Epson print or 8x10 camera

After making silver gelatin enlargements from both medium format and 4x5 negatives, I want to "graduate" into making alternative process prints. Looks like a fun way to get some variety in my print making. I already have a darkroom set up at home and I've already built a UV exposure unit that should be able to easily handle up to 11x14 prints and maybe a bit larger.

I'm just stuck debating which route I want to go in order to make negatives of acceptable size. 4x5 is a bit small for contact prints in my opinion. I could get an 8x10 camera and make in camera negatives specifically developed for the processes I want to explore (salt and new cyanotype to start), or I could get an Epson p700/p900 and print digital negatives of various sizes.

I guess this post is just a way to get my thoughts on paper to help me decide which option and get some input from the community as to what they think. Oh and I don't scan my film (don't like doing it) so if I go the inkjet route it would only be from digital capture.

8x10 Cons:
-big and more difficult to bring places
-expensive
-Film has to be developed to a specific contrast index that is different than what I normally shoot. These negatives will likely be unsuitable for silver gelatin contact prints and shooting the 8x10 would be used specifically for making alternative process prints.
-requires more supporting equipment than inkjet which also needs to be purchased (film holders, dark cloth, etc).
-stuck with 8x10" prints
-visible film tabs unless the prints are masked
-more difficult to process 8x10 film than 4x5
8x10 Pros:
-a familiar process of shooting and developing the negatives
-In theory, better tonal and detail rendition than inkjet
-seems special and it is what my heart wants
-pulling out the 8x10 means I am specifically making something for alternative process prints and might impose some creative limitations in which I tend to thrive.
-scares people

Epson Inkjet Cons:
-I don't really like using printers (IT career trauma)
-infrequent use will cause required cleaning cycles and can waste a lot of ink
-expensive ink
-North American p700 and p900 models cannot have their ink cartridges refilled or be converted to use piezography carbon ink jets
-learning and mastering a new process
-would be using my digital camera which, while nice, isn't my preferred why to make images
Epson Inkjet Pros:
-can make various sized negatives!
-can reprint negatives to different contrast indexes for different processes
-can reprint damaged negatives
-cheaper
-can print color images if desired
-Will breath new life into using my digital equipment AND I can fly with my camera knowing I will still be able to make analog prints at home (flying with film can be a fuss).
-Can make fun color prints or digital negatives if/when I decide to get into astro photography (probably doomed to happen eventually)
-QuadTone Rip looks nice


In short, my heart wants an 8x10 camera like the Stenopeika Airforce 8x10 Pro, but it is more expensive and offers less flexibility than getting an inkjet printer. I've played with the idea of getting an 11x14 Stenopeika camera so I can then make 8x10 and 11x14 negatives, but 11x14 film is insanely expensive and the cameras are quiet heavy. Direct positive paper prints are a cheaper possibility too, but at that point I think I would just rather shoot my 4x5 and enlarge it.

I'm not really sure what I am looking for here, but if anyone has any thoughts about going one way or the other that would be welcome.

Do both, be happy. By doing so, you'll also realize one isn't really an alternative to the other. They're different universes.

koraks said:

Do both, be happy. By doing so, you'll also realize one isn't really an alternative to the other. They're different universes.

Click to expand...

Both is an eventual possibly, but my wallet short term would be more unhappy.

The other option is to make fully analogue enlarged negs using the standard 2-step process.

Lachlan Young said:

The other option is to make fully analogue enlarged negs using the standard 2-step process.

Click to expand...

That's right... you can enlarge onto any size ortho film then contact that to another to make a large negative. You can employ dodging/burning and control contrast somewhat by choice of developer...

I know a lot of people don't seem to like working with paper negatives, but I use them a lot. For some processes like salt, the natural "high contrast" range can be a plus. There are good and very fun inexpensive options:

1) enlarge onto paper, contact print onto paper to make the negative.
2) variation on this theme is Mortensen's wet paper negative process... which gives you unique options to tame contrast and retain luminous shadow areas. It's also really enjoyable!
3) pinhole camera onto large paper negatives is fun and can make surprisingly nice negatives. Look for posts here about pre-flashing to help get paper negative contrast under control.
4) homemade camera onto paper negatives... it's not a huge project to make a fixed focus box camera. The things that make it more complicated are if you want to use film holders or a GG for focus. Can be 8x10 or 11x14 or anything your lens can cover.

Variations of the above with x-ray or mammography film.

I think Koraks is really right.... different universes! To me they are almost different hobbies completely.

cirwin2010 said:

8x10 Cons:

-Film has to be developed to a specific contrast index that is different than what I normally shoot. These negatives will likely be unsuitable for silver gelatin contact prints and shooting the 8x10 would be used specifically for making alternative process prints.

Click to expand...

Carl Weese worked out an approach to pyro development to create "switch-hitting" negatives that can print well either on silver variable-contrast paper or in alt processes. Here is how he described it:

I used a pyro developer formula for both negatives. Pyro development combines a proportional stain with the silver in the negative. Since the stain is an efficient UV light blocker, the negatives have sufficient UV density range for optimal Pt/Pd printing, yet have low enough contrast in the visible light spectrum to make first rate silver prints as well. In addition, they are easy to scan with full detail and tonal range since scanners also work with the visible, not UV, spectrum.

https://theonlinephotographer.typep...he-print-sale-pictures-and-the-negatives.html

I've seen Carl's silver and Pt/Pd contact prints from such negatives, and both types are superb, so if you nail down the process you aren't compromising print quality in either medium. As the available VC papers have changed over the past decade it might not be possible to copy Carl's "recipe" directly, but his results at least serve as proof of principle.

I went through this same thing except that my final product is either a digital print or a silver print using traditional darkroom methods. I have 4x5 and 8x10 cameras as well as a 100mp (Hasselblad) system that I use. The final solution for me was to get a very high resolution scanner (Scitex) for the standard negatives then clean them up (dust, etc) in Photoshop then produce a final digital print or often a larger format digital negative that I then contact print using VC paper and a Heiland head for repeatability. I just wanted the flexibility and kept flipping back and forth between shooting film (or having a ton of older negs) and enjoying the freedom of my digital system. While high quality prints from my P900 are impressive, they don't have the depth of a traditional silver print especially in the blacks. Behind glass they are very similar however.
I found that older negatives were just a pain to spot and it's just so easy to scan them and fix that spending my time out of the darkroom refining the image. There are things you can do in PS regardless of the process that are just far too cumbersome to be done with older traditional masking and other methods. I have more fun now and find the changing of methods freeing.

cirwin2010 said:

Both is an eventual possibly, but my wallet short term would be more unhappy.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. You could consider getting a second hand 3880 - perhaps even with a set of refillable carts so you can save on ink costs at the same time. This may be more affordable than a more modern printer. The 3880 is a fairly good printer and I don't have the impression that later models are necessarily much better at making digital negatives. The main differences with some modern (high-end) printers is the extended gamut if they're using additional inks like orange, green & violet. This of course only affects actual color printing.

Below are a few observations on some options offered by others; they evidently reflect my personal views, preferences and experiences, which may or may not apply to others. I'm just offering them for reflection and on a 'take it or leave it' basis, and not as a rejection of the valid options offered.

Lachlan Young said:

The other option is to make fully analogue enlarged negs using the standard 2-step process.

Click to expand...

That's actually a good idea especially if you have access to affordable film for this purpose. In the US, it's still possible to obtain affordable x-ray film and perhaps even ortho litho film. These products are also available in Europe, but they've become cost-prohibitive unless you're really dedicated to the craft and have rather deep pockets.

However, the more pertinent observation IMO is that you really end up with a very different photograph, depending on whether you set out with a portable digital (or film) camera and enlarge a negative, or you start out with an 8x10 and shoot that 'natively'. That's one of the reasons I mentioned that one really isn't an alternative (I perhaps should have said 'substitute') for the other. While you could make two images that are quite similar on both formats, in reality, most of us won't, as what we make gets influenced (or even dictated) by the medium. I've shot quite a bit of very small (35mm) and rather big (8x10) side by side over the past few years. The images and prints are just miles apart in terms of...everything. The same is true if I take 35mm negs and blow them up to LF sizes onto xray film and contact print them on carbon transfer. I never really pursued that option - not because of cost or the effort involved, but simply because I very quickly realized I wasn't making the images I was looking for on that printing process. The difference between the mediums is just too profound and they permeate the entire image making chain.

Oren Grad said:

Carl Weese worked out an approach to pyro development to create "switch-hitting" negatives that can print well either on silver variable-contrast paper or in alt processes.

Click to expand...

That works well if your target alt. process isn't too outlandish in terms of its contrast requirements. I understand from your post that Weese makes Pt/Pd prints, and the contrast range for such prints is close to what you can work with in VC silver gelatin as well. OP mentions salted paper and New Cyanotype; both 'like' negatives with a tonal scale of 2.2logD or beyond (in UV). Even with pyro negatives (and I've done, still do, a ton of those), the distance between what comfortably prints at grade 1 or 0 on VC silver gel and what you need for a salt print is just too big. You end up with a compromise in either or both directions. BTDT. There are ways to stretch the compromise a bit - for instance by using only short wavelengths for UV printing, which is now possible with LED. But even so, you'll be working with negatives that do not necessarily hit the nicest tonality that VC paper has to offer, or you fall short in 'oomph' on the alt. process side.

As said, this can work, to an extent, for processes like Pt/Pd, dichromate carbon (but not DAS carbon!), probably gum/casein/plant protein/Printmaker's Friend etc. So in reality "it depends", but I've never found it a very useful purpose to optimize for. Much more realistic IMO is to just shoot the scene twice and produce two negatives for the different target processes. Let's face it - the real costs are in getting out there, setting up the unwieldy 8x10 and basically hauling stuff around. Exposing one extra sheet doesn't make as much as a difference in the end as we may believe when we're wielding the pocket calculator.

Lachlan Young said:

The other option is to make fully analogue enlarged negs using the standard 2-step process.

Click to expand...

This. 8x10 ortho film under your enlarger, either contact printed to get a negative or reversal processed for a direct enlarged negative. The film is still expensive (unless you can get acceptable tonality from a litho film with non-litho developer), but no 8x10 camera, lens, or film holders needed.

Follow your heart, but I wouldn't rule out 4x5 alt process contact prints simply on size. I've made several nice pt/pd 4x5's (IMHO, of course) and have a quite lovely framed 4x5 pt/pd print (by another photographer) hanging in my living room. Since you've mentioned your wallet and the cost of your purists, you might want to give some thought to the cost of doing large pt/pd prints; it ain't cheap! Though I do shoot with both 4x5 and 8x10 cameras, I rarely make pt/pd prints larger than 5x7. That's partly because I do like smaller prints, in general.

I jumped up to 8x10 for one of the same basic reasons; I felt that 4x5 contact prints were just too small and "delicate" as objects. That being said, I freely admit to seeing examples of amazing 4x5 sized work.
I don't agree that 8x10 is any harder to process than 4x5 except in multiple sheet batch processing. unless there is a new product out that I haven't heard of, the only option for that would be a stash of dip and dunk tanks and hangers.
There are budget friendly 8x10 cameras to be had. Lens prices jump a bit due to increased coverage needs, and there is a fairly steep tax placed upon the "cult glass." This is also true for smaller coverage "cult" lenses.
Film holders are quite a bit more expensive than 4x5.

To me, the cost of an inkjet printer and all of the associated stuff is where I balked. I've owned a normal household color inkjet before that didn't handle idle times well and then emptied its tanks running cleanup prints. That thing went to the recycle yard when I realized that my second set of inks would surpass the cost of the printer.

As to the Stenopeika camera. I haven't read much about it. Their product page seems a bit odd in that they make it sound like they have a subpar ground glass on some cameras but employ their "best" ground glass on the Leonardo and Airforce pro. The Airforce pro also gets a fresnel.
I would really want to see one in person. I'm also curious about the metal triangle that elevates the rear standard up from the bed and anchors the rest of the rear standard supports. It looks to be a bit under $2k which is I guess somewhat inexpensive for a new 8x10 these days. I wonder what/if the global trade situation would do to the price?

I will also say to follow your heart. The 8x10 camera route will be more expensive all-in than an Epson inkjet, so maybe give a thought to whether the being out in the world photographing holds more enjoyment for you or the making of the print when you are back at home.

MTGseattle said:

The 8x10 camera route will be more expensive all-in than an Epson inkjet

Click to expand...

It can be, if you buy an expensive camera and use a lot of film.

But I just checked what a P700 would cost; about €800. And a P900 would be €1300.

I don't know if they come with a full set of inks. A large part of it will be used for priming the tubes in a new printer. Then a new set costs about €350 or €450 depending on printer model.

Not exactly cheap

If it were me I'd just find a used 8x10 camera and start making cyanotypes and salt prints. No inks, inkjet negatives, printer or computer needed.

One more option: 8x10 pinhole. Ilford makes (or made) an 8x10 pinhole camera, and an optimized pinhole on 8x10 is almost indistinguishable from a "classic" or "vintage" lens of the pre-1880 period in terms of image quality -- but has much better depth of field. Given that the cameras are relatively inexpensive, and need no lens, but you still need at least one or two 8x10 film holders, this is a middle ground betweemn enlarged negative and 8x10 field camera...

If I've understood your question, you already have a 5x4 camera. Even though it's a small format, you can still use it to make alt contact prints to learn the basic skills and get an idea about whether this is something that you want to spend lots of time doing.

When deciding your path after that, keep in mind that it's easier to make a decent print from a poor film negative, than it is to make a decent print from a poor inkjet negative.

FotoD said:

I don't know if they come with a full set of inks.

Click to expand...

They don't.

I think from what you wrote that you would enjoy making your own enlarged negs. You already have what you need except for larger film. Ortho film isn't very expensive either. Photowarehouse and Freestyle both have cheap ortho film. You'd just have to figure out your process but then you are good to go.

My printer has been down for the last year. I just fixed it, but I was seriously considering not bothering to fix it and just go back to enlarged negs. I think a reversal process would be the most efficient and use less film. Should be possible and if I am not mistaken, someone has figured it out so the information is out there. Can't remember who though.

I make cyanotypes and salt prints, so I don't know how well this works for Pt/Pd. I make enlarged negatives with ortho lithography film. I reversal process the film to get a sufficiently continuous negative. There are lots of recipes on the web, try one that suits your sensibilities.

Nicholas Lindan said:

ortho lithography film.

Click to expand...

I didn't suggest this specifically because I've been told it's "impossible" to get the density range and tonality you'd want -- but if you can get the gamut that you need, ortho litho film is 1/4 the cost of Fomapan, never mind T-Max. I bought a box to make skill building with my 4x5 cameras cheaper -- but discovered that it's actual 4 inches by 5 inches and won't fit in a film holder. That doesn't matter under an enlarger, though...

Thanks for the input everyone. I hadn't considered the Epson 3880 as an option. It is cheaper than a new p700 or p900 and I can set it up with piezography inks. I don't like that it is 114 lbs though, but once you find a home for it I suppose it won't be moved often.

I haven't explored making enlarged negatives using orth film or similar processes, I'm not sure the idea appeals to me, but to be fair I haven't really looked into how difficult it would be.
I'm kinda leaning towards the 8x10 route right now, but I'm still feeling indecisive.

Ignoring color inks, what would I be missing out on if I go with an older Epson 3880 vs newer p900. At least as piezography and digital negatives are concerned it looks about the same?

cirwin2010 said:

what would I be missing out on if I go with an older Epson 3880 vs newer p900. At least as piezography and digital negatives are concerned it looks about the same?

Click to expand...

I think the P900 features smaller minimal droplet size, which should theoretically translate into potentially smoother negatives. Yeah...theoretically + potentially...I couldn't say if the difference is very noticeable in reality. What magic you pull with curve creation and QuadTone Rip probably will always have far more impact.

koraks said:

I think the P900 features smaller minimal droplet size, which should theoretically translate into potentially smoother negatives. Yeah...theoretically + potentially...I couldn't say if the difference is very noticeable in reality. What magic you pull with curve creation and QuadTone Rip probably will always have far more impact.

Click to expand...

I assume smaller droplet size corresponds to higher max resolution/PPI for the prints?

Donald Qualls said:

I didn't suggest this <ortho lithography film> specifically because I've been told it's "impossible" to get the density range and tonality you'd want --

Click to expand...

An example: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/clover-cyanotype.17903/

Reversal processing gives much lower contrast when used with lithography film.

Some subjects work well, some not so much. It's all a bit of a crap-shoot.

cirwin2010 said:

I assume smaller droplet size corresponds to higher max resolution/PPI for the prints?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily as resolution depends on the dot pitch in the head as well as the step size of the paper. Although smaller pitches and step sizes also at some point require smaller droplet sizes in order to effectively realize higher resolution. Droplet size mostly determines density range through dot size, so tonal resolution. Simply put, more shades of tone. Inkjet is kind of an oddball technology in terms of resolution and tone since it's effectively a hybrid of a screen printing and continuous tone system.

Here's a nice PDF that explains some of these things in normal speak: https://files.support.epson.com/pdf/600q__/600q__ti.pdf

If I go the printer route, would it be worth getting something compatible with piezography inks specifically for digital negatives? From my understanding it seems in theory they could deliver smoother tonal transitions than the standard black and gray Epson inks, but is that reality?

Honestly, I doubt it. There's very little you can do about the inherent pattern that an inkjet print head lays down. Mind you, in a typical approach using something like an Epson 3880 you are generally already using 3-4 inks at the same time (2-3 flavors of black and yellow is a popular choice). The problem with using even more channels is that you run into the limits of the absorbency of the transparency material. Theoretically, you could get a smoother result if you were to use, say, 5-6 channels. But in practice, it's already really easy to totally soak the film with 3 channels. So it's a balancing act between how much liquid you squirt onto the film and how you build optical density with that. I don't see how adding more channels to the mix would help any. That's just not the limiting factor.