please advise.. 4x5 or 8x10 for big prints on handmade paper?

[xkaes]

There was an old rule of thumb that after 10x enlargement, something seems to go different in a print from a neg.

Somehow, none of my photography professors ever mentioned that. And I've never read that in any of the dozens of my photography books.

I've made many prints at 30X or larger, and all I've gotten were statements of awe -- and job offers. But, as stated below, there is an old rule of thumb that larger prints are viewed from a greater distance.

[John Kasaian]

I'm confused.
Is the OP asking which format enlarger he should buy?
Or is he planning to make digitally enlarged negatives from 4x5 or 8x10s, and contact print those?
Sorry, it's early and I haven't had any coffee yet.

[Serge S]

Great response !

I've seen silver murals from Josef Koudelka blown up from 35mm negs at the Getty. Technically, I didn’t care for them. Thought they looked terrible. But I enjoyed the subject matter in the images. And from what I could tell of those around me, they loved his enlargements—resolution and tonality didn’t matter at all. At the other spectrum, I've seen Hiroshi Sugimoto silver murals made from 8x10 negs. They were technically much more beautufil than enlarged 35mm negs. And I enjoyed the subject matter of the images very much (for example his minimal seascapes). Finally, I’ve seen 8x10 contact prints made from 8x10 negs, some printed on silver chloride papers, from Edward Weston, Richard Avedon and Michael Smith among others. The images IMO were technically superior in resolution and tonal depth from any murals I’ve ever seen. And from each I enjoyed their subject matter.

If you noticed, the one consistent in my experience is the enjoying the final work. While technical acumen in final prints can add or take away from an image, at the end of the day it's about the meaningfulness of the work to viewers.

Every photographer's choices for equipment and final medium for display are personal choices. I agree with others in the thread, you have to experiment with various output mediums/processes and see what fits your aesthetic and eye. I think the idea of picking up an 8x10 Intrepid is a brilliant way to cheaply see 8x10 results for yourself. They also have a great 4x5 solution. But don’t discount medium format so quickly. Your eye may see and respond better to handheld shooting. Brett Weston made stunning prints from medium format negs. I'd focus on producing meaningful work and experiment with different formats that fit how you like to work along the way. Otherwise you spend all your time researching technical matters instead of producing work.

All that said, remember it takes many years to become a great printer. The negative is just one step in the process. That's why focusing on real projects and improving equipment and technique along the way is the safest way to approach the technical aspects of this way of art making. Don’t get sucked into the equipment/process vortex. You know you're in it if you don’t know what to shoot with your exisiting equipment. That's when the best of us start researching new cameras and output methods (guilty as charged). Best of luck.

[GG12]

Somehow, none of my photography professors ever mentioned that. And I've never read that in any of the dozens of my photography books.

I've made many prints at 30X or larger, and all I've gotten were statements of awe -- and job offers. But, as stated below, there is an old rule of thumb that larger prints are viewed from a greater distance.

Yes, you can make them, and they may be impressive. But the idea is about tonality - there is something magical (at least to some) about low enlargement that maintains a certain tonal relationship. Its subtle, and you may not agree or see it, but there is something when going big, the prints change - and to these eyes, have less appeal. The absolute version of this is the 8x10 contact print, which has no enlargement and is just wonderful. Its not that the big print doesn't have its oomph, but there is a sweetness in small enlargements. Consider 35mm up to 8x10, MF to 16 x 20, and 4 x 5 up say 30 x 26 or 40 (cropping varies).

All of this has been impacted with really large printing done fairly easily from hi res MF digital backs - where capture and processing is more straightforward. But to each their own.

And the post about shooting MF and trying enlargement is also a very good idea. The "tonal" point is just about one aspect - a good MF neg blown up may not fit the tonal issue, but its much much better than 35mm at the scales you are talking about. Looking at super enlargements of 35mm, 16x20 or larger, seem to be missing something. MF and larger negs hold their own much better.

[Drew Wiley]

This topic is predictably drifting all sorts of "what if" directions. The original question was about making huge prints on hand-made style emulsions. Yes, the biggest silver print ever made was done with paint rollers and Liquid Light on canvas in a blimp hanger.But it never pretended to be an attractive print. I do know people who specialized in big alt coated prints of very high quality. But they had industrial facilities and significant budgets. Their minimum setup fee for a print was 40K. Just working around a big water-cooled xenon enlarger is like looking at the eclipse. It can blind you. You need gsketing and sealants from the aerospace industry. Now industrial lasers are replacing that role; but I mean something capable of etching granite, not a Lightjet printer! In other words, I'm hinting at why it makes a lot more sense to go with standardized materials like rolls of ordinary silver-gelatin paper or inkjet technology. Or just go to the nearest billboard company.

[xkaes]

From the articles and reviews that I've read about Liquid Light -- a long time ago -- there were always issues/problems/differences with it, so I've never used it. My B&W murals were always Ilford Multigrade RC, and color was Kodak RC. Back then I had a hard time obtaining the stuff, and I'm sure that is more true today. Others may know more about the current situation -- I'm all set, so I don't keep up. A few years ago, some mural print shop was going out of business and they sold me all their B&W and color mural paper (a lot) for the price of shipping.

So depending on the size of the print, Liquid Light, et. al. might be the only way to go today.

[Drew Wiley]

I've seen 40X70 in Platinum prints; so just depends on someone's commitment in terms of time (decades) and $$$$. Most either give up when they encounter the first lion or tiger or bear in the workflow, or default to scanning and inkjet. I personally find the idea of huge prints an overblown fad at the moment, if you'll excuse a pun.

[agregov]

I don’t think the OP's original post was focused on handmade emulsions but rather general quality improvements seen with bigger negatives with respect to printing murals. Hence the more wandering nature of this thread. That said, I think it's an educational one for many.

+1 on the allure of big prints. It has faded for me as well. Murals do look great on a gallery setting, but most normal people don’t have room for such large prints. Also, the bigger the print the more chemistry, paper and framing costs. After seeing Michael Smith crank out four perfect prints an hour, the simplicity of contact printing 8x10 negs is more and more appealing to me as a printer. Notwithstanding when 8x10 contact prints are properly matted, they're a size virtually everyone can put up in their home. And nothing better from a quality perspective, sans larger scale contacts.

[xkaes]

So you don't like murals. Different strokes for different folks. The original question was about ways to make 40x50" prints. Maybe they won't fit in your house. They already fit in mine. Maybe they won't fit in Chris77's place, but he is still interested in making them. Why not try to be a help him out, instead of trying to talk him out of what he wants to do?

[Drew Wiley]

He specified handmade emulsions analogous to contact prints, but really big. What are the quality expectations? A person could spend a fortune getting frustrated; or they could just have a competent lab print that one or two special images they really want to hang. I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out. I know what it takes to do it well. There is a big fork in the road in terms of investment and learning curve, namely, darkroom versus inkjet (or just farming it out). I've seen a lot of shipwrecks between that Scylla and Charybdis. An 8x10 darkroom equipped for big enlargements can be quite a commitment. Gosh knows I've traveled that road a long time now.