First Largish Print

I know it's nothing special but I'm pleased because tonight I printed a 12x16" print from a 6x4.5 Delta 400 negative using a Rodagon-WA 60/4 enlarging lens that I bought a few months ago. And it came out quite nicely (on the fourth try, admittedly, after a couple of problems aligning the paper correctly in the easel). For the first time I can actually see grain in one of my prints . This is the first time I've ever printed larger than 8x10".

I am a bit surprised that with D400 and a 645 you can see grain at 12x16. I base this on what I have read as I have never tried it. Out of interest what film developer did you use? Thanks

It might be you are particularly attuned to seeing grain. As long as it came out nicely that's all that counts

pentaxuser

As someone else who's never enlarged beyond 8x10, I'd be well pleased, too, if i managed a fair job of creating a print more than twice that size. Congratulations and enjoy that contented afterglow [emoji1]

Congratulations. It's addictive - 11x14 is now my standard size, with 16x20 for images that can benefit from it, and I hardly ever make 8x10s anymore to the extent I overstocked paper and may look to sell some before it expires so someone can use it. About all I use 8x10 for now is contact sheets, to make a print small enough to fit on my scanner, and for the odd 35mm negative. Since almost all my black and white is now shot on medium or large format 8x10 just seems tiny now. (Oddly, I probably print as much on 5x7 as on 8x10 if one doesn't count contact sheets, as I tend to print 35mm TMZ or D3200 on 5x7.)

Always many new discoveries to be made when going up a size. Good going!

pentaxuser said:

I am a bit surprised that with D400 and a 645 you can see grain at 12x16. I base this on what I have read as I have never tried it. Out of interest what film developer did you use? Thanks

It might be you are particularly attuned to seeing grain. As long as it came out nicely that's all that counts

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

ID-11 1+1 (14 minutes, which is the datasheet time for normal development).

I was also a bit surprised. It's not objectionable, but is certainly noticeable. The neg was well exposed - not thin but not bulletproof - and printed at 18" f/8 on Ilford MG 4 with no filtration (Grade 2).

The film expired in I think March this year - the local Ilford distributor supplied me with very short dated film - but has been kept refrigerated. Not sure if this has anythong to do with it. And the printed image was a slight crop - probably 80-90% in linear dimensions from the neg.