Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1952-12-28
Camera Angles
EnIarging Can Improve
Print Quality and Appeal
By Alexander J. Wedderburn
Cvrotor Of Photography
The Smithsonian Institution

A Photographic print not only
speaks for itself, but speaks also
of you. revealing how much or
how little is your appreciation
art values. Making good mega
tive is not enough; the negative
is only the first step toward
your goal-the finished picture.
Few negatives are perfect, and,
recognizable this. the photog-
rapher must take corrective
measures to overcome those de-
ficiencies that exist. The en-
larger is the right tool for the
job.
The photographer seriously
interested in his hobby is not
often satisfied with print the
same size as the small negative
he gets. Perspective is lost in
the very small prints and there
is little or no visual impact.
Then. too, when fine detail is
significant factor a large print
is certainly indicated. In the
last 10 or Is years there has
been a trend toward larger and
larger pictures until few are
stopping short of 1920 inches.
It should be borne in mind
that there is a point beyond
which further enlarging of any
given negative is useless. Mega
tive defects become more appar-
ent as the picture increases in
size. objects so slightly out OF
focus as to escape fairly close
visual inspection in a contact
print or small enlargement be-
come glaringly apparent in huge
blowups. Pin holes, scratches
and emulsion abrasionS are also
obstacles in the way of very big
prints unless the worker is a
skilled retoucher.
Correction During Enlargement
Ideally, then. we should have
a negative that is sharp over
the entire area that is to be in
cluded in the print. 1t should
be free from emulsion faults
and of good quality. photo
graphically speaking. If there
are certain faults such as i'm
perfect composition or small
overexposed or underexposed
areas, they can be corrected
during the enlargement.
Few have the temerity to go
ahead and make finished
print on the first exposure from
the enlarger. Those who do
usually wind up with a bowling
blunder. Not even the most
experienced darkroom worker
can hit an ideal exposure
the first try. The right way to
90 about it, of course, is to
make a proof-preferably the
same size as the final print.
Then it should be carefully
evaluated from all aspects.
At first glance it will probably
be apparent that the compost
ton is not fully up to expecta-
tons. You may discover that
down in one corner some small
object has assumed unforeseen
and Objectionable proportions.
BY increasing the image size
this can be entirely eliminated.
Or the clouds that appeared
family on the negative may
have failed to register at all on
the print. Printing in or burn
ing in the sky while holding
back the rest of the scene will
clear up this difficulty. Other
places may show up where a
local treatment of tones will
make a tremendous difference
in pictorial quality. White edges
and corners can be darkened,
giving extra exposure at these
points.
In portraiture you may dis
cover a hand, an ear, or bald
spot too prominent because of
an oversight at the time the
lights were placed. Local burn
ing in will correct for these con-
ditions. Conversely. if thin
spot in the negative prints so
black that details of the area
are obscured, q dodger can be
used to hold this bit back while
a normal exposure is given the
rest of the print.
A somewhat common dis
covery is that a portion of the
negative has a better picture in
1t than the whole. Or it may
be that the picture can be i'm
proved by trimming a bit of
the top or bottom, or one or
both sides, or even by twisting