# Enlarger Resolution



## bultican (Apr 21, 2010)

I am somewhat new to view cameras and was wondering what results people have had with enlargers.  I want to keep as much resolution as possible (which is why I like view cameras in the first place), and before investing in an enlarger set up, would like to know if I can expect similar results (resolution-wise) from an enlarger?  Specifically enlarging from 4x5 to 16x20 or so.

I photograph almost exclusively in a studio, anything from people to still-life type set-ups, to prints of drawings I have done.  I have been happy with the resolution I have got from photographing the drawings, but would really like to see the same resolution on a much bigger print (closer to 16x20).

Thanks


----------



## ann (Apr 21, 2010)

the lens is going to be the controling factor here.

if you make a great negative, the print will be great in the hands of someone who knows how to print.

If your asking about enlargers, check out a besler 45 or lpl saunders, and even an older omega. 

Lens Nikkor, Schnider, or apo rodogran.  Schnider makes three types of lenses, look only at the high end componon


----------



## maris (Apr 21, 2010)

Ann is right, a good enlarging lens is critical. 

I've used a variety of premium lenses from Nikon, Fuji, Schneider, and Rodenstock and there is nothing to choose between them. All of them are able to image every grain in the negative as a grain on the photographic paper. There is no extra resolution beyond that.

As far as I know 4x5 enlargers were never designed down to an amateur budget. They are all professional standard gear and if correctly aligned won't let the lens down.

Finally, an enlargement from 4x5 to 16x20 is only 4x. A sharp negative will deliver so much detail to the photographic paper that the average digi-graphers eyes might fall out when they see it.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 21, 2010)

An enlarger is the exact opposite of the camera. One sucks in an image, the other spews it out. The thing that matters is that they both are holding a piece of film and a lens together. And in both cases what matters most is the LENS and the film. In the case of the enlarger, you don't worry about the film because that decision has already been made.

I recently bought the Beseler 45 ann suggests myself as I had one before and I got this one real cheap. There are many version of it and you need to educate yourself as to which one you want, can afford, can live with.

Now, when you enlarge you always lose some sharpness, so that the question is more one of how much of that loss is acceptable to you. The enlargement you are talking about should be no problem to most anyone.

But, there is another way of printing this image in which you would lose no sharpness whatsoever and that is a contact print. Cheap and easy.

And, believe it or not, I've made, shown and sold contact prints from smaller negatives. I know that today's way of looking at things tells us bigger Bigger, BIGGER. But not everyone cares about bigger. Not everyone has been sucked in the MacDo thinking mode.


----------



## bultican (Apr 22, 2010)

If you lose any sharpness from enlarging, I want to stay away from that.  It sounds like shooting on a 16x20 plate and making contact prints is the way to go.  I am most worried about the drawings I photograph, they are very high detail and if they appear to have been enlarged (softer lines, toning gradients are too smooth to have been drawn by hand, etc.) that would be a bad thing.  

Thank you all for the help.


----------



## bultican (Apr 22, 2010)

Finally, an enlargement from 4x5 to 16x20 is only 4x.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be a 16x enlargement since (16) 4"x5"'s can fit in a 16"x20"?  Not trying to be nit-picky, just trying to help.

Thanks again.


----------



## maris (Apr 22, 2010)

bultican said:


> Finally, an enlargement from 4x5 to 16x20 is only 4x.
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be a 16x enlargement since (16) 4"x5"'s can fit in a 16"x20"?  Not trying to be nit-picky, just trying to help.
> ...



You are right, it is a 16x AREA enlargement but enlargement ratios, alias magnifications, are traditionally quoted as LINEAR magnifications. So 4x5 to 16x20 is 4x LINEAR.

The reason why linear magnification numbers tend to be standard is because they describe what happens to detail when you enlarge a negative. A photograph enlarged 4x _linear_ looks 1/4 as sharp, not 1/16 as sharp, as the un-enlarged original.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 22, 2010)

Yes, you could shoot with a 16x20 camera but have you priced one? Don't forget the lens in the price. I think when you do, you will find the enlargement from a 4x5 just fine. If not, you can always enlarge a bit less.

Also make sure you can find 16x20 film.


----------

