How do you un-large?

[BetterSense]

Suppose you want to make a print smaller than your film, such that even a contact-print would be too large. Like a wallet-size print from large format. How do you go about doing that?

[Vaughn]

Re-photograph a large print with a smaller format film camera if you want to keep the process "analog". You could also rephotograph the print with a LF camera and just make the print the right size on the GG and then contact print the resulting neg.

Or "cheat" and scan a large print and inkjet any size you want.

Vaughn

PS...if using 4x5, photograph two copies of the print onto one sheet of film -- then when you contact print the negative, you get two wallet-size prints.

[glbeas]

With a shorter focal length enlarger lens than usual and rack the bellows way out, then lower the enlarger to the easel till it is in focus. It may take a few books under the easel to raise it under the head. This will usually result in an image smaller than the negative.

[Jon Shiu]

Some enlargers like the Omega D2 have an auxiliary focusing bellows attachment available for making reductions. It gives about 10 inches more extension than the regular 2.5 in cone.

Jon

[bowzart]

With a shorter focal length enlarger lens than usual and rack the bellows way out, then lower the enlarger to the easel till it is in focus. It may take a few books under the easel to raise it under the head. This will usually result in an image smaller than the negative.

I think you are saying the same thing that I would but I want to rephrase it because it is pretty hard to understand until you've done it more than a few times.

The odd thing is that you will size the image using the enlarger's focus, then focus by moving the enlarger up and down. It is just reversed.

I spent a year or two working in a place where we made precisely sized reductions on ektachrome dupe film which were then spliced together into page layouts. The purpose for doing this was that separations were very expensive. Ganging them, the whole page or spread could be separated in one rather than each picture being separated by itself and the layouts assembled later. It saved huge amounts of money. After awhile, one gets pretty good at the reduction thing, but it can be very daunting at first.

[David A. Goldfarb]

If I can fit the film in the enlarger, then I use the reduction bellows for more extension--it's kind of like doing macro photography in reverse.

If it's a larger format than you can enlarge, then you can dupe a print with a smaller format camera using a relatively neutral fine grained film like T-Max 100 for B&W or Ektar 100 or Astia 100F for color.

[bowzart]

I have an 11x14 color negative that I frequently had to print 8x10. I had a cabinet painted white inside with no doors installed. I lit the inside of the cabinet and made a mask for the negative out of matte board. I would tape the negative into the mask, then shoot it with my 8x10 camera loaded with color paper, using CC filters over the lens. You could do the same thing with 2-1/4 x 2-3/4 or 3-1/4 filmholders in an old baby graphic or as Vaughn suggested above, by shooting 2 - up on a 4x5. Having a reversing or rotating back would be very useful. Instead of CC filters, you'd use Multigrade or PC filters.

I hope you don't need to burn, but it may be possible to dodge. If you do have to burn, just rethink the problem, exposing more and dodging instead.

[ic-racer]

glbeas has the right ideal.

You can use the focal length lens that matches the diagonal of the reduction. For example, use a 150mm lens to make a 4x5 in reduction from an 8x10 in negative. You don't NEED to do it this way, if you have gobs of bellows draw, but using the shorter focal length lens will help in most cases.

Also, see this thread: http://www.apug.org/forums/701679-post15.html

[Photo Engineer]

As David mentions, this process is called reduction and is available on a number of enlargers and copy machines.

It is nothing special being considered a normal function of lenses.

PE

[Steve Smith]

it's kind of like doing macro photography in reverse.

As normal enlarging is actually macro photography, then macro photography in reverse must be normal photography!

You need an ensmaller rather than an enlarger for this.


Steve.