8x10 contact prints - are you satisfied?

[Patrick Robert James]

I had an 8x10 camera for a few years but I never really used it. Like others have said, going from 4x5 to 8x10 is a big jump in handling. The contact prints are fine but limiting and enlargers are nearly impossible to find even if you have the space for one. If you can live with the size like Weston was able to, then it is a simple way to get a print. If you print larger than 8x10 now though you will probably feel the limitation.

Maybe you can con a person or two into sending you a couple of 8x10 contact prints just to see them. That might help you make up your mind.

Also, why not try making some 4x5 contact prints just to see if you enjoy the process?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Hi...

Well, I know I'm not happy with 4x5 or even 5x7 contact prints. I've seen 8x10 B&W contact prints in person and they were impressive (although the photographer tended to use a paper that was too low in contrast for my tastes).

I've had my photos in other formats enlarged to 16x20 by various labs - I think that's as high as I want to go. At home, I can only enlarge from 35mm.

With 8x10 I'm hoping to contact print because I don't want a huge enlarger and I'm trying to cut back on the volume I send out to labs.

 

[Tim Layton]

Hi, I use 4x5, 8x10, and 11x14 view cameras. Most of my work is all contact printing from my 8x10 and 11x14 now. My 8x10 is only about 9 lbs making it very easy to pack around in nature. I am a hiker and nature photographer. I absolutely love the aesthetics of large format contact prints. It is difficult to quantify, but I have seen the differences in texture, tonality, and at times, sharpness in my own work. I also take a lot of pride in creating high-quality negatives that are very easy to contact print. There is no where to hide when contact printing large negatives. The other reason I use 8x10 and 11x14 formats are becuase of my vintage lens choices that are just not possible with smaller formats. I am partial to soft focus lenses and Pictorialism. This fits very well with my choice of formats. Just keep at it, explore, and most importantly, have fun.

Tim

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.

 

[Roger Cole]

Hi...

Well, I know I'm not happy with 4x5 or even 5x7 contact prints. I've seen 8x10 B&W contact prints in person and they were impressive (although the photographer tended to use a paper that was too low in contrast for my tastes).

I've had my photos in other formats enlarged to 16x20 by various labs - I think that's as high as I want to go. At home, I can only enlarge from 35mm.

With 8x10 I'm hoping to contact print because I don't want a huge enlarger and I'm trying to cut back on the volume I send out to labs.

Have you seen 4x5 enlargers? They aren't that much bigger than medium format enlargers (though they are quite a bit bigger than the few 35mm and smaller only enlargers) and you get a much sturdier and more rigid enlarger for your smaller negatives as well.

I understand you don't want a "huge" enlarger but be sure you've seen some 4x5s before you rule one out. They are not what I would ever call huge. More importantly than overall size, they are not typically particularly tall, unlike 8x10 models, nor do they take up a lot more counter space than smaller format ones. You might consider a 4x5 enlarger and 4x5 camera.

 

[Roger Cole]

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

B&H lists Velvia in 8x10 for only slight more than Provia, $254.94 versus $249.95, albeit Velvia currently back ordered. These were the prices I had in mind (along with Ektar 100 and Portra 160 and 400 at between $14 and $16 a sheet) when I made the comment, not the even more absurdly over the top $30.50 a sheet. I have never seen it priced THAT high.

Besides, $12.50 - $16.95 a sheet is plenty high enough to dissuade me from ever shooting 8x10 color, especially when I can shoot 4x5 for around four bucks a sheet or, better yet and plenty good enough, 6cmx7cm either in a medium format camera or in a rollfilm back on my view camera where I can use movements, for $0.50 to $0.85 a shot.

 

[michaelorr]

Lots of good input here too from folks who excel in the field. I personally can't imagine an intimate setting where there is a need for a print much larger than 8x10. One of the neatest prints i have ever seen is an Ansel Adams printed by Alan Ross that is about 8x10, though was printed by enlarger (i think that is the limitation that @Patrick Robert James speaks to.) Like @Roger Cole i have packed a wood 8x10 Deardorff view camera halfway up a mountain in NH and it was manageable and i will do it again. Results are the 3 falling waters waterfalls in my gallery. Tripod was my walking pole for that hike! I have about 200+ 4x5 negatives and a handful of 8x10. I find it hard to believe that a 4x5 negative cannot be enlarged to 16x20 to satisfaction. One should be able to practically make a mural of it. I went to 8x10 simply because i did not have a proper darkroom to set up an enlarger for my 4x5. Gosh how i want to do that so bad. As 4x5 goes, i am using a Chamonix now, which like other modern LF format has full movements, and i have no more fun taking pictures other than taking that 4x5 out - i think i do it for the joy and fulfillment not for the exposure.Just looking at a LF GG is sheer magic. So all this from a true as opportunity affords amateur, not a practitioner. Just my two bob...

 

[Tim Layton]

I agree. I really like this approach.

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

 

[Roger Cole]

Lots of good input here too from folks who excel in the field. I personally can't imagine an intimate setting where there is a need for a print much larger than 8x10. One of the neatest prints i have ever seen is an Ansel Adams printed by Alan Ross that is about 8x10, though was printed by enlarger (i think that is the limitation that @Patrick Robert James speaks to.) Like @Roger Cole i have packed a wood 8x10 Deardorff view camera halfway up a mountain in NH and it was manageable and i will do it again. Results are the 3 falling waters waterfalls in my gallery. Tripod was my walking pole for that hike! I have about 200+ 4x5 negatives and a handful of 8x10. I find it hard to believe that a 4x5 negative cannot be enlarged to 16x20 to satisfaction. One should be able to practically make a mural of it. I went to 8x10 simply because i did not have a proper darkroom to set up an enlarger for my 4x5. Gosh how i want to do that so bad. As 4x5 goes, i am using a Chamonix now, which like other modern LF format has full movements, and i have no more fun taking pictures other than taking that 4x5 out - i think i do it for the joy and fulfillment not for the exposure.Just looking at a LF GG is sheer magic. So all this from a true as opportunity affords amateur, not a practitioner. Just my two bob...

I think you got your tag confused. I don't have and never had an 8x10 camera, much less packed one halfway, or a tenth of the way for that matter, up any mountains.

I've said before I wouldn't mind having one IF not for the difficulty of enlarging it. I also really admire the wet plate work I see on LFPF and since that's an inherently "plate is final image" process if I ever do that I'd definitely want something larger than 4x5, at least once I got decent at it. But for right now my photography isn't apt to go larger than a 4x5 camera for a while.

 

[michaelorr]

Yes I did get tag confused, my bad. @Tim Layton was the tag i meant (who has youtube tutorials that are just fantastic, Thanks Tim.) Sorry to both. And, Roger, your point is well taken that contact printing is great with those processes, [reminders of the @Nodda Duma work most recently posted) , but using 4x5 and manageable equipment and process is such good quality. There are tradeoffs to any, as determined by what one wants to do with their vision and aesthetic.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Besides, $12.50 - $16.95 a sheet is plenty high enough to dissuade me from ever shooting 8x10 color...

I'm gonna' to do it at least once at some point. Just to say I did. I may even home process it. Just to say I did.

Hey! If 8x10 transparencies were good enough back in the day for the Playboy centerfolds, then they're good enough for me to point at some stupid waterfall or carnival ride. Ya' think??

:w00t: (I want my :w00t: back!!)

Ken

 

[Bill Burk]

I have received some 8x10 contact prints in print exchanges. I have to say they were very, very good.

I think I have one of the prints you are talking about, from the exchange you and I were in. I think that print is exquisite. Yes! 8x10 contact prints are beautiful.

 

[ChuckP]

One problem I have with contacts is cropping. Ideally we would always place ourselves to compose the perfect image for the film size and lens used. But sometimes we can't get the right position or have the right lens but still see a nice image we can enlarge from a part of the negative. Full frame purists would pass up this opportunity but I would just take the picture and enlarge the cropped portion. Depends on how you like to work. For some the game is know what your equipment sees and find only the images that fit that.

 

[David Brown]

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.

I've seen 8x10 B&W contact prints in person and they were impressive .

I'm confused ...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I'm confused ...

Sorry - I've still never seen an 8x10 contact print on actual photo paper. What I have seen are the works of several regional photographers in published books; these books had 8x10 contact prints (I can see the edges of the film) and they were impressive.

In my second quote, I was really referring to what I saw in the books.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Oh yes, I'm very satisfied with 8x10 contacts. I've been doing it for about 15 years now.

 

[Roger Cole]

I think I have one of the prints you are talking about, from the exchange you and I were in. I think that print is exquisite. Yes! 8x10 contact prints are beautiful.

It is - but I'm not sure I'd be able to tell it from an equally well made 8x10 enlargement from 4x5.

 

[Peter Rockstroh01]

There is big difference on how to enjoy a print from an 8x10 negative. A contact print you enjoy holding it in your hand or in an album, and looking at it at your arm's length, being able to see the whole image. There is nothing crisper than a large contact print. The same image enlarged must be enjoyed at a longer distance, or your eyes will erratically scan an area too large to be taken in at a glance. And there are negatives that must be enlarged. Big landscapes taken on large format deserve to be printed majestically large. Portraits of babies should always be printed much smaller than the baby itself. Photo posters of babies, no matter how cute, make them look like King Kong.
The easiest way to see what an enlarged copy from yor 8x10 looks like, is going to the dark side. A couple of 16x20's later and you'll be looking for an enlarger (if you photograph subjects that deserve to be enlarged).

 

[Ian Grant]

Have you seen 4x5 enlargers? They aren't that much bigger than medium format enlargers (though they are quite a bit bigger than the few 35mm and smaller only enlargers) and you get a much sturdier and more rigid enlarger for your smaller negatives as well.

I understand you don't want a "huge" enlarger but be sure you've seen some 4x5s before you rule one out. They are not what I would ever call huge. More importantly than overall size, they are not typically particularly tall, unlike 8x10 models, nor do they take up a lot more counter space than smaller format ones. You might consider a 4x5 enlarger and 4x5 camera.

That's a bit simplistic, my floor standing De Vere 5108 10x8 enlarger is basically similar in overall size to a floor standing De Vere 504 after all it's essentially the same chassis and large, needs about 8ft head room.

Yes you can get smaller 5x4 enlargers and for years I used a Johnsons V45, that isn't much larger than a medium format enlarger, I've another part restored.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

One problem I have with contacts is cropping. Ideally we would always place ourselves to compose the perfect image for the film size and lens used. But sometimes we can't get the right position or have the right lens but still see a nice image we can enlarge from a part of the negative. Full frame purists would pass up this opportunity but I would just take the picture and enlarge the cropped portion. Depends on how you like to work. For some the game is know what your equipment sees and find only the images that fit that.

hi chuck
to crop an 8x10 or any contact print you just need to make a mask.
that's how i've done it, and when i received 8x10 contacts as gifts i was
told " when i mat them i crop off the bottom about 2 " " kind of the same thing,
but ... when i mat, i don't like the mat to be right up on the image ( i like the image to swim a little bit
both between the edge of the mat and in the frame ) , so i never matted or framed the image.
i know what you mean about ( full frame or ANY ) purists, they miss out on all the fun

john

 

[Roger Cole]

That's a bit simplistic, my floor standing De Vere 5108 10x8 enlarger is basically similar in overall size to a floor standing De Vere 504 after all it's essentially the same chassis and large, needs about 8ft head room.

Yes you can get smaller 5x4 enlargers and for years I used a Johnsons V45, that isn't much larger than a medium format enlarger, I've another part restored.

Ian

Um...why is it "a bit simplistic" when you just said basically the same thing I did? That 4x5 enlargers aren't much bigger than medium format ones??

Ok, you are saying that SOME 4x5 enlargers may be nearly as big as some 8x10s. That's irrelevant. I've never heard of, much less seen, a De Vere 504. When most people say "4x5 enlarger" (or "5x4" if you insist) they mean things like the Omega D series, the Beseler 4x5s, the LPL etc.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Contact printing doesn't guarantee good results any more than enlarging does. Some people are downright sloppy either way. You can get some lovely
tonality with contacts, but sacrifice the ability to bring attention to all that wonderful detail 8x10 film is capable of presenting to the viewer on larger scale. Once in awhile I'll print an 8x10 neg both ways, and like them both, but for slightly different reasons. 8x10 enlargers aren't exactly rare; but they do demand quite a bit of space, and can be a bear to move. 4x5 enlargers are going to be a lot more versatile for the average worker, and also serve as a nice light source for contract printing itself if you are so inclined.

 

[Ian Grant]

Um...why is it "a bit simplistic" when you just said basically the same thing I did? That 4x5 enlargers aren't much bigger than medium format ones??

Ok, you are saying that SOME 4x5 enlargers may be nearly as big as some 8x10s. That's irrelevant. I've never heard of, much less seen, a De Vere 504. When most people say "4x5 enlarger" (or "5x4" if you insist) they mean things like the Omega D series, the Beseler 4x5s, the LPL etc.

De Vere 504 and 5108 are the most common LF enlargers here in the UK, however De Vere exported far more to the US and Canadian markets though. There quite a few US/Canadian members here and on the LFPF using De Veres Note De Vere use the long length first in their model numbers that's always been a common UK convention.

My first point is though that many 5x4 enlargers are very large needing similar space to a 10x8 enlarger, as a Google image search shows, and even when smaller you still need a similar sized baseboard to make large prints.

On the other hand a desktop 5x4 enlarger can be smaller but will limit your maximum potential print size, often people shoot LF because they want the potential to make large prints, that's my second point really.

So if getting a 5x4 enlarger it's important to weigh up one's options. I used a desk-top enlarger for over 30 years but I had it mounted directly to the back of an adjustable bench, I could remove most of the work top and place it at 3 or 4 different levels allowing substantially greater enlargement and print sizes.

Ian

 

[GAS496]

Hi...

Well, I know I'm not happy with 4x5 or even 5x7 contact prints. I've seen 8x10 B&W contact prints in person and they were impressive (although the photographer tended to use a paper that was too low in contrast for my tastes).

I've had my photos in other formats enlarged to 16x20 by various labs - I think that's as high as I want to go. At home, I can only enlarge from 35mm.

With 8x10 I'm hoping to contact print because I don't want a huge enlarger and I'm trying to cut back on the volume I send out to labs.

Theo,
Thirteen year ago I was at the Center for Creative Photography in Tucson at the University of Arizona, where Ansel Adams donated all his negatives and many prints. It was there that I saw his Dogwood Blossom 8x10 contact print. Not ever seeing a contact print before I was mesmerized and stood before it in awe for quite some time. It was at that moment I made the decision to graduate to an 8x10. I have never looked back. Of course a large negative exaggerates everything especially your mistakes so don't think it is a perfect path to the perfect print. In fact as many posts have related it will truly test your skill as a photographer. I have a DeVere 5108 enlarger and use it often but lately I have been finding myself doing more and more contacting printing with my remaining stock of AZO paper and Amidol developer. I love the simplicity of printing with a bare light bulb, graded paper, a contact print frame, a sheet of cardboard and a metronome.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Edward Weston was certainly satisfied. IIRC most of his work was in 8x10 contact prints. One of the prints is here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_No._30

 

[Roger Cole]

I have never seen a 4x5 enlarger that was not a "desktop." I accept that they exist. But getting one nowadays is probably not as common, at least in the US. I can print up to 16x20 on my baseboard and I haven't tried larger since that's the largest easel I have. It would take some (very minor) moving things around to project onto the floor. How big do you need?

I have two Omega D2s, one I bought back in the 90s when I got into LF and another chassis, condenser set etc. that needs some work but I stumbled into as spare parts for basically free IIRC. It could pretty easily be restored. The real problem with getting LF enlargers these days is that no one wants to ship the things and it's expensive if they will. Still, of the seller is willing, it's not actually difficult to break down, say, my D2 into shippable size parts and ship them. Might cost $100 - $200 at a guess to ship domestically but it's far from out of the question. A big floor standing De Vere, well, not as easy. But then I've seen many Omega D series, Beselers (both varities of 4x5) a few Dursts and at least one LPL. I've never seen a De Vere. So if they are more common they seem to be well hidden, at least on this side of the Atlantic.