Most economical way to choose negative for printing

[nimo956]

I have several color shots of the same image, which I got developed at a local printer. The pictures range in fstop from f/22 to f/45, some with a polarizer and some without. I'm having trouble seeing the differences between the negatives. What's the cheapest way to figure out the best one to use for printing?

Edit: I posted this in the wrong sub forum. Is there a way to move it to Forum: Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing?

[Willie]

Take the negatives or chromes to a lab and ask for 5x7 or 8x10 prints with "NO correction".

[ic-racer]

The most economical method is direct observation. One advantage to shooting chromes or B&W.

[Ari]

A light table and a loupe.

[David Karp]

A scanner is good for proofing, if you have one that will scan negatives.

[nimo956]

I've just been reading up on scanning 4x5 negatives when I realized that I already own a Canon Digital camera and a macro lens. Would this be sufficient? Are there any guides or posts that could show me how to do this properly?

[Peter Mounier]

If you used the polarizer specifically for blue skies, or cutting glare on foliage, then start by eliminating the negs that you didn't use the polarizer on. You'll probably eliminate those anyway after you see proofs since the polarizer cuts glare and improves a blue sky, and that's the reason you used it in the 1st place. An exception to that would be if you shot the negs in the higher elevations. In that case the polarizer can make the sky too dark.
If shadow details are important then pick the neg with the best shadow detail. With color negs overexposure is preferable to underexposure, and the highs won't blow out unless you've really overexposed them by several stops. If it's an inherently contrasty scene, and shadows look good in all the negs then go with the thinner neg. An overexposed neg picks up a little bit of contrast. If it's a flat scene that you'd like to look contrastier, then pick a slightly overexposed neg for better print contrast.
Finally, if you can see some improved depth of field by using f45 over the f22 exposure, and that's important to you, then go with the f45 neg. If all the shots were focused on infinity, or depth of field isn't a factor then go with the F22 neg since lens diffraction at f45 may play a small part in the quality.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Take the negatives or chromes to a lab and ask for 5x7 or 8x10 prints with "NO correction".

Agreed, and I do not mind admitting that before digital existed, for color negatives I would visit with the great lab people at Gamma Photo (Chicago) and say, "Okay, here are the candidate negatives. Choose which you would prefer to print." I would learn something every time.

[Ari]

I've just been reading up on scanning 4x5 negatives when I realized that I already own a Canon Digital camera and a macro lens. Would this be sufficient? Are there any guides or posts that could show me how to do this properly?

If you already have that, then you can take a photo of the neg on a light table, then invert it in Photoshop.
Quick and dirty, but effective; you'll have a rough idea of what each neg looks like.