8x10 contact prints compared to 4x5 enlargements?

[Certain Exposures]

I have a follow-up question based on this thread. Have you ever compared an 8x10 print from a 4x5 negative to an 8x10 contact print?

I wonder if an 8x10 contact print looks superior to a 4x5 negative enlarged to make an 8x10 print. I have FOMO.

I've seen a 4x5 enlargement several times (I own one of Nico's prints). I've never seen an 8x10 contact print. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that only making one could help me make up my mind.


This response from Maris answers the thread to me:

I've enlarged lot of 4x5 to 8x10. Even "enlarged" a 8x10 negative to 8x10 and then contact printed that same 8x10 negative by way of comparison.
All the prints look absolutely superb but there are subtle differences in the prints made by projection compared to the one made by contact. It's due to flare in the projection system.
This is best seen as fine black lines in projection prints being slightly wider and fine white lines being slightly narrower compared to a flare free rendition by contact printing.
The effect is very small and can only be seen in side by side comparisons which in practice is not done except by people troubled by an inquisitive mind.

[bmikiten]

I think the difference is pretty dramatic. NOTE that some of this is purely based on projection through optics versus direct contact printing (no optics). I have several Weston 8x10s and they are some of the most amazing prints I've seen even when compared to current state of the art 4x5 projected images. In my personal work I see a sense of depth and what I can only describe as presence in the 8x10 contacts. I've never shot the same image with both formats and done the test but it might be fun to do.

[willwilson]

It's better but subjective. They have a feel which is different than an enlargement. You do cut out all the fudge factor, no lens, no alignment, less dust. I think a 4x5 contact can show some of these differences just smaller (tonality, smoothness, sharpness, etc.)

For me I do not produce 8x10 as a final size so 4x5 enlarged is my go to as I struggle to see differences between formats at larger print sizes (16x20 plus). I have been making more small prints these days, like 11x14, and have thought about going Brett Weston on things and getting an 11x14 setup for contact printing, but some of my favorite work he did was medium format so go figure.

My test print size is 8x10. They go in a binder for reference. An 8x10 mounted to 11x17 behind glass would be tough to discern if it is an enlarged 4x5 or 8x10 contact print.

I say test and decide for yourself. Contact printing is quite different from enlarging for me.

-=Will

[rfesk]

I have never seen prints side by side but I am willing to bet that a good printer could enlarge a 4x5 negative to 8x10 so that it would be difficult to tell them apart.

It will be interested also in others experience.

[Maris Rusis]

I've enlarged lot of 4x5 to 8x10. Even "enlarged" a 8x10 negative to 8x10 and then contact printed that same 8x10 negative by way of comparison.
All the prints look absolutely superb but there are subtle differences in the prints made by projection compared to the one made by contact. It's due to flare in the projection system.
This is best seen as fine black lines in projection prints being slightly wider and fine white lines being slightly narrower compared to a flare free rendition by contact printing.
The effect is very small and can only be seen in side by side comparisons which in practice is not done except by people troubled by an inquisitive mind.

[Neal Chaves]

I made contact prints when I first started in 8X10 but as soon as I had an 8X10 enlarger, I usually went right to an 11x14 print. If I needed an 8X10 for a publication, or multiple 8X10 prints from the same 8X10 negative, I make them 1:1 with my enlarger. There may be a barley deductible difference seen by someone with a loupe, but the ease of making the prints, the control over dogging and burning, the freedom from Newton's rings, dust, etc. has me favoring 1:1 optical prints.

[paulbarden]

It seems to me that you've already decided you want to go 8x10, but you are hoping someone else can push you over the edge (of the decision). You don't need anyone else's opinion for that. There are many reasons to stick with 4x5 or move to 8x10. The key is in knowing what you want to do with the format you've chosen.
For me, I am only contact printing large negs these days, and almost all are salted paper prints. I find 4x5 too small to be meaningful (for ME) and 8x10 is optimal. I also do 5x7 and I love that format for its aspect ratio. (I find both 4x5 and 8x10 to be too close to square for my liking.)

[Certain Exposures]

I think the difference is pretty dramatic. NOTE that some of this is purely based on projection through optics versus direct contact printing (no optics). I have several Weston 8x10s and they are some of the most amazing prints I've seen even when compared to current state of the art 4x5 projected images. In my personal work I see a sense of depth and what I can only describe as presence in the 8x10 contacts. I've never shot the same image with both formats and done the test but it might be fun to do.

Thanks for sharing

It's better but subjective. They have a feel which is different than an enlargement. You do cut out all the fudge factor, no lens, no alignment, less dust. I think a 4x5 contact can show some of these differences just smaller (tonality, smoothness, sharpness, etc.)

For me I do not produce 8x10 as a final size so 4x5 enlarged is my go to as I struggle to see differences between formats at larger print sizes (16x20 plus). I have been making more small prints these days, like 11x14, and have thought about going Brett Weston on things and getting an 11x14 setup for contact printing, but some of my favorite work he did was medium format so go figure.

My test print size is 8x10. They go in a binder for reference. An 8x10 mounted to 11x17 behind glass would be tough to discern if it is an enlarged 4x5 or 8x10 contact print.

I say test and decide for yourself. Contact printing is quite different from enlarging for me.

-=Will

Thanks - 11x14 is the perfect general print size to me too! That's part of why I'm inclined to stick to 4x5 and below. 8x10 enlargers are big and pricey.

You and I share the same interest in ULF. I looked into 11x14 cameras for contact printing. The bodies are just way out of my price range for a film camera. Film and developer costs would be irrelevant because I'd just shoot less frames and more elaborately planned projects. You lose a lot of spontenaity with something that unwieldy though.

I have never seen prints side by side but I am willing to bet that a good printer could enlarge a 4x5 negative to 8x10 so that it would be difficult to tell them apart.

It will be interested also in others experience.

Yes, same.

I've enlarged lot of 4x5 to 8x10. Even "enlarged" a 8x10 negative to 8x10 and then contact printed that same 8x10 negative by way of comparison.
All the prints look absolutely superb but there are subtle differences in the prints made by projection compared to the one made by contact. It's due to flare in the projection system.
This is best seen as fine black lines in projection prints being slightly wider and fine white lines being slightly narrower compared to a flare free rendition by contact printing.
The effect is very small and can only be seen in side by side comparisons which in practice is not done except by people troubled by an inquisitive mind.

Thanks! This response wraps up the thread. I'm glad someone else was as troubled as me .

I made contact prints when I first started in 8X10 but as soon as I had an 8X10 enlarger, I usually went right to an 11x14 print. If I needed an 8X10 for a publication, or multiple 8X10 prints from the same 8X10 negative, I make them 1:1 with my enlarger. There may be a barley deductible difference seen by someone with a loupe, but the ease of making the prints, the control over dogging and burning, the freedom from Newton's rings, dust, etc. has me favoring 1:1 optical prints.

Thanks. Is it generally easier to make a professionally finished contact print than an enlargement? Why is dodging and burning easier? I've done contacts and enlargements. I've never reflected on the relative difficulty. I still have more to learn about the darkroom.

It seems to me that you've already decided you want to go 8x10, but you are hoping someone else can push you over the edge (of the decision). You don't need anyone else's opinion for that. There are many reasons to stick with 4x5 or move to 8x10. The key is in knowing what you want to do with the format you've chosen.
For me, I am only contact printing large negs these days, and almost all are salted paper prints. I find 4x5 too small to be meaningful (for ME) and 8x10 is optimal. I also do 5x7 and I love that format for its aspect ratio. (I find both 4x5 and 8x10 to be too close to square for my liking.)

Haha, my heart yearns to hold big negatives. I'm resisting. 4x5 is definitely too small to me. I like printing on 11x14. 4x5 enlargers require so much space though. It makes me wonder if I could live with 8x10 (sometimes).

[G Benaim]

They really are different animals, and then there’s the further difference between enlarging papers and contact papers (azo and Lodima), which further distance the two options. A contact print, even a small one, will attract your eye in ways enlargements won’t. But obviously in an enlargement you will see much greater detail. It just won’t have the presence of a contact print. One further complication is enlarged negs for contact printing, an option I haven’t tried but people I know and respect have compared the results and are satisfied when compared to a straight contact print, you just have to tailor the neg to the intended medium. Best thing to do is to get your eyes in front of some contact prints and decide for yourself.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I’ve compared 5x7 contacts to 1:1 enlargements only a few times and the difference was possibly noticeable with a loupe but with my strong reading glasses I wasn’t picking up significant differences.

I have an 8x10 I was gifted, but it needs a new bellows. I’m curious to try it not for the size of the negative but for the size of the ground glass. The step up from 4x5 to 5x7 is nice when composing. The bulk in packing the camera is not.

Given the detail in a 4x5 negative I wouldn’t step up to 8x10 enlarged until my print side was significantly larger than 16x20.