10x enlargement to 40x50

[Ole Tjugen]

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!

I didn't understand any of that at all - 40x50" IS 10x. 10x4" = 40".

"Light falloff"? Using the correct condensers for even illumination with the film size and enlargement factor you are using is the way to get even illumination, at ALL sizes. Using an 8x10" enlarger does NOT automatically give you more even illumination with a 4x5" negative. My enlarger is a Durst 138S; the condensers are changed according to film size, lens focal length, and enlargement factor.

[ic-racer]

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

??

[davidwrogers]

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!

I would like to purchase the Confusulon BS200 lens you offered here.

[Allen in Montreal]

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.

I envy you for taking on a project like this, I wish I had the time and the space to even consider it.

[Michael Alpert]

Got my darkroom up and running, somewhat. I can tray process my negs, at least. But I need to enlarge these little dudes to poster size, somewhere around 40x50 if not bigger....

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. The 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.

[LF_rookie_to_be]

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. The 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.

Now that has to be some of the best advice I read in a long time anywhere. It reminds me of what I was extremely lucky to be told some nine years ago by a highly skilled draughtsman and designer - my employer - who talked me into going to a proper school. After four years of comprehensive training in drawing, "art" printmaking and design, I ventured into hours and hours of darkroom work and learning how not to get carried away by equipment. A chance meeting with a master photographer (a few words: 17x22" contact FB prints) developed into long and really useful talks about all aspects of photography, after which came only a few sessions of practical work. After that, it took two years and some DIY to get to a 32x40" B&W RC print which was just sharp (thanks to a proper lens - Rodagon G) but otherwise rather too harsh, with a disappointing tonality. A year and a half later, I'm preparing to do my first color print of the same size, after about 300 12x16" more or less satisfying prints. No bragging, just mileage. YMMV.

[Allen in Montreal]

.....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. The 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.

This is very good advice!

[rdenney]

...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. The money you will save in materials and time will more than pay for the tuition....

There's a saying among astronomers that they impart to those just starting out grinding their own mirrors: If you want to grind a 12" mirror, grind a 6" mirror first. For a novice: both the 6 and the 12 will take less time than the 12 alone.

Rick "who has some great photographs that can't be printed larger than about 8x10" Denney

[davidwrogers]

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. The 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.

Word, cutting that 96' roll of 50" paper is going to be gay.

[bigdog]

I read this thread yesterday in disbelief. I wonder why no one has told you ...

Me, too. I just assumed (hoped) that the OP was known to other posters and did have a level of knowledge. However, if the OP has never printed: Start Smaller!!!