How much detail is lost enlarging a 4x5 negative to 8X10

[Drew Wiley]

Contacting onto film will reveal more about the efficiency of your technique than onto print paper. But optimizing the quality of a contact has a suite of variables just like enlarging film to film. You're only as good as your weakest link either way. But I don't want to get into a technical discussion about the potential effects of masking and diffusion in reply to LabRat's remarks above, simply because it's a complicated subject. About all I can state here, is that the specific mode of diffusion can potentially increase edge acutance and even enhance fine detail rendition rather than soften it, and it's a tool I often use.

[Blackmarxz]

Thanks for all the thoughts peoples.....

Was thinking back to some reporting on Andreas Gursky, where he apparently used to shoot in 5x7, and then enlarge to an 11x14 negative ... and then scanned them....

Expect some benefits is deeper DOF when shooting 5x7, , more portability, and presumably better/wider range of lens choices. (and perhaps less DOF issues when scanning the 11x14?)

Hence was trying to get a better idea how more detailed his final scans would be ...


Cheers