Looking for opinions on the next step to take on the never ending quest for better image quality.Presently I work in 4x5 format, use Ilford FP 4 film with PMK pyro developer and print with a condenser (Omega D 5 ) enlarger.

The benefits of a cold head light source intrigue me but I am also considering the move to 8x10 and contact printing.

What do you think ???

-- Robert Slatkoff (blackducks@videotron.ca), September 26, 1999

Answers

Quite hard to say. The search for image quality can be a bit of a wild goose chase, not to mention the fact that often it is a convenient excuse to focus our attention on this area instead of on developing our perceptual abilities. People talk about the contact print quality of cold light (I use a cold light myself, just to place these comments in context). However, there is a difference between contact printing an 8x10 and enlarging a 4x5 to an 8x10 using cold light, not least of all being an additional optical system and the inherent degradation which happens along the way. Also, I think enlarging and contact printing are somewhat different disciplines (not that you can't be good at both). If you're absolutely sure that 8x10 is the largest you want to go, I'm guessing nothing will quite compare to a contact print. However, if you see yourself doing enlargements to different sizes, the cold light may be the way to go (of course, keep in mind that the condensor vs. cold light is a somewhat personal argument - people prefer one or the other - other factors contribute a lot more to image quality, not the least being - well, the quality of the image in your head). I would suggest that the best way to go about this might be to look at contact prints as well as prints made with a cold light. Or see if you can access a cold light and print some negs on it and contact print the negs as well. See if either adds anything to what you want to say. Another thing to keep in mind might be the costs - a cold light head can be had quite cheaply. An 8x10 system is going to call for a much larger capital outlay. DJ

-- N Dhananjay (ndhanu@umich.edu), September 26, 1999.

If you are doing contact 8x10 negs there should be no outlay for enlarging equipment, the exspense will be the camera and lenses. I don't think any enlargement can beat a contact print, all else being equal. I have been doing b/w for 30 years and wish I had started out using 8x10 and doing contacts. Pat

-- pat j. krentz (krentz@cci-29palms.com), September 26, 1999.

I don't often do even 4x5 contacts, but look at turn of the century large format contacts. It's no contest. With a contact you eliminate enlarging lens flare, and even the lens itself. Illumination system arguments about cold light and condensers are of little significance. The tonal qualities, especially the shadows, seem much richer. A used 8x10 camera can often be had for very little, but lenses and materials are another story. Good luck!

(to play devils advocate, your 4x5 quality should be pretty darned good too)

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), September 26, 1999.

I agree with Conrad, if you are using 4x5 and developing it in PMK, and if you have any kind of decent lens at all, you are probably getting close to the best quality that can be had. 8x10 is the next obvious step, but your lens needs to be top quality, and that can get expensive very quickly. On the other hand, I mostly use my 8x10 for pinhole photographs--so I don't require a lens, and of course contact printing is the best way to go for pinhole negs.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), September 27, 1999.

Robert: You don't say what characteristics you are searching for in your quest for quality. Perhaps you can't pin it down, but will recognise it when you see it.

You also don't say what paper (and paper developer) you are using, or whether you have experimented much in that area. I certainly hope to find time this year to experiment with a few boxes of the currently available FB papers.

If you use multigrade/variable contrast, you might like what you can do with split-grade printing, as it enables you to vary contrast across the image by dodging/burning.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), September 28, 1999.