8x10 contact prints compared to 4x5 enlargements?

[jnantz]

Certain Exposures what are your goals ? Differences can always be seen in everything, even identical twins .. but in the end differences don't really matter (unless that's the point).

[paulbarden]

Haha, my heart yearns to hold big negatives. I'm resisting.

Why?? If you believe you want to explore it, then do it. You will either find that your first 8x10 contact print is a life-changing revelation that sets you on a new path, or it doesn’t bring you what you hoped for. Either way, you won’t know until you’ve tried it for yourself.

[Alan9940]

Back in the 80's, I did a direct comparison between 4x5 and 8x10--same scene, same film, same processing, etc. I couldn't duplicate the focal lengths on each format exactly, but they were close enough. I contact printed the 8x10 and enlarged the 4x5 to 8x10 on the same paper, same processing. When viewed separately, each were fine photographs. But, when compared side-by-side the contact print was noticeably sharper and, more importantly, had a presence to it. Put simply, the contact print felt like you could "dive into it" while the 4x5 appeared behind glass. Very hard to describe, but you'd notice it right away given the same opportunity. I was so enamored with the "look" that the 8x10 became my primary format for the next decade. At 70 years young now, I still enjoy the format!

[xkaes]

Sounds like another, "You can see the difference if you compare them side-by-side with a loupe" conversations. In other words, in the real world, it makes difference. Give comparison shots to 10 random people and none of them with see any difference.

[Alan9940]

Sounds like another, "You can see the difference if you compare them side-by-side with a loupe" conversations. In other words, in the real world, it makes difference. Give comparison shots to 10 random people and none of them with see any difference.

No, not through a loupe. With my own eyes. And, I agree that it makes no difference in the greater scheme of things and I'm sure you're right that if you handed comparison shots to 10 different people, probably not one would see any difference, but I see/saw a difference. Seeing how I do my photography for my own enjoyment I'm the only one who needs to be satisfied with the final results.

[Neal Chaves]

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.

As I mentioned above, I cobbled together an 8X10 enlarging camera as soon as I started working in 8X10. The largest print I have ever made is 20X24, and now I do not intend to silver print larger than 16X20. If someone wanted and was willing to pay for one of my burnt offerings at a size up to billboard, there are much better and more practical digital processes available I can contract for, starting with a high resolution scan of the original negative on equipment I would rather not own, maintain, pay for or be taxed on. Today I have two Beseler enlargers, a 4X5 with a color head I use to vary contrast on multi grade papers, and an 45VXL 8X10 with a W45 tube cold light head which I use with gels for contrast control. I don't make many 16X20s and those which I do, I wash by hand in trays. Everything drys on screens.

[Certain Exposures]

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.

Agreed - I do need to look at some 8x10 contacts. I've been starting at my 4x5 contact.

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.

Thanks for that info. I still contemplate 8x10 sometimes because an 8x10 slide could make an excellent collectable art piece. 4x5 slides would be too small. Also, if someone did want a wall sized print then your 8x10 negative would be worth it.

Certain Exposures what are your goals ? Differences can always be seen in everything, even identical twins .. but in the end differences don't really matter (unless that's the point).

I'm still weighing the relative costs and tradeoffs between the two formats. My goal is to profitably create art for education, entertainment, and publication.

Why?? If you believe you want to explore it, then do it. You will either find that your first 8x10 contact print is a life-changing revelation that sets you on a new path, or it doesn’t bring you what you hoped for. Either way, you won’t know until you’ve tried it for yourself.

You're probably right. The entry cost of 8x10 is a barrier for me. Operating one would be affordable because I can develop and print on my own. The work I create is generally suited to something less unwieldy. I'd have to change my subjects. E.g. I can't see myself shooting 8x10 in conditions like this (a blizzard that shut down the city):


Note: I finally figured out how to post images like this!

Back in the 80's, I did a direct comparison between 4x5 and 8x10--same scene, same film, same processing, etc. I couldn't duplicate the focal lengths on each format exactly, but they were close enough. I contact printed the 8x10 and enlarged the 4x5 to 8x10 on the same paper, same processing. When viewed separately, each were fine photographs. But, when compared side-by-side the contact print was noticeably sharper and, more importantly, had a presence to it. Put simply, the contact print felt like you could "dive into it" while the 4x5 appeared behind glass. Very hard to describe, but you'd notice it right away given the same opportunity. I was so enamored with the "look" that the 8x10 became my primary format for the next decade. At 70 years young now, I still enjoy the format!

Thanks - a few people keep mentioning the 3-dimensionality. Keep enjoying it!

Sounds like another, "You can see the difference if you compare them side-by-side with a loupe" conversations. In other words, in the real world, it makes difference. Give comparison shots to 10 random people and none of them with see any difference.

Did you mean to say that it doesn't make a difference in the real world?

No, not through a loupe. With my own eyes. And, I agree that it makes no difference in the greater scheme of things and I'm sure you're right that if you handed comparison shots to 10 different people, probably not one would see any difference, but I see/saw a difference. Seeing how I do my photography for my own enjoyment I'm the only one who needs to be satisfied with the final results.

I won't doubt you. The idea of making 8x10 slides or producing prints with that mysterious 3-dimensionailty keeps me coming back to this topic.

[neil poulsen]

I've never made the comparison, so I wonder if one could tell a difference between a 4x5 negative enlarged to 16x20, compared to an 8x10 negative enlarged to a 16x20. I suspect that it could be fairly obvious.

[bob carnie]

I can say from printing 4 x 5 and 8x10 negs that the 8x10 print at 20 x 24 size is much different than 4 x 5, notice I do not say better but different. Same goes for almost every method I print you can see a difference.

I think it boils down to the OP actually seeing both to see the difference. I like really hot peppers , my wife not so much , but she is a master chef and I appreciate her version of cooking, I kind of believe this for all types of prints, I respect others work even though its not maybe how I would print, but then again it is their print not mine.


I really think its silly to say one method is better than another.

[Mark J]

I think that would be harder to see. I've done enlargements from 6 x 9 cm to 16x20" and also from 5 x 7" ( rarely ) to 16x20", and there wasn't a lot of difference, although to be fair, the rollfilm was FP4 and the 5x7" was HP5.
However I do think there's something about contact prints, there's a similar thread on the FADU forum, and I am in the camp with Alan9940 on this.
I am trying to get a condenser head for my Meopta Magnifax at the moment, to try instead of the colour head, because I believe it ought to look a bit more like the contact print, given that the illuminating light is more directional.
I was watching a comparison of the two sort of heads by 'The naked photographer' on Youtube a couple of days ago, and he did a number of prints at different grades, and some with less development, for use with the condenser. At the end his verbal conclusions were that there wasn't much difference, but I disagreed very much- it seemed obvious that they were different even from viewing via the TV.