8x10 contact prints - are you satisfied?

[Theo Sulphate]

These last few years I've been getting frustrated with the steps, time, and cost of having enlargements made (I don't have a LF enlarger). If I'm already going out in the field with paraphernalia, I thought it might be preferable to use an 8x10 and make a contact print rather than use 4x5 and have the image enlarged to 16x20 (the size I've preferred so far.).

I've seen books with 8x10 contact images printed on the pages - and they look very good, but I've never seen an actual 8x10 contact print on photo paper.

Has anyone made this switch? Are you happy with it?

I suspect what I'm going to hear is that one is not a substitute for the other - rather they are two different things.

 

[karl]

As long as you like 8x10 prints, there is nothing better than the simple purity of an 8x10 contact print. Bigger print, bigger camera. Which is now why I'm shooting 10x12 and 7x17.

 

[calebarchie]

There is a nice solution available... but are you willing to go to the dark side....?

 

[xya]

yes, I am completely satisfied. I wouldn't even think about an enlarger. it's just perfect as it is, kind of magic if you shot 4x5 before.

 

[CropDusterMan]

I like the 8x10 contact print, but the actual size is not something I'm happy
with as an end result to display. If one is shooting 8x10, personally I feel
the point is that the format is meant to allow you to go bigger. I like large
prints, and nothing has the impact of 8x10 displayed larger. Ultimately,
if you don't have access to an 8x10 enlarger, the only option is....well...you
know.

 

[rince]

I love contact printing 8x10. Nothing quite as sharp and brilliant. Of couse not having an 8x10 enlarger also limits my possibilities Nevertheless, I am really happy with contact printing and the results I can achieve.

 

[calebarchie]

I like the 8x10 contact print, but the actual size is not something I'm happy
with as an end result to display. If one is shooting 8x10, personally I feel
the point is that the format is meant to allow you to go bigger. I like large
prints, and nothing has the impact of 8x10 displayed larger. Ultimately,
if you don't have access to an 8x10 enlarger, the only option is....well...you
know.

I'm referring to digital negatives, what are you referring to?

 

[johnielvis]

You must try it and see for yourself. There is nothing better than an 8x10 or 11x14 backlit transparency. Wayyyyy better than contact prints. The only way to get them is to shoot them that size. Just like an 8x10 or larger contact print.

Alternatively, maybe make an internegative from 4x5 or smaller enlarged on film to the final 8x10 or whatever contact print size. Then you can have like a hybrid where you shoot small but the printing is still contact printed as the final product--with all of the advantages of contact printing large--ease and repeatability using burn/dodge masks or retouching.

 

[CropDusterMan]

I'm referring to digital negatives, what are you referring to?

I was referring to him going and searching the country for an 8x10 enlarger...what did you
think I meant?

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are pros and cons. I think the transition from 4x5 to 8x10 camera use might impose the greater learning curve. But you would need a decent contact printing frame, and would have to keep the glass free of dust if you don't want to spend half your life spotting. If you are going to use ordinary black and white enlargement papers in a contact frame, you can just expose them below your extant 4x5 enlarger as the light source. If you choose relatively slow chlorobromide "contact only" papers, you might want an alternative point light source like a hanging bulb overhead, and might also need higher contrast negatives for the best results. If I were you, I'd simply experiment first with 4x5 contact prints on ordinary VC paper of whatever,
just to see if you like the look. Dodging and burning is certainly harder when you're contact printing due to the smaller area involved. Installing an
8x10 enlarger per se can be a distinct chore. You need a lot of space and budget compared to 4x5 gear.

 

[Ian Grant]

My plan was to go down the contact printing route when I bought my first 10x8 camera about 12 years ago, however as soon as I handled the first 10x8 negatives I knew I wanted to enlarge them.

There was also the issue that a 10x8 contact print was a touch smaller than my regular sized exhibition prints. and that some images get printed larger as well, So I bought a De Vere 5108, at that time there were far more LF enlargers on Ebay and prices were a lot lower than they are now.

Ian

 

[Roger Cole]

The difficulty of optically enlarging the negatives has been mainly what has stopped me from getting into 8x10. Paradoxical as it may be, I can make excellent prints from my 4x5 negatives much larger, including cropping if I want, than I could from an 8x10 negative. Heck I can even print my medium format negatives to excellent 16x20s, the largest size I can currently print.

I have received some 8x10 contact prints in print exchanges. I have to say they were very, very good BUT - from what I saw the idea that a contact print is automatically so much better than any enlargement was, for me, a myth. I'm quote sure I could not have picked the 8x10 contact prints out of a stack of 8x10s, some being contacts and some enlargements from 4x5 (assuming of course that they were trimmed to remove any black if the carrier was filed and maybe the enlargements trimmed a bit too at least to borderless so things like that wouldn't give it away.)

8x10 enlargers come up from time to time, and I still see them basically "to give away to a good home" sometimes, but you have to be able to pick them up, move them, and then have a place for them. The only ones for which that is fairly easily done are the Besseler conversions and the Zone VI, and neither of those are as common or as inexpensive (or, without some modifications probably as good.)

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Thank you for your feedback, everyone. I'm just going to have to try it (I'll keep my 4x5, of course).

I will also have to make some 8x10 transparencies as well - I've heard so much about how amazing they are.

It may be that the contact print satisfies me completely; I may get the desire to try to go further.

As for the 'Angels' here, I'd actually never even thought of other possibilities - surely you are referring to some hypothetical Majick in an alternate Universe whereby a 4x5 image is transmogrified into a... a... 'print' of some form...

 

[Roger Cole]

Given the cost of 8x10 color film, the only transparencies I might make if I had an 8x10 would be reversal processed black and white.

 

[Pioneer]

It is also possible to use the camera itself as the enlarger, usually easiest to do horizontally.

Personally, though I do enlarge occasionally, I love 8x10 contact prints. After having drooled over Edward Weston's work for years I feel they are beautiful when the print is right.

However, 8x10 certainly does not really fit everyone's vision of the result. That is why you have to do it for yourself.

 

[Wayne]

I'm satisfied with it for 8 x 10 prints. Size for size they can't be beat. In 40 years of printing I've never printed larger than 11x14 in color and never desired to larger than 16x20. I've never printed larger than 8x10 in B&W, but yesterday my first ever package of 11x14 B&W arrived so that streak may end tonight. So I just haven't missed the ability to go larger, but there's still plenty of time left to regret not having it (I hope).

But I do have Beseler 4x5, so I'll be set if anyone gives away the 8x10 conversion kit locally.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Given the cost of 8x10 color film, the only transparencies I might make if I had an 8x10 would be reversal processed black and white.

I see your point. The only 8x10 color transparency film I see is Velvia at $610 for 20 sheets.

 

[Alan9940]

I see your point. The only 8x10 color transparency film I see is Velvia at $610 for 20 sheets.

You can buy 8x10 Velvia 50 directly from Japan through a couple of the LFPF members; runs about $360US for a 20 sheet box. Expensive, yes, but OH so worth it!

 

[Doc W]

I love the simplicity of 8x10 contact prints. Yes, they can be quite beautiful, but several folks have said they don't necessarily leap out at you as "better" than good enlargements. Printing only 8x10 from 8x10 negs is not frustrating for me. It has its limitations, but the discipline of working within limitations often leads to good art. I don't have an 8x10 enlarger but a friend build his own and, although relatively simple, it works very well. You can use an 8x10 camera as the starting point for an enlarger.

If you have access to the Gallery, here are two of my 8x10 contacts:

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?media/at-the-campsite.50092/

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Vaughn]

Like you, I was making 16x20 silver gelatin prints from 4x5 negatives. But I began working with alt. processes and that drew me into 5x7, then 8x10 (and 11x14). At this point 8x10 seems a natural easily handle-able size. I do remember that going from 4x5 to 5x7 was very easy, but the jump from 5x7 to 8x10 was much greater and difficult in the handling of the camera and in the processing of the film. However printing was no big deal.

 

[calebarchie]

Its just another flexible option that produces great results if you want to contact print. Especially if efficiency and costs are a concern of yours.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I see your point. The only 8x10 color transparency film I see is Velvia at $610 for 20 sheets.

What about this option?

Fujifilm Fujichrome Provia 100F Professional RDP-III Color Transparency Film (8x10", 20 Sheets)

Ken

 

[Theo Sulphate]

What about this option?

Fujifilm Fujichrome Provia 100F Professional RDP-III Color Transparency Film (8x10", 20 Sheets)

Ken

That is better - and still expensive enough to be very careful with the shot.

 

[Ai Print]

Every time I think about how cool it would be to do 8x10 contact prints and have that large negative to possibly enlarge later if I ever had the space, I think of how easy it is to make an 8x10 to 20x24 enlargement with my 4x5 right now and scuttle the idea.

If I were to make contact prints, it would have to be at least 11x14 to make it worthwhile in my stubborn mind.

 

[removed account4]

8x10s are nice contact printed on 11x14 paper, contact printed 5x7s almost look perfect on that size paper.