10x enlargement to 40x50

[Donald Miller]

No, I did not say that a higher wattage bulb wouldn't give more illumination - but the SAME bulb in a 8x10" enlarger would give LESS light than the same bulb in a 4x5" enlarger, even if both had the perfect set of condensers for the 4x5" negative and the lens used.

Excuse me for asking but how many 8X10 enlargers have you actually encountered that have the same wattage bulb as a 4X5 enlarger? I can't think of a single one but maybe I am missing something.

[boris]

My solution to this is unusual, and forced by the lack of big strong bulbs: I use a compact fluorescent bulb in my 138S.

interesting! could you post a link of the bulb you use?
thanks, boris

[ic-racer]

L. The amount of light falloff is absolutely mind boggling.

Here is a graph showing the light falloff from center for the Componon-S 150mm lens at three different magnifications. As you can see, the falloff is worse with big enlargements, but the curves are pretty close together. The difference between the three curves is not quite mind boggling. I would probably consider the increased falloff from center with big enlargements insignificant (solid lines).

[LF_rookie_to_be]

What about the light fall-off of Rodagon-G 150/5,6 at 15x magnification of a 4x5" color negative with a 13x13cm diffusion box?

[Asher Kelman]

David,

I read this thread yesterday in disbelief. I wonder why no one has told you that photographic printing is a craft. You need to know your materials thoroughly, and you need to have a realizable vision of your completed work. You are just now beginning to process film. It takes years of sustained effort to learn how to print very large traditional photographic prints with skill. Every little problem in your negative--such as softness, dust, uneven development--will be magnified in your large prints and will ruin them. And I am not even talking about ART, which is a whole demanding level of consciousness in itself.Your budget for paper alone should be about $1,500, given that you will be using a lot of it before you start to approach a final large-scale print. I suggest that you first have negatives IN HAND that are aesthetically complete and that you know will print well in moderate enlargement. I also suggest that you take a workshop with a master printer. he money you will save in materials and time will more than pay for the tuition. All of my unasked for-advice is given in an attempt to be helpful. I wish you well.

Michael,

I'm going to print these excepts of your great advice, large and in red, and put it above my desk!

"It takes years of sustained effort to learn how to print very large traditional photographic prints with skill. Every little problem in your negative--such as softness, dust, uneven development--will be magnified in your large prints and will ruin them. And I am not even talking about ART, which is a whole demanding level of consciousness in itself."

"I suggest that you first have negatives IN HAND that are aesthetically complete and that you know will print well in moderate enlargement. I also suggest that you take a workshop with a master printer."

"I wish you well"


I too want to make giant prints! I too thought it was essential to have a mentor and objective critic. Let me digress. I had arranged, (too late, sadly), with the late so generous and kind inspired teacher, Per Volquartz, to be my guide, as I was inspired by his fine prints. Tragedy struck and instead of having guidance, I was amongst those gathered, discussing his untimely passing. What a loss to his family and the community. The point is that one does need to be connected to someone who is imbued with the art, craft and essence of the worth of imagining and then imaging and finally exporting that to a print. I'll just have to seek out a new mentor but I doubt that I'll make up for what I could have learned from Per.

Whenever we reread your advice above, we have to rewind the movie, put aside the fantasy, and simply set out to prove that we have really great small images. That reality one cannot escape! Enlarging something false would not make it true and enlarging a mediocre image merely advertises shortcomings that might otherwise be overlooked!

Thanks for the excellent pointers. That's the very best anyone can ask for here.

Asher

[LF_rookie_to_be]

I'm realistic to know that processing a 50"x74" inch paper through giant trays, even if one is an expert, is not likely to be an efficient approach to getting the work done without being bogged down in quality issues. One cannot have the throughput without a machine that can simply be fed paper!

Actually, you can process that size in a 24" diameter pipe. If you're in North America, you're lucky, because over there you can buy something called "Ceme-tube" at very reasonable prices, in addition to RA-RT kodak chems being priced normally, unlike here in central Europe. These tubes are 50" long, so a 24" dia. tube it fits the mentioned size perfectly. Throughput issue (quick filling/draining) isn't such a huge problem, a little DIY wisdom and some engineering does miracles.

[Scott Walker]

Actually, you can process that size in a 24" diameter pipe. If you're in North America, you're lucky, because over there you can buy something called "Ceme-tube" at very reasonable prices, in addition to RA-RT kodak chems being priced normally, unlike here in central Europe. These tubes are 50" long, so a 24" dia. tube it fits the mentioned size perfectly. Throughput issue (quick filling/draining) isn't such a huge problem, a little DIY wisdom and some engineering does miracles.

Excellent! This is definitely going onto my list of brilliant ideas that I have acquired from a variety of people over the years.

[JMB]

Re: 10x enlargement to 40x50

Originally Posted by Dave Brown

For what it's worth, 40x50 (from 4x5) is not 10x.

Originally Posted by IC Racer

??


Recommended reading: Plato's Dialogues, "The Meno." Discussion between Socrates and Meno's slave.

[Scott Walker]

Re: 10x enlargement to 40x50

Originally Posted by Dave Brown

For what it's worth, 40x50 (from 4x5) is not 10x.

Originally Posted by IC Racer

??


Recommended reading: Plato's Dialogues, "The Meno." Discussion between Socrates and Meno's slave.

4x5=20 square inches
40x50=2,000 square inches
2,000 divided by 20 = 100

4 inches x 10 = 40
5 inches x 10 = 50
10x10 = 100

no matter how you do the math it is not a 10x enlargment.....

I did a quick read through on your recomended reading and found nothing about enlarging a 4x5 negative

[JMB]

4x5=20 square inches
40x50=2,000 square inches
2,000 divided by 20 = 100

4 inches x 10 = 40
5 inches x 10 = 50
10x10 = 100

no matter how you do the math it is not a 10x enlargment.....

I did a quick read through on your recomended reading and found nothing about enlarging a 4x5 negative

Congratulations! You win the first Meno Prize in photography! As you see, the good Dave Brown was badly abused.