10x enlargement to 40x50

[ic-racer]

what enlarger do I need? 4x5 negs to a 40x50 print. .

Just about any Horizontal enlarger. I know the Durst 8x10 vertical enlargers will do about 40x40 on the baseboard with the baseboard at the bottom and heat at the top.

[davidwrogers]

this is pretty much the info I was expecting to hear. good to clarify this. so basically I need a lens of supreme focal length. what's the deal with any ol' 300mm lens mounted in a lens board and rammed forcefully into a cheapo ebay besler?

[Daniel Stone]

idk if your "ebay cheapo beseler" will accomodate a 12" lens. Besides, if you use a 12" lens vs a 150MM(a "normal FL enlarging lens for 4x5), then you'll be needing even MORE room

-Dan

[ic-racer]

In terms of lens, when I do that I use a 'standard' 210mm lens. My enlarger's lens is about 100" from the wall and that focal length works just about right when I have the head flipped to horizontal.

[aduncanson]

David, I fear that you have misunderstood the important points that several contributors above have tried to make.

Allen in Montreal discussed two excellent recent lens options, the 120mm Rodagon WA and the 150mm Rodagon G. Both of these lenses are optimized for higher magnifications than are typical enlarging lenses and I presume that this is why he focused on these. He seemed to settle on the 150 Rodagon G because of its superior performance at the highest magnifications you mentioned, while I focused on the practical advantages of the shorter, wide angle design. You seem to have taken the message instead to be that longer is better.

A longer lens has a direct negative consequence. For a print magnification equal to M, the paper to negative distance is (2 + M + 1/M) x Focal Length. So for a 300mm lens you would need about 14 feet so you are definitely talking about projecting horizontally. Most 300mm enlarging lenses are likely to be optimized for a fairly modest magnification such as 3X to 4X and would not be as good for your purposes as either the 150 or 120mm lenses that Allen mentioned above.

Consider also the often repeated advice that the negative, the lens and the easel will need to be very accurately aligned for best results and that you will need to use a glass negative carrier for best sharpness.

[Dave Langendonk]

You need one of these (But I may be a bit biased)

[Donald Miller]

One thing to consider is the lamp wattage in which ever enlarger that you decide upon. Most 4X5 enlargers are going to result in incredibly long exposure times for the enlargements that you are aiming to do.

Everything is going to be more critical at this degree of enlargement...minor misalignments are going to become very apparent.

[Allen in Montreal]

One extreme to the other, there is middle ground!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/320749884691...84.m1423.l2649

http://www.ebay.com/itm/310309656905...84.m1423.l2649

[davidwrogers]

David,
The enlarger is not what will cost you, it is the glass.

A 40x50 is just getting into the peak range for a 150 Rodagon-G (10-40x with 20x being optimal).....

And don't forget a vacuum easel. You can make your own, for horizontal or vertical projection, but with paper that big, you will need a vacuum easel.

Thanks for this reply. Very informative but didn't read it with any sort of comprehension until today, for some reason. This has dispelled some confusion over here.

[Dave Brown]

For what it's worth, 40x50 (from 4x5) is not 10x. 64x80 would only be 5x. In addition to what others have said, just be aware that at some point, light falloff becomes an issue when making very large prints (this is why using an 8x10 or bigger enlarger makes a lot of sense). Good luck!