x is 16x20, 4x is 32x40 and 5x is 64x80. After all a 64x80 print would be 256 times the area of the 4x5 negative.

[ic-racer]

If one cannot understand that 10x enlargement of 4x5 is 40x50 then any technical data on enlarging lenses, process lenses, enlarger spec sheets, depth of field tables, bellows factors, etc. will be meaningless.

If you don't understand darkroom and photography nomenclature then don't post in the technical section.

[Jay DeFehr]

I am not going to ask for the magnification in terms of the area that the man will occupy (which would be the most precise)....

I think you're confused about what magnification is used to express. If you want to express differences in image area, magnification is not the right term to use. There is no more precise way to express linear magnification than by the math used to calculate it, and image area is not part of that calculation. Magnification is an optical phenomenon, and lenses form circular images. Transverse magnification (enlargement factors) are expressed in terms derived from these calculations. If you want to know how much more chemical will be required to process a 40 x 50 print than for a 4x5 print, magnification is not the appropriate calculation to make, but if you want to know the magnification of an object in a 40 x 50 print from a 4x5 negative, image area is not the appropriate calculation to make. Precision is not achieved by making the wrong calculation.

[JMB]

I think you're confused about what magnification is used to express. If you want to express differences in image area, magnification is not the right term to use. There is no more precise way to express linear magnification than by the math used to calculate it, and image area is not part of that calculation. Magnification is an optical phenomenon, and lenses form circular images. Transverse magnification (enlargement factors) are expressed in terms derived from these calculations. If you want to know how much more chemical will be required to process a 40 x 50 print than for a 4x5 print, magnification is not the appropriate calculation to make, but if you want to know the magnification of an object in a 40 x 50 print from a 4x5 negative, image area is not the appropriate calculation to make. Precision is not achieved by making the wrong calculation.

The appropriate calculation is a matter of convention depending upon what you want to know. And I think that I figured out what photographic magnification is trying to express. It appears to be a popular notion. It seems that photographic magnification (as I have already written) is not after expressing the geometric increase in the size of the entire image of focus, but only one dimension of it for practical reasons (which I previously mentioned). And therefore, it appears to focus upon the convention of “height” of an image oriented along the axis that one in practical or ordinary terms actually views the image.


The objections to Brown whatever their scope or what they may have been personally to some readers, the objections were nevertheless expressed in impolite and exasperated terms that a 10x enlargement of a 4 x 5 image had to be 40 x 50 because 4x10 equals 40. This is not correct from a geometric standpoint, and it appears to me that those who made the objection were making the same mistake as Meno’s slave. What’s more it seems that those who objected to Brown’s point were not prepared to explain that (or why) photographic magnification apparently focuses on the popular notion of height alone along a popular axis. And the explanation that you provided of course would result in an image slightly larger than 40 x50. And of course if I were after the volume of chemicals needed to cover an area, then that would involve another dimension.


In any case, we are well passed at this point the kind of information that the initial inquiry was after. But it does look to me like photographic magnification is not after the same kind of information that other magnification factors are after, and it definitely is not after geometric measurement of the entire image area.

[Scott Walker]

Yes, we are writing at the same time. and perhaps towards the same destiny.

Ah the Meno award. In this Platonic dialogue (the Meno), Socrates tells Meno’s slave that he has in mind a square of certain dimensions. I cannot recall right off hand the actual dimensions. So I will say 2ft x 2ft. And Socrates says that he wants to make a square twice this size. Hence, he asks Meno’s slave, how long should he make each side in order to have a square twice as large? The slave answers “4,” double each side.

Then through a series of questions Socrates gets the slave to realize that he has produced a square that is 4 times the original size (area), not twice. And he even gets the slave to come up with the right answer simply by asking the slave questions.

The story is relevant here because I felt that Brown was a little abused when he pointed out in this thread that 40x50 was not obviously 10x larger than 4x5. Several writers wrote emphatically, in essence, does not 4x10 equal 40? much like Meno’s slave.

Hence, I offered the Meno award to Scott Walker who performed magnificently as Socrates.

Thank you! I was beginning to think that no one quite got that :)

[rdenney]

In the context of the original request, "10X" was used in reference to "40x50", and applied to linear magnification, primarily to determine what type of enlarger to buy and how to set it up. One factor brought up was the lens, which must be a good performer at that magnification, and in that context magnification means the ratio of linear dimensions. That is fully consistent with all definitions of "magnification" that I have ever seen, including mathematical descriptions of optical magnification.

For the original question, therefore, the statement that 40x50 is not a 10x magnification of 4x5, with no further explanation, seems to me like...sophistry.

(We've talked about Socrates and Plato. Can I bring in those whom they exposed as "deceivers with words"?)

There was a discussion of bulb brightness with respect to exposure time. (Was that in this thread? I lose track.) That discussion would be affected by the area of the enlargement. So, a 10x enlargement would require 100 times the exposure as a 1x enlargement, same as the ratio of areas. But that was not the OP's question in any case.

Rick "siding with Socrates and Plato against the sophists" Denney

[Jay DeFehr]

JMB,

I nominate you for the Meno award. You've made the same mistake Meno's slave made; confusing one calculation for another. Meno's slave confused linear measurement with area measurement, and you've confused geometry with optics. Enlargement/ transverse magnification is not a geometric function.


The appropriate calculation is a matter of convention depending upon what you want to know.

Using the correct calculation, or using the correct terminology to describe a phenomenon might be conventional, but it's also correct, which might explain its popularity.


I think the tone taken with Brown might be related to his own tone in "correcting" the original poster with bad information. Brown didn't ask the question, he made a statement of fact, that happened to be incorrect. Posters are generally not lauded for muddying the waters, and this is certainly not the first time this issue has come up. Magnification is a fundamental principle of optics, and I think we're expected to be familiar with the basics before we contest related information posted by others.

Plato's question posed by the Meno is whether the slave was taught by Socrates, or whether he recalled through Socrates' questions knowledge already held by him. Most photographers know, even if they can't calculate magnification, that lenses project circular images, onto our film, whatever its shape, and onto our baseboards, and that making the image larger means making the circle larger. The area of a rectangle within the circle is an obfuscation, and plays no part in the calculation of magnification/ image enlargement. That the area of a large circle is greater than that of a smaller one is a given, though irrelevant to the calculation of magnification. Magnification is useful as an optical principle, and combined with other optical principles, like the inverse square law, allows us to calculate changes in exposure needed for a given change in image size; calculations that might be useful to the OP. The geometric measurement of the entire image area will be important for calculating the size of various trays, frames, etc., and for calculating the volumes of chemicals required for processing. Image magnification will be no more useful for calculating chemical volumes than area calculation is for image size. In short; image size is a different calculation than print size.

[ROL]

David,

I read this thread yesterday in disbelief. I wonder why no one has told you that photographic printing is a craft...

Can hardly believe someone else has the courage and fortitude to speak truth about traditional printing around here. I am frequently rebuked for suggesting that basic silver printing requires mastery of material and technique, particularly over at APUG.

Have a plan and some experience before ramping up to mural size prints. I love printing large. At 6'1", 30X40 is that max I am able to handle alone in my darkroom (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/a-darkroom-portrait), specifically designed to enlarge to that size. No, mural size enlargements are not the same as normal sized enlargements. As I have oft said, large prints are, if nothing else, a test of the printing skills and craftmanship of any darkroom worker, and a wonder to behold (or to be held, with both hands, if for no other reason than the degree of commitment necessary by the photographic artist ;) )

I plan to make a video sometime this winter, showing an actual darkroom session making a mural print. But until then, I have posted an article (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/Fine%20Art%20Print%20Presentation#mountinglargeprints) concerning the dry mounting of large prints.

[bob carnie]

I print murals for a living, as well as small prints.

I encourage the OP to try a big ass print, make it beautiful and hang it on a wall.
If you can use a coke bottle and a candle to project and spray develop it in a bathroom shower stall even better.
I have a system that cost me a house to put together , precise alignment , tons of power, great optics, large sinks, large troughs, monster hot press.

If the OP can make them and they look good with less than optimum equipment I encourage him or her. The experience will be the reward and maybe make them want to start a long career of gathering equipment to make the work a lot easier.
My wife now shoots film with a pinhole camera and holga, I am planning to do a series of images on our 5D with a zone plate for a lens.

I have seen examples of jury rigg printing murals and have to admit with the right subject matter the images were pretty compelling.

[Scott Walker]

I print murals for a living, as well as small prints.

I encourage the OP to try a big ass print, make it beautiful and hang it on a wall.
If you can use a coke bottle and a candle to project and spray develop it in a bathroom shower stall even better.
I have a system that cost me a house to put together , precise alignment , tons of power, great optics, large sinks, large troughs, monster hot press.

If the OP can make them and they look good with less than optimum equipment I encourage him or her. The experience will be the reward and maybe make them want to start a long career of gathering equipment to make the work a lot easier.
My wife now shoots film with a pinhole camera and holga, I am planning to do a series of images on our 5D with a zone plate for a lens.

I have seen examples of jury rigg printing murals and have to admit with the right subject matter the images were pretty compelling.

Very refreshing to hear words of encouragement, especially from someone actually working with large prints. :)

[JMB]

"Using the correct calculation, or using the correct terminology to describe a phenomenon might be conventional, but it's also correct, which might explain its popularity." ---Jay Defehr

And I suppose that I will have to nominate Jay DeFehr for the Sophist award. He will write just about anything without worrying too much about what follows from his claims or really understanding what he is writing so long as it dodges the issues and problems that are plainly pointed out to him and to which he has no sound replies.

[ic-racer]

I have seen examples of jury rigg printing murals and have to admit with the right subject matter the images were pretty compelling.

I agree and was thinking the same thing. In fact, here is a perfect example from an APUG poster that was very pleased with his somewhat primitive but very effective approach to massive enlargement.

http://lii.cc/projects/144

[Jay DeFehr]

"Using the correct calculation, or using the correct terminology to describe a phenomenon might be conventional, but it's also correct, which might explain its popularity." ---Jay Defehr

And I suppose that I will have to nominate Jay DeFehr for the Sophist award. He will write just about anything without worrying too much about what follows from his claims or really understanding what he is writing so long as it dodges the issues and problems that are plainly pointed out to him and to which he has no sound replies.

Ok, I give up, lest I earn the Quixote award.

[JMB]

Ok, I give up, lest I earn the Quixote award.

Well, all is well that ends well, or at least ends. So I will award you the Shakespeare prize instead.