Is 8x10 > 4x5 @ 24x20 ?

[snaggs]

Just in the process of setting up a 4x5 enlarger, and have an option to put in a 8x10 enlarger instead. I hadn't ever considered 8x10, since I didn't think I would be able to find an enlarger in my area.

Realistically, how big do you need to start printing to notice the difference? Has anyone every put up some photo's of a test done on the net comparing 8x10 to 4x5?

Cheers,

Daniel.

 

[Ole]

I have two "objections" to 8x10" enlargers:

1: Do you have the necessary room for it? High enough ceiling? Those beasts are BIG!

2: For 8x10" prints, you don't need an enlarger for 8x10" film...

I have a 5x7" enlarger, which I find perfect for my use: I can enlarge from anything from 35mm through MF, 6.5x9cm and 4x5" to 13x18cm using the same enlarger. And it's small enough to fit under a normal ceiling, and I managed to get it up the stairs to my first-floor darkroom all by myself.

Realistically, I haven't even considered getting an enlarger for anything bigger than 5x7". 5x7" is big enough the I often decide to stay with contact prints, and if I ever want to get an enlarged print from an even bigger negative I would make my best contact print and ship negative and print off to Sweden (there's a lab there with a 20x24" enlarger)!

 

[Petzi]

If 20x24" is your target, then you can easily do the test yourself. This is a 5x linear enlargement from a 4x5", but only a 2.5x linear enlargement from 8x10". You could do a similar enlargement from MF or 35mm, to see how the grain looks in the final print.

 

[jovo]

From what I've seen of 8x10 and 11x14 enlargers (yes, I've actually seen one of those), there is a significant issue with film and paper flatness. Expect to use glass negative carriers and vacuum easels for paper, or do not expect to get anywhere close to optimum results.

When I enlarge 4x5 negatives to 8x10 I don't see a difference between such an enlargement and one made from a 6x7 or 6x6 negative. At 11x14 I can begin to appreciate a small but noticeable change. Beyond that, there is a more significant difference. I would expect 8x10 negatives to have similar outcomes as the enlarged sizes increase respectively.

 

[Donald Miller]

A lot depends on what is acceptable to you. Some folks enlarge medium format to 20X24. Some, like me, think that 16X20 is the upper limit of an uncropped 4X5 negative.

I would consider an 8X10 enlarger if you ever see yourself wanting to make up to 32X40 prints from an 8X10 negative. With an 8X10 enlarger you will gain nothing unless you plan on shooting large film and printing large prints.

But then my acceptable may not be your acceptable.

 

[Nick Zentena]

One reason I some times dream of a 8x10 enlarger is not for 8x10 negatives. But for enlarged contact prints. Or if somebody shot 4x10s or other formats bigger then 4x5. Even 6x17 is going to require at least a 5x7 enlarger.

 

[Sparky]

With 8x10 also - expect 2500W minimum, a separate head blower connected via hoses, a WHOLE LOT OF HEAT, and much higher power bills..

 

[resummerfield]

With 8x10 also - expect 2500W minimum, a separate head blower connected via hoses, a WHOLE LOT OF HEAT, and much higher power bills..

The Durst CLS 1840 head for 8x10 "only" uses a 1000w bulb, or the Aristo T-12 coldlight head for 8x10 is around 300w and runs cool.

 

[smieglitz]

Personally, I'd go with 4x5 enlarging and 8x10 contact printing. 4x5 is just a bit too small to contact and if you are going to enlarge, why struggle with the larger format? I don't think you'd see much of a difference between an 8x10 or 4x5 negative blown up to 20x24, but I think there would be a world of difference between a 4x5 neg enlarged to 8x10 vs an 8x10 contact print. (This is however conjecture on my part since I've never tested specifically between them.)

I'm almost at the point where I consider enlarging a totally different medium than contact printing. FWIW, since moving up to ULF and alternative processes like VDB, I really don't like to enlarge anymore.

 

[Rlibersky]

I love my 8x10 enlarger. I do also have a 4x5 for the smaller stuff.

Part of the difference is the lens used for a normal perspective shot on the different film size. My 8x10 uses ~300mm lens for the same image a 4x5 uses ~150mm lens. This will also make a difference in the image, although it is very rarely brought up when talking about LF.

 

[Mick Fagan]

If you do get an 8x10" enlarger, ensure that you can drop the table. Most, but not all 8x10" enlargers, have that capability.

The reason you could require that ability, is so you can do some serious cropping of an 8x10" negative.

One of the more interesting things you can do with an 8x10" enlarger, is to project a whole roll of 35mm film onto quite large paper and have that as a single print, can be a very creative thing, especially if you shoot with the end result in mind.

I have used vertical and horizontal 8x10" enlargers, the horizontal enlargers are usually easier to operate as the controls, neg carrier are at chest height, instead of somewhere near the ceiling.

This can be desirable in the middle of printing when you have everything all set to go after test prints, then you discover a tiny speck of dirt which means you need to get to the neg without moving anything.

Mick.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Daniel,

I'd go for the 8x10 if you have room and if you want to do 20x24 prints; I have a 5x7 enlarger and find it detectably more useful than 4x5, not least because I can do 6x17 panorams. If I were given an 8x10 I'd be delighted, but I wouldn't actually buy one because I couldn't really justify the extra use over the 5x7. If I had no LF enlarger, I'd REALLY look out for an 8x10.

My own view is that up to about 3x it can be very hard indeed to tell an enlargement from a contact print, whereas beyond about 5x it's dead obvious. As you are looking at 4x vs. 2.5x, I'd suggest that 8x10 wins IF you want to do huge enlargements -- though as I prefer small enlargements, I can't really get excited about it...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Hi,

I shoot 5x4 and have shot 10x8 (I also have 5x7 which I have not really been able to use as shortly after teh delayed delivery I took off abroad and have not been back). My views are as follows:

10X8 IS far better at that size than 5x4. FAR. It is far better at 20x16 too, but totally invisible at 11x14 or even 16x12. The difference at 20x24 is not subtle. It leaps out at you. Period.

10x8 cameras are huge, DOF is an issue, film handling is an issue as are the size and wight of holders. 5x7 is a greta comprimise if you shoot say up to 20x24 where it does have an adge over 5x4 clearly. BUT, if you want to shoot really big, you cannot get around the fact that 10x8 is proportionately bigger than 5x7 than 5x7 is over 5x4.....

The 10x8 enlargers are huge but I love my Devere 10x8 and ise it for small formats too.

To make things clear to me, as soon as I got my 10x8 I shot a sheet of FP4+ and enlarged a section to equivalent of 40 inches. It looked just like a 20 inch print from 5x4. At 11x14 inches the prints were indistinguishable off 10x8 vs 5x4. At 20x24 you really are looking at the same tonality you get from your 12 x 9.5 prints off 5x4 ie sumptuous.

Be prepared tho, carting 10x8 about is a whole different business.....

 

[vet173]

Do like I did and have both. If I could only have one it would probably go to the 4x5 though.

 

[Jordan.K]

There can be an amazing difference. An 8x10 negative enlarged to 20x24 can take on an almost realer than real quality in sharpness and tonal range. A well exposed and processed 4x5 negative can make quite a beautiful 20x24 print as well though. You won't have to worry about a vacuum easel, however glass negative carriers are always a good idea for optimal sharpness. Besides why not just get an 8x10 enlarger if you already are into 4x5 you may become interested in 8x10.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I love my 10x8 when on a tripod, not that I have had much chance to use it yet! I hate it at all other times (oh, apart from when the image is on th baseboard). I ws aboutt sell it, having sold the 5x4 as well, in preference for teh 5x7, but suspect I will end up hanging on to it for that huge neg. Some love to contact print, but teh detail off an enlarged print is stunning....

 

[snaggs]

Hmm.. there is a 5x7 adapter for my Tachihara.. maybe that will be enough fo rthe future.

Daniel.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Hmm.. there is a 5x7 adapter for my Tachihara.. maybe that will be enough fo rthe future.

Daniel.

Would be agreat way to see what the boost in neg real estate will do for you. If you can fit a 10x8 enlarger in go for it!

I have two big floor standing enlargers being delivered from storage along with house contents to my new house tomorrow. They just fitted in my last garage (about 2 inches clearance) My wife is there moving in. I am in Kabul and terrified that I will get the call, "Er, Darling, but...Hmmm. I dont know how to say this but you enlargers will not fit in the garage"

How does one deal with that?

Dig a hole in the floor?
Chop them up to shortern the columns?
Cut hole in ceiling allowing column to poke thru into living room?
Immediately move house?
Build extension?

I am terrified.

 

[Ian Grant]

Tom, don't joke:rolleyes:

"Dig a hole in the floor?
Cut hole in ceiling allowing column to poke thru into living room?"

Thats exactly what I had to do, well cut a joist out of the ceiling to gain the full height so now the head sits 2cm below the floor boards, and the legs 10 inches below the original floor level.

Ian