Enlarging 4x5

[Anthony Martinez]

So, I have a few negatives to enlarge now and was all set to jump into the darkroom to get that done but I ran into a bit of a problem. My exposure times with the enlarger set for a 4x5" negative are less than 2 seconds at f/22 on a 135mm Rodenstock Omegaron. If any dodging or burning is to happen, it certainly isn't going to happen like this.


test print from a test shot by Anthony J. Martinez, on Flickr

This example comes from a pinhole camera, but the negative doesn't strike me as anything that ought to be difficult to print. At first, I attempted to make contact prints but I gave up after four sheets of pure black, and three sheets of pure white. In the actual enlarger (Beseler CB7), adjusted to shoot just about a 1:1 image of the negative on the paper, this is 1.5s at f/22 with a #2.5 Ilford MG contrast filter.

I'm assuming that since the light source, and the lens itself, are very close to the paper that's a big part of of the reason my exposure times are so incredibly short. The enlarger itself has the ability to adjust how much juice goes to the lamp, but the gauge doesn't work so I'm only able to consistently use it at full power or minimum power. That's one avenue I may take to see if I can manage exposure times long enough to dodge/burn if needed. My other option, which I know nothing about, is the cold light (if that's what it's called) I have for the enlarger.

Can any of you large format ninjas give me some course of action, or guidance, as to how I might want to approach printing my 4x5 negatives? I feel like the smaller formats are pretty clear, but I was by no means expecting the 4x5 negatives to throw this large of a monkey wrench at me.

[Photogdude]

not sure how your enlarger is set up but you can always try to put some light blocking material in the path of the light source before it hits the lens

[KJ Smith]

Use the cold light.

It will help keep the negative from "popping" also.


Is that a normal looking negative or is it "thin"?

[digidawg87]

You might try diluting your dev a little more.

[Anthony Martinez]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

Use the cold light.

It will help keep the negative from "popping" also.


Is that a normal looking negative or is it "thin"?

It might be a little thin in some areas, but nowhere near as thin as other negatives I've enlarged with much longer exposure times. Later I may try a more dense negative just to see how much of a difference that makes but I think finding the cold light might be a sane thing to do anyway.

[wclavey]

Sorry...late to the party... have been away...

It looks like you are printing a 4x5 negative on a sheet of 5x7 paper - - so you will probably get the best image from it if you make it a contact print instead of going through the enlarger lens. By making it a contact print, you can raise the head much higher and reduce the amount of light to give you a 5-15 second exposure time (... or even more if you want) to do some dodging & burning.

[Anthony Martinez]

Originally Posted by wclavey

Sorry...late to the party... have been away...

It looks like you are printing a 4x5 negative on a sheet of 5x7 paper - - so you will probably get the best image from it if you make it a contact print instead of going through the enlarger lens. By making it a contact print, you can raise the head much higher and reduce the amount of light to give you a 5-15 second exposure time (... or even more if you want) to do some dodging & burning.

I suppose I don't have to use the 135mm lens to do a contact print either, I can put on one of the 50s and use it to put light down across the entire table? Since I never bother doing contact prints with other formats I really don't remember how that whole process even works. Valerie showed me, but I've forgotten.

[wclavey]

I use an 80mm lens on the enlarger and raise the height to abut 2.5 feet above the table. I use the lens because that gives me an additional means of controlling the amount of light. With my small student enlarger, I aimed for exposures about 10-15 seconds on normal variable contrast RC paper and the lens was probably usually about f/5.6 or f/8. Keep a record of each exposure and you will get good at predicting it.

The best thing was that it was very easy to do printing with split contrast filters... expose for some portion of the time with one filter then another portion with another filter, for bringing out the detail you want. I used a contact printing frame to sandwich the negative and the paper together and I also used a mask that I taped the negative to in order to keep the area surrounding the image white, otherwise it will be back. Using the contact frame keeps everything aligned together no matter how much you may move stuff around on the table.

Someone else on the forum had asked for a step by step guide for contact printing a couple of years ago and I wrote one up... if I can find it and you are interested, let me know...

[Anthony Martinez]

I've got two 50mm lenses (one Schneider, one Nikkor), an 80mm Nikkor, and a 105mm Rodenstock in addition to the 135mm Rodenstock that's been mentioned already. Next time I do this I'll definitely try using the 80 at around 2.5' and see how that works out for me. Reading more about this split contrast filter stuff is certainly on my list of things to do as well.

[venchka]

Through the projected light out of focus for contact printing. Don't know which enlarger you have. Are the condensors set for 4x5?
Good luck!

Wayne