5x4 Negatives

Barney

Barney

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,043
Name
Wayne
Edit My Images
No
Thinking ahead a bit, possibly overthinking,

Whats the point of beautiful large negatives if you cant enlarge them into beautiful large photographs? I think this could be a sticking point, The 5x4 enlargers seem huge, and there is no way I could fit one of those at home, Beside the expense.

How are you guys getting round this issue? Just going straight to a larger format so you can get bigger wet prints?

And how are you all enlarging 8x10 negatives?
 
Last edited:
I don't do much LF (I have 5x4 and 10x8 cameras), but I never intended to wet print from the negs, I have an Epson V850 scanner to get the images from neg to jpg so I can print from that.
 
lindsay said:
I don't do much LF (I have 5x4 and 10x8 cameras), but I never intended to wet print from the negs, I have an Epson V850 scanner to get the images from neg to jpg so I can print from that.
Click to expand...

Ah right,

I want to do Kallitype prints.
 
I have an enlarger (not yet installed in my darkroom to be) that goes up to 7x5 and yes, it is huge. and heavy. Expensive? It was £500 a few months ago which I think is good value considering the enlarger would have cost £10k plus in the 1980's.

I only have a little used 4x5 Intrepid which my Epson V500 can't scan the neg as a single image.

Without an internet search I don't know what Kallitype prints are!
 
Barney said:
Ah right,

I want to do Kallitype prints.
Click to expand...
I've never done a Kallitype, but as I understand it they are done by contact printing, not enlarging (they need UV light so an enlarger wouldn't help).

So you could either contact print the 4x5 negative to get a 4x5 print, or scan the negative then output a "digital negative" on transparency material, and contact print that.
 
Barney said:
Thinking ahead a bit, possibly overthinking,

Whats the point of beautiful large negatives if you cant enlarge them into beautiful large photographs? I think this could be a sticking point, The 5x4 enlargers seem huge, and there is no way I could fit one of those at home, Beside the expense.

How are you guys getting round this issue? Just going straight to a larger format so you can get bigger wet prints?

And how are you all enlarging 8x10 negatives?
Click to expand...
Maybe start with just getting used to the new system, loading film, remembering to close the shutter before pulling the darkslide (everyone makes that mistake at least once!), developing sheet and scanning them before trying out lots of different methods.

Large format is equal parts frustration and elation at the best of times. Trying to run with different printing methods/hardware etc is a recipe for frustration.
 
I have also never enlarged either, sadly. I have contact printed from both though with some really nice results.

A chap local to me has a 10x8 enlarger which I have seen in person and it's HUUUUGE!
I think I could get a 4x5 one in just about where my >6x7 one is but it would be a squeeze!
 
One other thing to consider is that some go to larger formats because enlarging is not necessarily possible - platinum palladium printing for example - or they want to get large contact prints. One can go to larger than negative prints in these kind of processes, but the modern process is to create a digital negative from a scanned original negative.

I have done a lot of enlarging before now, but many years ago. I would love to get back into it but as said the enlargers are enormous. Personally, I find digital scans of negatives good enough for now when weighed against the fact that I don't have room for a dark room and the comparative lack of barriers to entry. In future, this may change :)
 
I have a 4x5 enlarger, a Durst L1200.
The baseboard measures 700mm * 650mm and the maximum height from the bottom of the baseboard to the top of the enlarger head is 1500mm. Add on the height of your work surface to calculate the ceiling height required.

I bought it on eBay for £550 if I remember correctly. It came with more accessories than I need, so I sold them on eventually which reduced the net cost to about £350, not counting the cost of driving a 200 mile round trip to collect it.

I certainly don't enlarge all my 4x5 negatives, only a small proportion, the rest are just scanned.

For formats larger than 4x5, I use contact printing or scanning.
 
Last edited:
The most recent episode of Photography Online showed a kallitype print being made from ultra-large large format film, no enlarger required. It doesn't go into any technical detail on the process though, just shows it being done.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_JeQcYWfxg


I just scan my 4x5 negatives, mostly because I don't have any easy way to print them anyway.

You can see the sort of results I can get from a flatbed scanner - these were on an Epson V700 - here (both 4k size, although the original scans are bigger):

Autumn in Padley Gorge

St Peter and St Paul's Church, Sturton-le-Steeple

I expect I would be able to get very big prints made from these files.
 
Last edited:
I'm a long time LF shooter, 5x4 since 1977, I used a Johnson V45 enlarger which I'd converted to use a cold cathode head. I used a drop bench to do up to 30"x20" prints.

Back in 2004 I bought a 10"x8" Agfa Ansco Commercial View planning to just make contact prints from the negatives. However, as soon as I held my first 10x8 negatives I wanted to enlarge them.

Again in 2004 there would typically be 50-60 De Vere 504, and 3 or 4 5108 enlarges listed at times on eBay. I picked up this floor standing 508 for £600 with 4 lenses and a Beard 24"x20" easel.

1769505244008.jpeg

I don't use the De Vere for MF, except my 6x17 negatives. For LF the enlarger is so easy to use, currently its increased in value very significantly,

Ian
 
Last edited:
I have two enlargers, a Durst that only goes up to 6x7 (roll film) and an LPL 5x4 enlarger. These days I scan and inkjet print because it is both simpler and gives me better results. I'm a mediocre at best darkroom printer, lacking the patience required and also as a result of my background, unwilling to "waste" the money on the many iterations and test strip required to produce the best print.

My Epson scanners have always handled negatives up to 10x8 - the scanners that cut down the area scanned were later cheaper models - and I have an A2 Epson printer that obviously can produce metric 20x16 prints.
 
Flipping heck, a large format camera is just the entrance to the rabbit hole, and its a huge warren down there, Ha Ha.

Thanks for all the replies and you considered opinions and advice.

Darkroom has a 120 enlarger so will start with that!
 
Just shoot 10x8 transparencies and use them like stained glass panels...

(TBH, I'd LOVE to do just that!!! But I don't trust my skills enough to make the outlay.)
 
Barney said:
Flipping heck, a large format camera is just the entrance to the rabbit hole, and its a huge warren down there, Ha Ha.

Thanks for all the replies and you considered opinions and advice.

Darkroom has a 120 enlarger so will start with that!
Click to expand...

I did have 5 enlargers set up in my darkroom, and two more packed away under the bench :D

Now there are just two set up, the 518 and a Durst M605, the 2 under a bench are still there, another Durst AC600 is sat on the floor ready for a Spring clear out sale. . . . . . . .

Ian
 
Will an 8x10 enlarger be able to use all smaller negatives or is it stuck for 8x10 only?
 
Ian Grant said:
I'm a long time LF shooter, 5x4 since 1977, I used a Johnson V45 enlarger which I'd converted to use a cold cathode head. I used a drop bench to do up to 30"x20" prints.

Back in 2004 I bought a 10"x8" Agfa Ansco Commercial View planning to just make contact prints from the negatives. However, as soon as I held my first 10x8 negatives I wanted to enlarge them.

Again in 2004 there would typically be 50-60 De Vere 504, and 3 or 4 5108 enlarges listed at times on eBay. I picked up this floor standing 508 for £600 with 4 lenses and a Beard 24"x20" easel.

View attachment 473520

I don't use the De Vere for MF, except my 6x17 negatives. For LF the enlarger is so easy to use, currently its increased in value very significantly,

Ian
Click to expand...

We need a love in at Ian's shed.

HA HA!
 
Barney said:
Will an 8x10 enlarger be able to use all smaller negatives or is it stuck for 8x10 only?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Yes, because the smaller negatives can be thought of as part of a 10x8 one, but no insofar as using the same condenser or diffuser system, you'll be wasting a lot of light, so that should be adjusted (my LPL 5x4 has both 5x4 and roll film size diffusers for the colour head). Then there's the lens. Using the same lens you use for 10x8 means that if the head is up there for a 20x16 print, when you switch from 10" down to 3" (I'm being generous on roll film side) the print will be ~6"x4". So a different lens as well.

But in principle, yes, a larger enlarger will work for smaller negatives.
 
Barney said:
Will an 8x10 enlarger be able to use all smaller negatives or is it stuck for 8x10 only?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have film holder inserts for 35mm, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 5x4, & 10x8, plus a makeshift holder for 6x17. I was lucky and found quite a few of them at a Camera Fair a few years ago at a very low price.

However, with 4 250W halogen bulbs, which are expensive, it's better to use a MF enlarger for 6x4.5 & 6x6, and also more practical.

I do use two enlarges for techniques like flashing.

Ian
 
Kevin Allan said:
I have a 4x5 enlarger, a Durst L1200.
The baseboard measures 700mm * 650mm and the maximum height from the bottom of the baseboard to the top of the enlarger head is 1500mm. Add on the height of your work surface to calculate the ceiling height required.

I bought it on eBay for £550 if I remember correctly. It came with more accessories than I need, so I sold them on eventually which reduced the net cost to about £350, not counting the cost of driving a 200 mile round trip to collect it.

I certainly don't enlarge all my 4x5 negatives, only a small proportion, the rest are just scanned.

For formats larger than 4x5, I use contact printing or scanning.
Click to expand...
I had a Durst that would take up to 54 though not the same model and again it was not huge, not much bigger than the one it replaced that would take up to 6x7 negatives. I never did big enlargements probably up to 12x16 would have been the largest paper I bought but it was good to be able to print my negatives, all past tense now as I gave up my darkroom twelve plus years ago when we did the loft conversion.
My point, as Kevin says large format enlargers don't have to be large.
 
I have a LPL 7451 that I got for £350 I think it was, a couple of years ago. That does my 4x5 and 9x12.

I have an interesting Philips 130/150 setup that does my 6x7 and 6x6. Got that for £100.

The LPL is a very manageable size to be honest whereas something like the @Ian Grant big De Vere is a beast (I've seen it in the flesh).
 
The two man submarine, as he put it, showing it still partially unwrapped. But still a miniature compared to a real enlarger - look up Lina Bessonova.
 
Are all enlargers created equal?

Is it the glass that is the main component in the generation of a quality print.
 
The skill of the operator. Although glass does help to keep negatives flat, at the cost of adding 4 more surfaces with dust.

If you mean the lens rather than the negative carrier construction, see Ctein's Post Exposure for damning comments on enlarger lenses, and why you're unlikely to get a good one.

And no, some enlargers are better than others. There's a lot to get wrong.
 
In general, large format enlarges are well-made, and robust, even those made in the late 1940s early 50s. Two things are important, even illumination, and accurate alignment of the neg carrier, & lens board, relative to the lens board.

Then the quality of the lenses, most of mine are Schneider Componon plain or S,

Over the years I've used numerous enlargers, I liked my Johnsons V45, it had a well sprung cantilever mechanism for adjusting the height,

1769700053645.jpeg

I gave mine away when I bought my De Vere 5108. A few years later it was being given away again so I had it back, however it was another given to the same person. I restored it and sold it year ago, it is now in use with an Intrepid light source.

Personally I prefer glassless negative carriers, all the Inserts for the 5108are glassless anyway, for my MF Durst enlargers I use glass underneath the negative and the metal inserts in the top of the neg carrier, saves issues with dust.

I do have a pre-WW1 horizontal enlarger, just needs bellows.

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
I do have a pre-WW1 horizontal enlarger, just needs bellows.
Click to expand...
Oh, that reminds me, my first enlarger was a horizontal full plate Lancaster for which which I created a 35mm film holder, as you can imagine it needed a massive throw even for a 7x5 print. Thoroughly impractical but absolute magic for an eleven year old in the mid 1970's .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top