superlative 20"x16" prints

[AlanC]

Imagine that you have to produce three sets of 20"x16" prints with biting sharpness, deep rich shadows, sparkling highlights and expressive mid-tone seperation. Prints that simply scream "quality".
How would you do them?
The three sets of prints cover these subject areas:
Still life
Outdoor informal portraits
Natural details,eg tree roots, rocks etc.

Alan Clark

 

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm not really sure what you want here. I'd do the first and third with an 8x10 camera, and the second one with a 4x5 camera, and I'd consider unsharp masking. I would think that a 6x7 camera would be the minimum that one would want to use. In any case, I'd make some tests before shooting the final images. Then I'd print on a quality FB paper, which I'd dry-mount and frame in a simple but professional way. I'd probably go with 8-ply mat board for the window mat, since it looks very impressive.

 

[Ole]

I'd shoot everything on 5x7", since that is as big as my enlarger takes. Probably FP4+ film. I see no problem with 20x16" prints from this, a 3x enlargement is far below what even mediocre 5x7" equipment is capable of.

Print on good-quality FB paper, get them framed by the same professional who has already framed my 20x28" prints.

 

[fhovie]

I wouldn't have any fears using 4x5 - My smaller format cameras would be less than technically flawless. FP4 would be a good choice but even tri-x or tmy would be fine. The new TRI-X is fine enough grain and would be a little sharper looking.

 

[jd callow]

I'd feel comfortable shooting 4x5 as well. In colour I've blown up 6x6 negs to well over 20x20 ( as large as 5') and had them look tremendous (from a proper viewing distance or even less), but colour is a different animal.

Depending upon purpose, as in it is the display of deep blacks, sparkling highlights, etc... that is your over riding desire, then I would consider Kodak's Metallic paper. Getting those characteristics, or at least the highlights and blacks from FB is far more challenging, whereas it is inherent with RC papers and phenomenal when printing B/W on to Metallic.

 

[rbarker]

Rent a 16x20 camera and do contact prints?

Adjectives like superlative are subject to individual intepretation. For most folks, though, I'd agree that excellent prints from good, fine-grained 4x5 negs would qualify.

 

[AlanC]

Many thanks everyone for your comments and advice.
Alan Clark

 

[Ole]

It seems the consensus is to use the biggest film you can get, and make the best print you can. In my case that would be 5x7" film, since my largest camera is too small and the enlarger "only" takes film up to 13x18cm. With a 20x16" camera available contact prints could be better, although there are optical limits to the feasibility of "still life" and "natural details". It is quite possible that an enlarged 4x5" or 5x7" negative would give better sharpness on the final print.

 

[Nige]

concentrate on the light on the subjects

 

[jon furer]

You'd be surprised at how good a well exposed, well developed negative and print look in a 16x20. Just my $.02

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day Alan
this is your work, your interpretation
use the equipment/techniques/materials that you normally use and print/present to the highest standard you are capable of

 

[Donald Miller]

4X5 will do the job if one pays attention to the film developer...ABC Pyro will not work because it will show grain at 11X14 under certain conditions. Pyrocat will do the job...so will HC 110.

Film is less a problem then developer...Tri X will produce grainless 16X20 prints so long as you don't use ABC Pyro.

I would probably stay with a graded paper. JandC's Nuance is a good choice. Oriental graded fiber is another.

Pay particular attention to the enlarger that you use...not all things are equal in this area. Objective testing will indicate notable differences...this is probably the single greatest influence on local contrast ...ie midtone separation.

I've got 8X10 capability and would not think of using it in this case.

 

[c6h6o3]

I'd use 400TMax 4x5 sheet film, and develop them using the semi-stand method in tubes filled with dilute Pyrocat HD. I would enlarge them on a point source enlarger if available, a condenser enlarger if not. You should be able to take those negatives up to 16" x 20" and get prints which will cut the viewers' eyeballs when they look at them. Piece o' cake.

 

[AlanC]

I made the original post because I had just seen some wonderful 20x16 prints by two elderly photographers. Work like this is becoming quite rare especially in this digital age and I felt that taking on a project like this would be an interesting challenge.
I have a 5x4 camera and enlarger, both home-made, and feel after reading all your advice that my best plan will be to aim to get the best out this equipment rather than hanker after something different. A 20x16 camera would be nice to have but, as Jorge has said, could create its own problems.
Nige, I like your advice about watching the lights. Thanks also to everyone else for your helpful comments.
Alan Clark

 

[Claire Senft]

Just a thought. I would pay the most attention to having a very well composed and nicely lit, very interesting subject with a very good negative and very fine print being made from it. Your film/paper combination being suitable for the task at hand will be important. After those choices have been made I would consider using the best camera that you are familar with and have available.

If for instance one has a well equiped Hasselblad system that they are very familar with I would be hesitant to switch to a view camera system with which I had no experience even though the view camera has the capability of doing a better job.

 

[AlanC]

Sorry, not Jorge. Ole
Alan

 

[AlanC]

Claire,
A good point. That's why I plan to stick with my home made 5x4.
Alan Clark

 

[Donald Miller]

I will second what Jim Shanesy said about point light source enlarging. I print with one. Irrespective of what Ansel said, they do produce something that no other enlarger offers.

 

[AlanC]

How do I make a point light source enlarger? Maybe I should look into this. There was a portrait of Alan Bennett printed on one in Black and White Photography magazine recently. It certainly looked different. Very sharp.
Alan Clark

 

[vanannan]

Hi

Cooke Series XIVa, 10"X8" Tecnical Pan, Speedibrews Cellar Stellar (UK), 300mm Apo Rodagon, Oriental Seagull G and Dektol.

Best Wishes

 

[vanannan]

Hi

Cooke Series XIVa, 10"X8" Tecnical Pan, Speedibrews Cellar Stellar (UK), 300mm Apo Rodagon, Oriental Seagull G and Dektol.

Best Wishes

 

[avandesande]

I asked about this before and get mostly poo-pooed from the more experienced folk here. Maybe just need to see for myself. Apparently brett weston and helmut newton used one.

I will second what Jim Shanesy said about point light source enlarging. I print with one. Irrespective of what Ansel said, they do produce something that no other enlarger offers.

 

[Donald Miller]

I asked about this before and get mostly poo-pooed from the more experienced folk here. Maybe just need to see for myself. Apparently brett weston and helmut newton used one.

In my opinion and experience, speaking for myself, those that say that all things are equal insofar as light sources, either have never printed with good quality equipment or they have never checked things out for themselves...many choosing to simply accept that if Ansel said it then it must be true.

There is no way that you can add enhanced sharpness and local contrast to a diffusion light source enlarger... you can, however, add diffusion to a point light source enlarger...if you want.