am i printing too small?

[Los]

i've been printing 4x5 b&w and color negs at 8x10 for the last 4 months or so. while i do see some increase in tonality and resolution (i'll explain), i'm missing the snappy sharpness that i'm used to seeing in 6x7 neg prints. would i see this in larger prints from the 4x5? i understand that hi-res images at low magnifications can sometimes appear smooth in a way that looks "soft" as opposed to snappy. about the resolution, i know that my 4x5 system may have a lower overall resolution, but the large image area records details that are not rendered as clearly on the smaller negs. so, to me it looks like more resolution.

[turtle]

i've been printing 4x5 b&w and color negs at 8x10 for the last 4 months or so. while i do see some increase in tonality and resolution (i'll explain), i'm missing the snappy sharpness that i'm used to seeing in 6x7 neg prints. would i see this in larger prints from the 4x5? i understand that hi-res images at low magnifications can sometimes appear smooth in a way that looks "soft" as opposed to snappy. about the resolution, i know that my 4x5 system may have a lower overall resolution, but the large image area records details that are not rendered as clearly on the smaller negs. so, to me it looks like more resolution.

Smack on! IMO, the answer is yes, you will see this at larger prints...This is why I dont like printing acros at small enlargements (because it is so fine grained), why I print at about 12x9.5 minimum for 5x4 negs and prefer traditional films unless I am making big enlargements. It is also why I would prefer to print a 5x4 neg from TriX or HP5+ on 10x8 paper than Delta 100 by far, as the print has more bite.

But, if you want more bite on smaller enlargement this can be remedied by using acutance devs, although you may sacrifice a bit of enlargeability should you decide you also want a creamy 20x24 off the same neg! This is also why contact printers often use high acutance pyro devs (such as ABC Pyro or Pyrocat).

[jmcd]

I have been struggling with (edit: an aspect of) this same topic. (edit: i.e. How to maximize sharpness when making my preferred size small enlargement.)

I enlarge 4x5 mainly to 6-1/2" x 8". I have found that to do this with excellent snappy sharpness requires the enlarger to be very carefully aligned, much more so than with larger enlargements from the same negative. I think that depth-of-field is minimized with the small enlargements, with the lens relatively far from the film, much in the way the DOF is minimized with a close-up photo.

Also, a large enough aperture that prevents diffraction must be used, and in my experience this corresponds with fairly short exposure times, at least with common enlarger bulbs. My typical base exposure with a 75-watt enlarger bulb and condenser is 8 seconds at f11 to f16. My cold light is so bright that I do not use it.

This 6-1/2" x 8" print size is far away my favorite, but it is a serious challenge to do well in regard to crisp sharpness from corner to corner.

Looking forward to hearing from others on this one.

[Bruce Watson]

You are printing too small (or too big) if you are unhappy with the size of your prints. Try some experiements - make a range of print sizes from a given film. See which you like best.

Don't worry about what other people think or about whether you are getting "the most" out of your film. Worry more about showing your image to its best advantage. That is, at its best size. And that's your choice alone.

[fhovie]

Snappy sharpness requires grain. TechPan almost never looked sharp - no grain - no edge effects. If you develop 4x5 for greater accutance (like extreme minimal agitation) then you will see even your smaller prints look sharper. TRI-X 35 mm at 11x14 looks sharp and grainy - too much for me. I shoot a lot of FP4 in 4x5 and with extreme minimal agitation I can have both a razor sharp 8x10 or a smooth 30x40 (due to grain masking in pyrocat) It is a great way to go. It is not as much a function of negative enlargement as it is a function of grain/edge effects enlargement. If you have a process that makes enhanced accutance, you will not find such a narrow "sweet spot" in enlargement size.

[Alan Davenport]

Los asked, "am i printing too small?"

If you have to ask, the answer is an unequivocal, "Yes, you are printing too small!"

[Ed Richards]

Get Qimage and use it to resize your shots before printing. It does a great job of sharpening to the print size so that smaller prints look sharp. (There is a free demo) You would be amazed at much you have to sharpen a big file to make a sharp looking small print. If you look at it on the screen at 100% it looks terrible.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi
I would not use 4x5 if I would only want an 8x10 inch print then I would work with 35mm and MF 4.5x6 cm but not at all with 4x5 with the today's lenses and films!
My 2cents, Armin

[ic-racer]

I have noticed the same thing. I saw a thread on APUG about printing small, and I had some FB 8x10 paper that I wanted to use up, so I did a bunch of 8x10s. The borders were 1.5 inches, so the images are smaller than 8x10.

Negatives used were 6x9cm TMX or TMY, 35mm TMX or Copex microfilm, and 4x5in TMX.

I did not see much 'format related' difference in the prints. That is, the 4x5s on TMX compared favorably with the 35mm prints using Copex microfilm. The 6x9cm negatives were also similar (in terms of grain and sharpness). All scenes were landscape type stuff from similar or the same locations.

Normally I print 11x14 or 16x20 and the 4x5 negatives really stand out as the best.

[neil poulsen]

I think this thread may clear up a mystery that has confronted me.

I tend to print on 8x10 paper, and I found that I prefered images printed from medium format. In all other regards, my developing is the same, the same HP5 film, times, agitation (in time and kind), same developer, etc. Plus, I know from both Kodak and Ilford that sensitometrically, there should be no difference between medium format and LF sizes. Yet, I preferred images printed from medium format HP5.

I wonder if acutance goes up with a 100 versus a 400 asa film, like FP4? I believe that lower ASA films demonstrate higher contrast, but does that affect what's being addressed in this thread?

And all this time, I thought I was weird.