Printing and/or enlarging Whole-Plate and other "larger" format negs

[ditkoofseppala]

This query is aimed primarily at WP folks, but there's no reason why 5x7 and 8x10 users can't add their two cents worth, too. I would like to know how big-negative shooters go about producing prints for exhibition purposes.

Yes, I know what contact printing is all about. And I'm aware that some users adopt a 'purist' kind of attitude, insisting that the 5x7, 6.5x8.5 inch, or 8x10 contact print is the be-all and end-all of LF photography. They have a kind of a point, in that few enlargements ever seem to match the crisp *authenticity* of a well-made contact print. But (for me at any rate, speaking quite personally) this purist approach can get a little bit . . . well, precious. And I don't think smaller contact prints come off all that well on the walls of an exhibition hall. The ULF and panoramic/banquet format users haven't much choice, and their formats have dimensions that don't require the viewer to get his nose within ten inches of the print, so this isn't directed at them.

But if one wishes to avail oneself of the delightful fact that it only takes 2.5x enlarging magnification to produce a 16"x20" print from WP, or 3.75x even for a massive 24"x30", then what will be the most practical and economic approach to make such enlargements?

One thinks "8x10 enlarger" and one quails a bit. Say "Elwood," or say "Saltzman," and then think of your own wee spare-room or basement darkroom. Do you REALLY have eight-foot headroom? Heavy-duty electrical circuitry? Floor joists that will support 500 to 800 pounds with complete safety?

Ansel Adams made his own 8x10 horizontal enlarger out of an old wooden view camera, and some people seem to have gone that route, judging by what turns up in a Google search. Others, seeming to have large quantities of spare cash, wind up with Durst Laborator 184s and similar beasts.

The only option I've seen that has appealed to me was the intimation that there seem to exist conversion kits for the workhorse Beseler 45M-series enlargers to take them to 8x10, comprising an extension cone, an appropriate supplementary negative stage, and a cold-light head. Are those very common? Anybody here ever buy/use one?

Come on, whole-plate users: how do we make our exhibition prints? When I was a 35mm photographer I always longed for the capability to make really nice 20"x30" exhibition prints to knock the sox off the viewer, and in my heart I grieved, knowing that it wasn't really possible. With WP, it IS POSSIBLE!!! So . . . how?

[Rob_5419]

Hi there,

boy you're moving fast

I kind of embraced whole plate photography at the end of my career - rather than the start - if I did it the other way around, I guess this question of how to produce exhibition prints from whole plate would seem more important for me.

As it is, whole plate contact prints are personal: no one is going to get to see these images until they're prised from my cold dead spindly borax soaked fingers! On to your points...

Yes, I know what contact printing is all about. And I'm aware that some users adopt a 'purist' kind of attitude, insisting that the 5x7, 6.5x8.5 inch, or 8x10 contact print is the be-all and end-all of LF photography. They have a kind of a point, in that few enlargements ever seem to match the crisp *authenticity* of a well-made contact print.

Yet this is it: the virtue of whole plate. Bigger isn't better - bigger is something else. Whole-plate format isn't about American excesses - it's about an ergonomic fit; tailor-cut by history and reiterated into modernity. For me, the whole plate goes hand-and-hand with the bookform plate holder - both emblematic of the book-publishing process in terms of size. That is its destination output for me. Nothing larger - no huge nor extravagant exhibition prints.

I suppose I'm asking - why should the exhibition wall be so privileged? Personally, I find myself more able to enjoy images when I pick my shoes off, unwind in a comfy English traditional sofa with a mug of fresh coffee and photography books over the coffee table than in a rarefied gallery. I don't know about others though...?

But if one wishes to avail oneself of the delightful fact that it only takes 2.5x enlarging magnification to produce a 16"x20" print from WP, or 3.75x even for a massive 24"x30", then what will be the most practical and economic approach to make such enlargements?

I asked this question to a group of working colleagues. They all came up with the same answer (which I didn't like): buy a scanner. I popped the question about a scanner, although I have no aptitude for this kind of workflow.

One thinks "8x10 enlarger" and one quails a bit. Say "Elwood," or say "Saltzman," and then think of your own wee spare-room or basement darkroom. Do you REALLY have eight-foot headroom? Heavy-duty electrical circuitry? Floor joists that will support 500 to 800 pounds with complete safety?

Having worked with 8x10" format (studio and darkroom), I can't say I'm fond of it. My own darkroom is custom-designed around 5x4" printing and the weight load has been calculated with more than the 800 pounds requirement with the help of a chartered surveyor. There just isn't any requirement for me to ever shoot 8x10" and its weight appeals to me less. Some prefer 8x10" although the weight and size slows me right down to being ineffective.

Come on, whole-plate users: how do we make our exhibition prints? When I was a 35mm photographer I always longed for the capability to make really nice 20"x30" exhibition prints to knock the sox off the viewer, and in my heart I grieved, knowing that it wasn't really possible. With WP, it IS POSSIBLE!!! So . . . how?

35mm photographers regularly exhibit up to 2metre prints!! I'm not sure why people struggle with this. Provia F has an incredible RMS and can produce grainless prints at 30 inches with viewing distance at 1 metre. There is some really stunning 35mm work out there - shot on Technical Pan; Positive Release Film; Agfa APX25; slow colour films too. Not sure why 35mm just gets a lot of dissing on this forum since it has a lot more potential than we give it credit for.

I think the best option (without incurring all the experiemental errors and apparature) would be to get a custom drum scan from a whole plate negative - printed onto silver gelatin or a modern digital paper.

Excuse me now whilst I go and vomit over what I've just written in that last paragraph!

[Sal Santamaura]

A strong attraction to 6.5 x 8.5 contact prints is the main reason I jumped into that format, and that's what I'm doing now. However, the urge to enlarge will undoubtedly be felt in the future, so I'm preparing for such an eventuality -- as well as for a time when there will be space to set up the following equipment currently stored in a closet.

I bought a Beseler 45V-XL with Beseler's 8x10 adapter along with an Aristo 1212. Had Grimes attach the barrel mount for my 240mm Germinar W to a Beseler board. All dressed up and no place to print (except contacts). Any concerns about this enlarger's corner illumination falloff can be ignored with 6.5 x 8.5 negatives.

[ditkoofseppala]

Rob, you argue your case so persuasively and passionately! And with such a natural British cultural bias . . . on this side of the water things just tend to come larger, though. And here in Canada we have such vast open spaces in our tundra and our prairies and our boreal forest . . . it seems natural to think in terms of big prints. And oh yes! I know 35mm people DO make 2-meter prints. But I would think you must admit that the Technical Pan approach is the exception rather than the rule. Speaking from personal experience, trying to work with Panatomic-X always ended in disappointment, and now at many years' remove, I think I know why: really big enlargements from 24x36mm tend to depend upon *grain* to satisfy the eye's thirst for fine detail, and when you use fine-grain film, you lose the grain texture, but the combined resolving power of the lens-film combination cannot make up for that in *real* detail, so the result leaves the eye feeling a bit uneasy. (Now somebody's inevitably going to jump in here to tell me just how full of BS I am, but that's my considered opinion FWIW.)

Sal, that sounds hopeful to my ears -- what do (or did) the bits and pieces for the Beseler conversion cost? I have a 45MCRX in storage awaiting my eventual darkroom in my new home-to-be in Manitoba, and I'd love to think that I could just dismount the condensers and light cone to stack an extender, 8x10 neg stage and coldlight on top, that would truly be the cat's a**! Where'd you go to get these magical conversion parts?

[Jim Galli]

If I were going to enlarge I wouldn't waste my time with whole plate. 5X7 is plenty big and equipment is readily availabe. The entire point of whole plate is to make a gorgeous contact print on an 11x14 sheet.

[Oren Grad]

You can still special order the Beseler 8x10 adapter kit new through B&H, for around $2000. You have to add a light source to that. I don't know whether the Beseler 8x10 cold light source is available any more - you could call them and ask - but failing that, Aristo ought to have something to fit. Or you could have another manufacturer's 8x10 head adapted.

[ditkoofseppala]

If I were going to enlarge I wouldn't waste my time with whole plate. 5X7 is plenty big and equipment is readily availabe. The entire point of whole plate is to make a gorgeous contact print on an 11x14 sheet.

Thus the purist, as I have already acknowledged! And one MUST listen to Jim with his great experience and ability. But I am not Jim, nor he I. But perhaps it is a little bit presumptuous to say "the entire point of whole plate" is this or that! That is like saying "the ENTIRE POINT of 35mm is to capture fast action and decisive moments" -- which sounds a little silly, doesn't it! To my way of thinking, WP has a potential versatility in practice that far surpasses the creation of exquisite contact prints with wide borders.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Sal, that sounds hopeful to my ears -- what do (or did) the bits and pieces for the Beseler conversion cost? I have a 45MCRX in storage awaiting my eventual darkroom in my new home-to-be in Manitoba, and I'd love to think that I could just dismount the condensers and light cone to stack an extender, 8x10 neg stage and coldlight on top, that would truly be the cat's a**! Where'd you go to get these magical conversion parts?

To see Beseler's description of the Adapter Kit, click here:

http://www.beselerphoto.com/,

then select "Light Sources" and scroll down to it. The kit consists of large aluminum castings, replacement focus rack/bellows, glass and glassless carriers and hardware for mounting on either a 45V or 45M. The latter includes some spacers to hold this stuff an appropriate distance away from a 45M's enlarger structure. An Aristo 1212 drops snugly right into a seating surface atop the casting. I believe Beseler's light source is still available, but recommend the Aristo instead. See my postings in this thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=26984

for reasons why.

Here's the B&H kit listing:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...arch&Q=*&bhs=t

I bought my V-XL and the adapter kit through Badger; prices were the same as B&H.

[MIke Sherck]

I agree with Ron (above) in that I don't very much like going to a gallery to view prints. I do, because I don't happen to have my very own personal collection of the sort of photographs I like to see (Weston, Strand, Cunningham, et. al.) but standing in front of some pristine, unapproachable wall isn't my idea of how I want to look at photographs. In my case that involves a Laz-e-Boy recliner instead of a sofa and perhaps a diet Pepsi instead of tea, but you get the idea.

I contact print my 8x10 negatives and am not really much interested in making the prints larger. I find that an 8x10 print is just about right for holding in my lap and turning this way and that in the light from the window. I enlarge 4x5 to 8x10 or 11x14 (ish) but very rarely 16x20 and that's usually by request, for someone who wants a large print to... hang on a wall. They're friends and relatives, so what can I say?

35mm often gets enlarged to, say, 5x7-ish because I think they often look nice that way. Sometimes 8x10-ish and in rare cases 11x14 but I think that the quality suffers noticably at that size: it has to be a really exceptional negative for me to push it that far. Anyway, I don't shoot much 35mm these days: I prefer the superior exercise of lugging an 8x10 camera around with me.

Mike

[Scott Davis]

I'll add another vote for the contact print. I'm into contact prints for a slightly different set of reasons - I am big into alternative processes, so I NEED the square inches of negative to make the image. I like the WP format because it provides nearly the size of 8x10, without the headaches and hassles of the 8x10 camera. And I like the proportions better. WP isn't as square as 8x10, so it makes for a nicer portrait format.