Enlargements from Cooke XVa Negatives?

[lindseysavage]

I’ve searched through a lot of threads and across google but if anyone knows of where I can find this information please let me know.

I see a lot of people are using the XVa for ULF and others report amazing image quality in their particular uses (usually B&W, but I know that it is colour corrected). I’m curious about the possibility of making large colour prints (40 inch+, gallery sized) and I’d like to know if anyone has any experience of this? Ideally I’d like to see prints or scans but as that’s probably a long shot so some advice would be appreciated.

My motivations are that I’d like to just carry two lenses, a wide (210 mm) and the XVa. The movements seem amble and saving the bulk and weight where possible would be great as I’m hiking distances with a 8x10. Crazy, yes, I know. Let’s save that for another thread.

I’d like to shoot some portraits wide open and landscapes stopped down (when doing so does the lens perform in a similar way to modern lenses ie. clear, accurate and neutral). Am I barking up the wrong tree here or is this the wonder lens with great results at all three configurations?


Thanks for your help. Let me know if you have any images that I can see.

[Pere Casals]

I’m curious about the possibility of making large colour prints (40 inch+, gallery sized) and I’d like to know if anyone has any experience of this? Ideally I’d like to see prints or scans but as that’s probably a long shot so some advice would be appreciated.

First let me point that IMHO LF fine art is not about gear, gear can be important sometimes, but this is a trip. The lens itself won't limit image quality most of the times, wind/shake, focus accuracy, the right tilt-swing, film flatness, flare control and selecting the optimal aperture are often the critical factors.


IMHO an strong point of the XVa it is the Out Of Focus rendition, regarding Image Quality we have many alternatives, but (you know) each lens has its own way to render the OOF, this is a YMMV because it's about personal preferences.


A 40" totally sharp print at reading distance is no challenge for a 8x10 negative taken with a regular MF lens, then consider that a XVa is a very good glass. In digital equivalence you would have some effective 600MPix, in teory you can fill some 300 monitors with that, of the 1080HD quality, but for really crazy perfect results you may be able to fill "only" around 100 monitors.

...But there are many ways to destroy such an impressive potential of graphic information.


If you shot at f/45 to have DOF then because of diffraction you may have 1/4 of those potential effective pixels, for example.

Then if you scan 8x10 at 2000dpi only in a drum then you also have a loss. Then edition can be harmful if one is not aware about how to preserve Image Quality. And the printing process can have many other pitfalls.

Also it has to be pointed that impressive prints can be made from 4x5 and 5x7, being perhaps 5x7 the most quality effective format ever, but for 5x7 one may have to cut 8x10 sheets.


Regarding top notch fine color crafting C. Burket should be mentioned: http://christopherburkett.com/ This is a kind of work that not many can do today.

He uses a "Camera One" (Calument C1) like the one that karshed all US presidents since Eisenhower to the older Bush, with an APO Tele Xenar 800 for example. Then he enlarges the 8x10 slides manually on ilfochrome, for that he uses BW masks and manual burning/dodging, creating world class art of an scarce availability and of remarkable pure optic authenticity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doNGi8HeKQ4

[Bob Salomon]

Have you called and asked Cooke in Mountain Lakes, NJ?

[Drew Wiley]

Just about any serious LF lens made from the 1970's onward, excepting soft-focus varieties, if it has sufficient coverage, is PLENTY crisp for 30x40 prints from 8x10, or even from 4x5. Lots of older lenses are fine too. The far bigger logistical problem, which most people unfortunately ignore, is how to keep your 8x10 film consistently flat in the holder. Then there are printing issues later. In the meantime, the real battle is learning how to effectively manage depth of field issues with 8x10 format. That takes some experience. There is simply no way to detour the learning curve, no matter how much money you spend on your gear. True optical enlarging can squeeze the most out of your originals with respect to detail; but that requires its own learning curve and substantial darkroom investment unless you farm your printing out to a serious specialist. Fujiflex Supergloss is the modern equivalent of the now discontinued Ilfochrome, but it's printed from color negatives rather than positive chrome film. It can also be printed from either negatives or chromes using big commercial laser printers to achieve higher-quality and sharper results than inkjet. Somebody like Bob Carnie on this forum is equipped to do that kind of service. Most people are now more likely to scan and print digitally; but I still strongly prefer to do color printing in the darkroom. Optical printing of 8x10 in large sizes requires quite a bit of space and/or very high ceilings.

[lindseysavage]

Pere — Thank you for your thoughtful response. I've been watching videos of C. Burket in his darkroom. Incredible.

Bob — No, that's a good idea!

[lindseysavage]

Drew — Thank you too. I've been working in 4x5 but there seem to be a lot of additional considerations with 8x10. I can get a 8x10 enlarger at a reasonable price but then there's everything else that goes with it.