Beseler 23C Enlarger (up to 6x9cm negatives)
Photo thanks to Todd Bradley - todd_b@ix.netcom.com
Related Links:
Camera and Darkroom Magazine (u.k.)
Classic Enlarger Pages
Cold Light Heads for Enlargers..
Enlarger Contrast Testing
Enlarger Mfgers Links List
Enlargers Pages (Claudio Bottari)
Fresnel Lenses for enlarger fresnel for under $1
Massive Developing Chart
Palm Pilot Controls Enlarger Timing by Denis Pleic [1/2004]
Russian and East European Enlarger Models..
Why bother? Do you want to control the entire image making process, ensuring the desired
quality in the final print? Do you like the rich blacks and clean white areas of
true photographic prints (as compared to digital inkjet prints)? Do you need a truly
archival process for important family portraits and images?
Would you like to experiment with alternative processes and
classic image making techniques, including platinum or other processes? Or perhaps you
want to do artistic effects using selenium or other toners and hand coloring of prints?
If so, then a home or business darkroom may be the answer to your needs and desires.
In many locales, you can't get medium format or black and white prints done locally. As
a result, it is much harder to communicate your goals and desires for the final print to
the remote lab by phone or mail. Even if you opt to use a mail-order pro lab, the costs
are often surprisingly high - often more than similar sized color prints. Developing film
and printing can be relatively economical compared to pro lab costs for similar services.
You also get faster turnaround time and the ability to fine tune your prints right away in
your own darkroom.
Finally, a home darkroom setup is FUN! What could be more like MAGIC than watching an image
suddenly appear in a developing print? Lots of people find they enjoy doing darkroom projects
and making prints, especially when the weather is inclement. So have fun!
A 105mm f/5.6 triplet (3 glass) meopta enlarger lens is superb for up to 11x14" prints. The extra quality
of high priced enlarger lenses such as the 95mm computar f/4.5 only becomes apparent around 11x14"
or larger....
The Beseler 23c enlarger is an example of a highly popular 6cm x 9cm (2''
x 3'') enlarger series used by many medium format photographers.
See the above links for related medium format cameras and resources.
Federal Enlarger - Mr. Richard Campbell humorously notes in Ebay photo and ad:
Federal Enlarger Model 312. This is the cheapest and easiest way to get into
medium format printing. The Federal is a very basic enlarger -- but
everything you
need is here. The light source works, the bellows appears to be free
of light leaks,
the lens is clear, and it has a built-in negative carrier big enough
to accomodate 6x9.
And -- how can you pass-up on an enlarger made in Brooklyn?
LENTAR Enlarger Photo Notes:
This is a Lentar L66 enlarger. With it is a (Lentar 1:3.5 F= 50mm ) and
also (Lentar
1:3.5 F=75mm).
From: Kim the Star and Mark kandm@hooked.net
To: "'Hasselblad'" hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Negative Carriers
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998
Earlier I asked the group about the use of glassess negative carriers
for enlarging the pictures I've been taking with my blad.
I am using Omega D5 (4x5) enlargers to produce colour and b+w prints,
always with a diffuser light source.
The lens I use are either a 80mm or 105 mm nikkor or 80mm or 105mm
componon-s.
I have been trying different apertures to see if I can get edge to edge
sharpness with a GLASSLESS negative carrier.
I have found that I need to stop down to at least f11 before I get edge
to edge sharpness on 10x8 prints. I am also using a omega critical
focuser and at f8 I can see that edge of print is out of focus using the
'grain' focuser.
Some of the members suggested that they get great sharpness with
GLASSLESS carriers even at larger appertures.
I am I doing something wrong, or this best that I can expect until I =
move to a glass carrier?
Any hints or tips would be appreciated.
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998
From: Bruce Rosin brosin1@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Negative Carriers
Glass negative carriers will improve sharpness over glassless, but the
glassless carriers are usually more than adequate for medium format.
Have you checked your enlarger alignment recently?
From: kirkfry@msn.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: 4x5 camera as a enlarger? Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 Neill Prohaska neill@verdesoft.com wrote: > > Does anyone know if/how one would go about using their 4x5 camera as > an enlarger? I have heard that it can be done, but don't know anything > about it, or if you can still use the camera for picture taking > purposes. > > Thanks, > > Neill I am sure you can do it. The question is why? With prices of used D2V enlargers in the $200-300 range it makes more sense to buy something that was really designed to do the job. Don't forget you will need to buy an enlarging lens also. Lenses designed for cameras usually do a poor job at enlarging unless they are flat field marco lenses. I used my micro Nikkor 55mm on my enlarger and that worked fine for 35mm negatives. Where this approach may make sense is with 8X10. kirkfry@msn.com
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: zoomr@skypoint.com
[1] Re: Loss of detail in enlargement
Date: Sat Apr 04
Unfortunately there is much less attention paid to enlarging lenses as compared to camera lenses. High quality MF enlarging lenses are very expensive, and there are many inferior quality ones out there used by budget labs. The market has lenses that range from as low as $20. up to $500.00 and more, so there is less consistency in enlargement quality than many realize.
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998
From: Tom Campbell tcphoto@bellsouth.net
To: sinclair@actcom.co.il
Subject: Re: Time for a new enlarger?
Yaakov--
Enlargers are like view cameras--if the glass is good and everything is
aligned, the rest is user-friendliness and bells and whistles. The only
other concern is evenness of illumination.
You have glass that is top notch. Check the alignment of the lens,
negative and baseboards with a level and adjust as needed.
You can check illumination by exposing a piece of paper with no neg to
about Zone V and looking for hot/cool spots. This will almost always
appear with condensers--you have to judge acceptability. Or, you could
get a cold-light head and be evenly illuminated your entire life (and
get better prints too).
If it's making you happy, that's more than I can say for this computer,
which has crashed twice while writing this
Tom Campbell
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998
The enlarger lenses are less critical than camera ones. At lower aperture
(for ex. f8) the resolution would be surely sufficiant to cover the
resolution of the film if focused perfectly.
In home conditions, you can test if the grain of the film appear on paper
when doing big enlargements (50x 60 cm) - do it also in corners. If the
image in corners is not sharp:
a. it can be a lens weakness -> you should buy a 5/6-lens Schneider,
Rodenstock or Nikon.
b. the enlarger has lost precision - film and paper are not parallel ->
try to make sharp in corner to verify this, and if it is the case - adjust
or change the enlarger.
Good luck ,
From: brownt@ase.com
I use a Nikor (rebadged Saunders) dichroic enlarger. I have a glass insert
that goes in the glassless carrier above the negative, no glass below. If
I stop my 50mm lens (35mm neg) down to f8-16 or my 80mm lens (6x6) to
f11-22 I have no sharpness problem without the glass. If I need to use the
lens at a wider aperture (dense neg, heavy filtration, B&W; print from
color neg) then I use the glass.
TB
From: dcolucci@aol.com (DColucci)
I tape my Polaroid 55 negatives down on the carrier ( 90mmx120mm) with
black electrical tape. This is a very pliable tape, provides a very
secure "anchor" and comes off easily after I'm done ( and it resists
heat). This seems to keep my almost 4x5 negs, quite flat. I usually tape
all four sides down, covering about 90+% of the negs' edges ( corners are
hard to tape down on Omega D 2 carriers-no room ). Additionally with this
method, I dont seem to get much, if any, negative "pop"
Are glass carrers 'that' much superior ? Obviously they would keep it +more+
completely flat, but as I have said - my negs lay very flat and just about
taught ( sp. ? ), providing a seemingly good flat position to enlarge it.
Thanks
From: zanekurz@ix.netcom.com (Zane)
The original post is not on my server, so I'll tack a couple of comments on
here if you don't mind.
The answer is, of course, that the glass carrier has to degrade the image
some just like any other piece of glass in an optical train. I use a glass
carrier, though, and can't see the degradation. As pointed out, the flat
negative is a big plus.
One of the reasons, probably, is what is called in technical jargon "The
Girl in the Shower" effect. If someone is close to a shower glass, you can
see them pretty well, but they can't see you very well. Optical
imperfections that are close to the focal point don't screw things up as
much as when they're close to the lens. (It has to do with lever arms of
angles.) Maybe of interest to some people, this is one reason that
satellite cameras can get considerably sharper views of things on the
ground than ground cameras can of the moon, planets, stars, or things in
orbit (due to the fuzzy atmosphere).
A moral is: put fuzzy things (e.g. filters) close to a focal point to
minimize blur.
Cheers
From: zanekurz@ix.netcom.com (Zane)
John>
I've noticed the same thing when only enlarging to 8" on every good
negative I've examined this way, and think that it is normal and to be
expected.
Enlarging a 2.25" negative to 8" is only a 3.5x enlargement. Unless
things have changed a lot recently or my brain has skipped a cog or two,
resolution capability of typical paper is in the 8 to 10 lp/mm category.
This means that only film resolution of about 28 to 35 line pairs per
millimeter (3.5 times 8 or 10) will show up on the print. I don't know
detailed data on the lens on your camera, but if the negative in question
was exposed at a reasonably large f/no, I would think 56 to 70 lp/mm (twice
this) or higher limiting resolution on the negative would be possible. It
would then take enlargement to about 16 inches to be able to see on the
print what you can see on the negative with a magnifier. The paper is not
able to reproduce the negative resolution at this low magnification.
Of course, comments about loss of resolution in the printing process are
accurate, but a good enlarging lens should not lose too much.
(This whole reasoning assumes I'm about right about the paper resolution.
If I'm not, someone please post a correction here).
Cheers
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
In Ansel Adams' book..THE PRINT...Adams pictures and describes
his version.
Most large libraries have the book...also still in print.
Dan
Editor's Note: Regarding Hasselblad Xpan panoramic camera enlarging...
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998
A 6cm x 7cm enlarger should be able to handle these negatives, with a
standard medium format 80mm enlarger lens. If the lab just treats them as
skinny medium format negatives, they should have no problem.
I agree with you that 24 x 65 mm negs should fit within the 6x7 frame.
However, the carrier itself may have some difficulty with the skinny film.
The type of carrier that has glass would be good to hold the film flat,
provided it is possible to move the film into the proper position. i.e.
Some machines have little rollers to engage the film. The rollers may
have trouble with the 35mm film, as it is skinnier.
One type of 6x7 enlarger is the classic Bessler 23C. For carriers, it
uses glassless design, typically. I can imagine that if the edges of the
skinny film are not supported, the inherent curl of typical 35mm film
would be a significant problem. The typical glassless carrier is designed
to support negative on all four edges. The skinny nature of the 35mm film
would mean at least one edge would not be supported in this type of
enlarger.
Again, I agree with you that a 6x7 enlarger with the right carrier would wo
but caution that not all 6x7 carriers would be suitable to engage skinny fi
for transport and flatness.
As far as prints go, it is not unusual for prints and proofs from this form
to have the edge numbers included, as well as significant black area.
A design for a custom carrier in which a 110 or 135 carrier has the cutout
enlarged to match the film sounds possible in some cases, like the Besseler
23C.
This is not the first 35mm panoramic camera. A fellow near here has the
Ukranian one. One type of print he has made is the "projection proof."
What I am saying is that the roll of film is placed on some sort of large
glass frame, similar to a contact frame. Then the whole frame is put in a
large enlarger, and projected onto a large piece of photo paper. This
technique can be great for regular 35mm, as well as 6x6. However, few
people own the gear to do this kind of job.
From: bjs@oes.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Lee Carmichael click@flash.net wrote:
Unlike Lee I've had extensive problems with Newton's rings. And,
also like Lee, I've found that the best solution seems to be
preventing the cover glass from pressing too strongly on the
film.
In a previous enlarger configuration I had the situation where
the head rested its weight directly on the negative carrier. I
had the worst Ring problems with this setup. In its current
configuration the head does not rest directly on the carrier
and the cover glass is separate piece of glass which rests
on the film. (This is a Condit pin registration carrier.)
I still have trouble with Rings but nowhere near as badly
as before.
Often the problem is cured by putting spacers around the edges of
the film to keep the glass from pressing tightly onto the
film. The spacers are strips of sheet film cut from film
which is slightly thicker than the film being printed. Helps
a lot.
Barry
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
It works but the effect it reversed. Instead of the highlights bleeding
into the shadows the shadows bleed toward the highlights. The effect can
look pretty cool but it is different than using the diffusion on the camera
lens.---Bill Bresler
----------
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998
You can use a Softar on an enlarger. I know some great black and white
printers who so this. However, the effect is very different than using
Softars on the camera. When used on the camera, Softars slightly spread
the highlight areas into the shadows and lower contrast overall. When used
on an enlarger printing from a negative, they slightly spread the shadows
into the highlights, which also lowers contrast but produces a very
different look. One famous black and white photographer I know gets the
unusual luminous effect in his prints by using a Softar for about 1/3 to
1/2 of his total exposure. He made me promise not to divulge his name if I
mentioned the technique.
Although I have not tried it, I would assume that you could duplicate
somewhat the effect of having the Softar on the camera when printing
positive to positive like Ilfochrome (Cibachrome).
Bob
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998
I've had occasion to 'soften' a print and used a clear sheet of
plastic...just move it back & forth (keep it moving) holding it just below
the enlarger lens, will diffuse the image. One professor of mine called it
the "cigarette diffuser", because he used the plastic from a cigarette pack
(note: smoking is NOT reccomended).
Vary the length of time, vary the amount of diffusion. I've never used the
Softar on an enlarger.
Bob Keene
From Medium Format Digest:
Both enlargers I own can do wall projection. Both have XL capability, one
is a new omega and the other is an old spiratone enlarger that I XL'd for
$3.00 (it is an old pole type and I went to the hardware store and got a 4
foot piece of pipe to replace the orginal pole). It is just not very
convenient to hang print paper on the wall. Floor projection is a bit
easier, but still not the easiest way to go. Wall mounting the existing
girder or getting an XL girder is the best bet. Another way to do this is
to build a enlarging table with a movable base board. I checked with
bessler a while back and they want $1,600 for an enlarging table, so
building one is much cheaper. I'm currently building a new home with a
darkroom and print handling room, so I've explored a lot of these options
in the last few months.
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
I have an 8x10 view camera that I am condiering setting up to use as an
enlarger as well. If anyone has advice or experience, please let me know.
Please reply to dandan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu. Thanks in advance.
-Dan
Various mount adapters
were made for standard thread enlargers (e.g., 39mm thread Leica mount).
You can also homebrew a mount adapter, sometimes by simply epoxying a
hollowed out rear-lens cap onto an enlarger board. See homebrew lenses for more on such low cost
adapters.
The Nikon Micronikkor 50mm f3.5 was a favorite enlarger lens for many
darkroom workers because of its excellent flat-field characteristics.
If you have such a normal or macro-lens, consider using it in place of an
often costly enlarger lens. You will also be amazed at how much of a
benefit such a remounted macro-lens can provide over a low cost (e.g.,
Vivitar) enlarger lens often used with low cost 6x6/35mm enlargers....]
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999
A dedicated enlarging lens would be superior in close range, high
magnification flat field evenness of illumination and resolution. However,
I've used Nikkor 50mm and 35mm camera lenses as enlarging lenses in the
past with results that were virtually indistinguishable from my EL-Nikkors
or Rodenstock, Schneider enlarging lenses.
On the other hand, just because you bought a medium wide to medium tele
zoom lens doesn't mean your Nikkor 50mm lens is obsoleted. It should be
lighter, faster and sharper than the zoom and thus remains one of my most
used lenses.
Godfrey
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999
Mark!
Glad to know someone else uses a 50mm for a loupe! My favorite is a
Summitar, though while they are being CLA'd, I use the Elmar.
Incidentally, I tried to mount the 5cm Elmar on a friend's new Saunders 4x5
VC enlarge (slaver, drool!) but the collapsible lens will take a special
board - one with a fairly deep indentation. Will keep trying!
Dan
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999
Dan Post wrote:
Greetings!
I've used an old Summar f/2 uncoated lens to make some b & w prints.
They were only about 5 X 7. It worked ok in a pinch.
Rich
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999
Richard Jakowski wrote:
I, too, have a CB7 that I've used for everything from 35mm to 4x5, color
and b&w.; Mine has only a condensor head, so except for 4x5, I now do
everything on my 6x7 Philips PCS 130/150. The CB7 is a fine beast, with
its removable baseboard and 2-speed electric focus, and will work well
with MF. Your 135mm lens is definitely not suited for 35mm. It is designed
for 4x5. You can use it for 6x7, but compared to a proper length lens,
your magnification will be limited. (The longer the lens, the larger the
negative it will cover, but the less magnification you will get for a
given height.) A good lens would be an 80mm f/4 Schneider Componon-S or
Rodenstock Rodagon. Consider it an investment since you can migrate the
lens to another enlarger, if you so choose.
You will need a set of 6"x6" filters, probably available from B&H.; There
may be multigrade filters available, but I recommend getting CP (color
printing) filters so you can do both color and b&w.; My enlarger was
missing the filter tray, so I made one from cardboard.
If you're put off by the idea of having to shuffle acetate filters, you
may find it a better idea to sell the CB7 and put the money toward the
purchase of a MF enlarger with a color head. I'm strongly biased toward my
Philips, but any of several others will serve you well.
Mel Brown
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999
Sounds like a nice enlarger set up for large format. Printing 35mm negs
with a 135 would yield a pretty small image I would think. A 135 sounds
about right to cover and give good baseboard magnification for a 4x5
negative. Beseler also usually had a bellows to adjust for format rather
than the tubs necessary to remove and replace when you print different
formats. Mel Brown has a good suggestion on filters. One other that you
might consider is a color head, which gives you diffused light, color
filtration when you go there, as well as variable contrast filtration.
Another option would be a cold-light head, which I bought for my Omega D2.
Very nice light and forgiving, too.
An 80 lb. enlarger with H-frame construction means one thing to me. No
vibration. Sounds like a dream come true.
Ben
From: biassuit@aol.com (BiasSuit)
I have just done this to a 4x5 view camera, of mine. It certainly isn't
anything high tech, but it does enable me to do some enlarging. I built
the head out of a cardboard box which I light proofed with black vinyl.
The light source is just a 75 watt tungsten bulb. On the bottom of the
box I attached a sandblasted piece of window glass (for diffusion). The
head sits right on the back of my camera with the ground glass holder
removed. In place of the holder I cut out a wooden mask the size of the
back with a 6" by 6" square cut out of the center. I bought an old 4x5
negative carrier and cut it down to fit within the back. On top of the
negative holder I have a piece of white plastic (from a light table)
sitting over the negative (for a more even illumination. With everything
assembled, I use my existing view lense, and moving the camera and
standards up and down on the tripod, I can enlarge and focus. Like I
said, not very high tech, but it works and it was cheap!
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999
Richard Jakowski wrote:
Try any electronics supply store that's not located in a mall. Many of
them sell PRB brand generic belts for stereo components and AV
equipment. Have them check their catalog to see if your Beseler is
listed. If not, they may be able to match it with your measurements.
R. J. Bender ( A Nikon, Mamiya, Rapid Omega and Rollei user. )
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999
In Kimngslake's book Lenses in Photography he states that there is no reason
why an excellent camera lens could not make for an excellent enlarging lens.
Go for it!
Peter K
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999
you wrote:
The V indicates a Variable condenser, the taller colums were indicated by
an X or XL for extra-long, vis, D-5XL. I shoot a lot of 4x5 so get utility
from my enlarger. I don't know what the Bessler goes for but thought that
the D2v might not be more expensive since they are relatively common.
It has been proven many times that the exactly identical results can be
gotten from either a diffusion head or a condenser head. There is a
difference of about one paper grade, the condenser being more contrasty.
This is for conventional B&W; film. For chromogenic film, either color or
B&W; the Calllier effect is so small that there is no contrast difference.
This is because the image in color films (or B&W; like Ilford XP-2) is made
of dye particals which cause virtually no scattering of light. The
emulsions are also very thin. Callier effect depends on the size of the
grain particles and the emulsion thickness.
An adjustment of either film contrast or paper contrast will produce
exactly identical prints from either type of light source.
Highly diffuse sources like cold-light heads or color heads do tend to
suppress film blemishes a little but really not very much. You still have
to avoid dust and scratching.
For some enlargers, the 4x5 Omega and Besseler machines for instance, the
condenser lamp houses are actually more even than the Aristo cold-light
lamps. Go figure:-)
The lack of popping is an advantage of the cold-light. Actually, the
Aristo heads have a built-in heater which goes all the time to keep the
output uniform. That also insures that the negatives will pop right away
before they are focused, if they are going to pop at all.
Like other gaseous discharge lamps the flourescent lamps in the Aristo
like to run hot. The output depends on the vapor pressure in the lamp and
the hotter the lamp the greater the output. The heater keeps it pretty
even. Ideally, the lamp should be running all the time and the exposure
controlled with a shutter as on the old Saltzman enlargers which used
Cooper-Hewitt mercury lamps.
Since these were mostly 8x10 we have now strayed about as far from Rollei
as possible (did F&H; ever make a LF camera?).
Curiously, when the first variable contrast paper was sold in the US
(Varigam by DuPont) it came with only two filters. The contrast was
adjusted by controlling the ratio of time of exposure through the two
filters. There were attachments for some enlargers which used an
electrical solenoid to switch the two filters in front of the lens
according to a pre-set timer.
I believe the very first VC paper was made by Ilford but don't think it
was imported to the US.
Enough off topic stuff, I quit:-)
----
From: bobcopco@aol.com (Bobcopco)
75watt was 211, 150watt
was 212, and 213 was more, but the more power the more heat. Any decent
camera
shop should be able to sell you replacements. copcobob@juno.com
[Ed. need an enlarging lens? How about the one on your camera? ;-)]
Hi Carl,
Looks like our post on enlarging lens peak this NG. Going back how I mounted
the Hassy 80 on my 4x5MRCX, why not try the Koni normal lens, so that you can
keep within your budget. It will cover the 6x7 Koni & it is almost a
symmetrical design. It is a good lens, not multicoated like the modern day
lenses now. Also,not knowing how far you are willing to go by doing this,
Just
a Mention.
Case in point, 27 years ago, I stripped out a Carl Ziess 120F4 from a Gretag
3116 color printer, this will cover a 4x5 neg. This is the same MacroPlanar
Lens that Hassy introduced a few years ago. What gripes me that Hassy waited
all these years to put this lens out into the marketplace. The only
difference is that my CZ 120F4 is not multicoated. Still works good.
Jeff T
From Rollei Mailing List:
Yes, they are. And the AHEL 6x7 is still available. I guess they had
to make some European joint venture, i.e. to stop fabricating some
items and distribute some Spanish darkroom equipment, as well as (to
be verified) some Polish (or Czech ?) equipment.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000
Andy-J andyj38@hotmail.com wrote:
IMO your query beckens for the answer, look to 4x5 in an enlarger.It
may even be a bargain to look to used or good reconditioned equipment.
Why 4x5? For two reasons, again IMO, it will have a stronger frame and
you won't run out of extention for the purpose of focus, always being
able to keep your negative full size if need be at this time . Finally
, since you are into photography quite strongly , you may end up
shooting 4x5 in the future.
Take a look around the rec.photo.darkroom newsgroup and pop your
question to those guys.
David Grabowski
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000
I would second the idea of looking at 4x5. I printed 35mm with a Beseler
67 for years and was quite satisfied with it. When I tried 6x7 the
enlarger's limitations were soon apparent. A new 23CIII proved to be
defective and I discovered that there is *NO* competent tech support from
Beseler. I finally got a Saunders/LPL 4x5 enlarger (unfortunately not
"low cost") and it works flawlessly for both film formats (and maybe
someday I'll try large format).
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
Printers purchase all types of stock in roll form. These rolls feed high
speed color copier type machines, that take layout from computer programs
such as Photoshop. The problem is that the rolls weigh about 34kg. thats
around 75lb. and depending on the paper weight can be 450m about 1500ft.
long in the 30mm. 12.25 inch width. Quite a bit of paper and a lot of
money to tie up. However at the end of a print job, if there is less than
10% of a roll left it is scrapped, because of the time required to change
rolls once the job has started. I purchase these ends at a very reasonable
rate from a local printer and cut them to any length I need. The printer
also laminates my panos for a reasonable fee and his roll film laminator
has no length restrictions.
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000
Hi Robert,
I'm trying to get my magazine "Camera & Darkroom" listed on a few sites...
I've launched my own web site with around 15 pages of information on it
(as of Sunday 19th March 2000). URL is with my signature :-)
Cheers,
Ed Buziak / Publisher
ed.buziak@camera-and-darkroom.co.uk
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000
When I was an impoverished grad student, I built one
almost for free, and although it wasn't the best in the
world :^), I learned a lot.
I built a box out of wood with a lightbulb inside and a
switch. Then I bought a plastic lens mount protector,
drilled out the middle, and mounted it on a hole in
the box. I could then use my camera lenses as
enlarger lenses. I could change the f-stop and focus on the
lens, and I could control the time the enlarger light
was on by counting off seconds. I also made a
negative carrier that sat behind the lens about as far
behind the lens as film sits in the camera.
There are some vignetting problems on the edges
and I only used it for black and white, but it was a lot
of fun, and I was amazed how well it worked for almost
no cost.
-- Tom Davis
Larry Jones wrote
rec.photo.technique.nature
.....
Hey Larry,
There are practically no optics involved in an enlarger, with the
exception of the objective lens, and this can be a standard camera lens as
Tom indicated. A condenser enlarger uses a couple of lenses to even out
the light source, but that's about it. My Omega does the same thing with a
piece of frosted plastic.
Many years ago, Mother Earth News (don't ask me why) ran an article,
with plans, on making your own enlarger from your camera. Simply point it
downwards with the back open on a tripod, put your negative in the film
gate with a piece of plate glass to hold it flat (you want to make sure
your glass has no distortion), and your light source was a cardboard milk
carton, with a basic light fixture at the top and a piece of plastic milk
jug as a diffuser! Cut the bottom to fit your camera, and probably do all
sorts of stuff to make sure there are no light leaks. They did recommend
using a real enlarger bulb.
When it comes right down to it, an enlarger really is just like a
camera used in reverse, and the optics of your camera lens are probably
better than your average enlarger's anyway (I know mine are). Tom's idea
seems far more workable than the one above.
Good luck, and have fun! - Al.
From Rollei Mailing List:
The Paterson reels must be bone dry, true. The similar looking Photax
reels have a surface covered with almost microscopic nubs and can be
loaded wet. The Photax tanks are a better design, as well.
Unfortunately, Paterson bought Photax and ceased production of their
superior products, so you can only find them used and maybe in old
dealer stock today.
Bob
Michael Konyzhev wrote:
There are more 6x7 enlargers than 6x9. Here are links to manufacturers
or distributors:
Italian: Durst website: http://www.durst.it
Jobo-USA, USA distributor for Durst: http://www.jobo-usa.com/
Czech: Meopta: http://www.meopta.cz/
Japan: LPL: http://www.saundersphoto.com/html/saund_lpl.htm
USA: Beseler: http://www.beseler-photo.com/
USA: Omega: http://omega.satter.com
The above is a poor site. Also see: http://www.classic-enlargers.com/
Germany: Kaiser. Some retailers have information, e.g.,
http://www.thedarkroom.co.uk/enlargers.html
http://camera-collectors.com/store/KaiserEnlargers.html
Look here for links: http://www.phototechmag.com/buying_drkroom.htm
--Michael
Date: 1 Aug 2000
David Monroe davonroe@worldnet.att.net wrote:
I've also been thinking about getting a 6x9 enlarger. My research has
uncovered the following:
Meopta Magnafax. Actually handles 6.5x9 CM so you can print 6x9
(typically 56mm x 82 to 88mm) full frame or with black borders. This is
the only enlarger smaller than 4"x5" that will do this as far as I've
been able to determine. It's probably the only enlarger short of 4"x5"
that will print black boarders on any medium format negatives other than
Hasselblad negatives (these are slightly smaller than other medium
format negatives, maybe to make it easy to see the notches :-) ).
Durst 805. Don't know much about this one, but I've used larger Durst
enlargers which were very good.
De Vere makes a 6x9 enlarger. Don't know too much about it, but an
8x10 De Vere is the best enlarger I've ever used.
One or more Kaiser enlargers (maybe all of them?) handle 6x9.
Beseler 23C. Very sturdy but not as refined as the De Vere Durst and
Kaiser. Versions prior to the current one cannot be completely aligned
without modifications. Moving negative stage and lens board mount
limits how accurately they can be aligned anyway. I believe it is also
the only one that doesn't offer a glass carrier with moving masking
blades. I think it's also the only one that can't easily be set up for
use as a half glass carrier--metal glassless frame on the bottom, glass
on the top (my prefered way of working with medium format).
If anyone has access to any of these enlargers (other than the Beseler
and Meopta), I'd love to find out the actual dimensions of the opening
in the glass carrier.
John Sparks
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000
Michael Konyzhev wrote:
Durst M 805. Handles anything up to 6x9.
<
From Rollei Mailing List:
FSilberman@aol.com wrote:
The Nikkor 75 has less elements than the other Nikors and is good for only
smaller enlargements. The image really falls apart for instance I recall
when trying to make bigger than 6X enlargements with it. It is cheaper
for a reason i found out myself and that seems to be a consensus.
I would not sell mine to my worst enemy.
The 85 Nikkor I use all the time and is fine, a standard of the industry.
I use it for smaller prints with 35mm negs and larger prints with 2 1/4
square. (I use the not expensive 135 for 7x7's on 8x10 paper the
ergonomics are great as well as the optical stuff)
The 105 though really is a choice lens with the price to go with it and a
worthy contender i believe for many Schneider or Rodagons, even the Apo's.
And it will cover 6x9.
It's only real match in the Nikon line is the 63 or maybe 150 Optically
speaking.
Another option is rigging up your enlarger like mine with a drop easel
bed.
Project down to knee level with the 105 and see if you don't do in your
back too fast!
Mark William Rabiner
From: jess4203@aol.com (Jess4203)
Erik:
I am going to agree with Erik R here. I am not sure where you are, but in
the USA, an Omega D2 or even earlier DII should be available for $300 or
so. You can build a lamphouse for your 4x5, but it will be a pain to do
it (I, too, have been contemplating a self-built 8x10 enlarger) and to get
it aligned every time you print. Compare the $300 to the time it will
take you to build the lamphouse and negative carrier and buy the parts.
A "cold light head" of flourescents or a head made with a bank of
incandescent bulbs is possible, but probably not worth the trouble. If
you are handy, you can probably rehab a slightly defunct D-2 easier than
you can build your own.
HTH,
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
Would like a few thoughts on Gordon Hutchings? PMK is the best allround
developer I have ever used and I consider "The Book of Pyro", coming up
for its 10th anniversary, to be the best, most comprehensive and practical
work yet written about a single developer. Americans may not realise
that Hutchings now has a world-wide reputation for his classic work on
pyro. In the Australian venacular: "I dips me lid to 'im!"
Regards,
R.
From Contax Mailing LIst;
Hi All,
If you do your own darkroom work and are interested in unusual
developers, alternative processes, etc., take a look at my pal
Don Stowe's web site. Don's a retired high school chemistry
teacher and loves to play in the darkroom.
http://www.geocities.com/destowe
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Vivitar hasn't sold enlargers or enlarger lenses since the 70s. Yes,
the best ones they sold were German. They also sold some cheaper ones,
probably Japanese, and even took a foray into selling Meopta for a
while.
Among really good but less known enlarging lenses are the Computar line,
and those from Minolta. Neither is still made but they turn up for sale
reasonably often.
Bob
Per,
Please add "DON 103": 24 x 36mm, DICRHOIC colour head, lens, "Vega 11U".
Jay
russiancamera@yahoogroups.com wrote:
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
r.m.pruitt sweetnell@montana.com wrote:
Use a good grain focuser like the Peak Model 1 and look at the grain at
the edges of the negative. You'll see (even with the best enlarger
lenses), how the grain gets sharper when stopping down 2-3 stops and gets
softer when the lens is stopped down too far.
Nearly every lens I saw was sharp in the middle. The main difference
between a good and a fair lens is how good they are in the corners and how
many stops you have to go down to get a decent sharpness in the corners.
The alignment of the enlarger has _much_ more influence in corner
sharpness than the difference between a old Componon and a new
Apo-Rodagon. After getting the Peak, I fiddeled for hours with the
alignment screws of my Laborator to get good sharpness in all corners.
Previously I had it aligned using a spirit level, but this wasn't good
enough.
Martin
From: "Wayne D" wdewitt@snip.net
Yes - but, I can recommend that you read Ctein's book "Post Exposure"
instead - it's excellent and will tell you much more that I could on this
board. BTW if you are closing down your lens more than two stops you're
negating the superiority of the better formula.
"r.m.pruitt" sweetnell@montana.com wrote
From Rollei Mailing List:
Dear Patric,
The BJP Annuals (British Journal of Photography) have (or at least used to
have) a whole string of formlae at the back. Of particular interest are
the series of FX.... formulas by Geoffrey Crawley whose particular
contribution has been in high definition developers for 35mm, but there
are other types too. The Paterson Range of developers are based on Mr.
Crawley's work.
sincerely,
David Morris
From Rollei Mailing List:
you wrote:
Is this a true point source or just a conventional condenser source?
Omega supplied a true point source for special purposes like microfilm
enlargment and making very large prints.
True point sources produce very sharp prints but also exagerate any
blemishes on the film a lot. You also will not be able to regulate the
exposure with the lens stop since the image of the point source is focused
on the entrance pupil of the lens. I am not sure what happens to the
contrast, it depends on the callier factor of the film but for B&W; its
probably about another grade higher than with a conventional condenser
source. The callier effect for color film is very much less.
If this is a conventional condenser source, that is, a compromise where
a highly diffuse source is focused on the lens, the effect is mainly about
a one paper grade increase of contrast over a diffuse source. Condenser
sources tend to pick up blemishes but if negatives of the right contrast
for a diffuse source and paper contrast is reduced, the effect of the
blemishes is suppressed again.
A cold light source works well but is not always suitable for VC paper
even with the special tubes available now. If you can find a dichroic
color head that would be ideal since it is as diffuse as a cold light
source and makes working with VC paper pretty easy.
If this is a conventional condenser source I would keep it.
Dr. Richard Henry proved years ago that aboslutely identical prints
could be made on condenser and diffusion enlargers provided either
negative or paper contrast was adjusted to suit.
----
From Rollei Mailing List:
Wait a minute, you have a "point light source" in a B22 Omega? Are you
sure? In any case, a B22 is the worst way to print a 120 neg. If the
carrier isn't in just the right way, whatever that may be, you'll have cut
off on the corners.
My favorite 120 enlarger was an old B8 Omega, lot's of room as it will
print up to 6x9, and the head is very light on the frame. By the way,
anyone have one, or a B7, they want to unload.
Slobodan Dimitrov
...
From Rollei Mailing List;
Harry Taylor is still doing his best work with Omega enlargers. I've
bought a missing nut and lens board from him. He'll have anything
from a screw to an entire enlarger available.
Classic Enlargers,
Parts, Sales and Service for Classic Omega Enlargers
Steve
From Rollei Mailing LIst:
Jan:
The B22 just looks like it can be a great enlarger, it's not. The light
source has to be finagled so that you won't get a hot spot. It heats up
incredibly fast, even with the heat absorbing glass that was made as an
accessory. That is if you can even find one now. It is more at home with
35mm, and even then the negs buckle from the heat.
Yes, I had one and it was extremely frustrating. It's made as hobby
grade tool that barely stands up to high volume printing, I mean
anything past 10 prints in an evening, conservatively speaking. Everyone
of my friends that's had one has had a similar experience.
The higher B numbers are much better made, with a lighter chassis than
the D series.
You gotta admit, it sure looks good just sitting there.
Slobodan Dimitrov
From Rollei Mailing List:
I guess it's time for me to comment on the B-22 Omega enlarger.
It was famous for not-so-good coverage of the 6x6 negative.
In their quest to make it small, they made it too small.
Try testing the enlarger by making a gray exposure with the
neg carrier in but no negative in it. Check out the uneven
coverage, and then live with it. Makes a really good 35mm
enlarger.
Ed
From Rollei Mailing LIst:
Edward Meyers wrote:
They way to align a D2 is not obvious. The people at Zig Align had to show
be how when i bought their product last year and I'd used D2's for decades
already. Ill check it's alignment when making a big, critical print and
tweak it to perfection using the wonders of parallelism which i think
beats a lazar beam and certainly a level any day. Believe me a level is
only a starting point which hopefully gets you close. You should see this
thing or try it! http://www.zig-align.com/ It's nice to know that if you
want to you can stop down only one instead of two or three. I may even try
printing wide open as some seem to think an enlarging lens should not be
stopped down!
Mark Rabiner
FRom Rollei Mailing List:
....
I have two sources for rebuilt enlargers and parts, they are:
http://members.aol.com/cenlarger/homepage.html
And Bob Watson at: rwatson767@aol.com Bob repairs enlargers and is
something of a specialist on Omegas. I don't think he has a web site but
an e-mail will get details.
Bob has been very generous with advise on the rec.photo.darkroom group.
I have an Omega D2V, which works well. I had to align mine a couple of
times but its stable unless moved around. Rough alignment can be done with
a level but precise alignment requires something more, reversed mirrors or
a laser alignment tool. Precise alignment can make a surprizing amount of
difference in performance.
----
FRom Contax Mailing List;
I suggest holding off on the color analyzer. Get a Kodak Color Dataguide
and use the viewing filters in it to get your exposure and color balance.
Modern films and papers don't vary all that much, so a color analyzer is
much less essential than in the past. I have a good one, but haven't used
it in years.
Bob
Virtually all Aristo cold light heads are available from B&H; Photo-Video.
Go to Photo, then to enlargers, then to light heads. There's a category
for cold light.
There's nothing magic about cold light, though. It's just a diffuse light
source for enlarging that has inherently low contrast. Dichroic-style
light-mixing boxes are also very diffuse--just the slightest bit less so
than cold light. The difference is that there are a lot of inherent
problems that you need to overcome with cold light--the inherent
unevenness of a folded fluorescent tube, light color (although Aristo now
makes a lamp that they say works better with VC papers), output (cold
lights can be a bit slow) and stability (cold light output fluctuates with
temperature). Zone VI used to (and may still) make a sophisticated
stabilizer that overcame most of these problems, but it cost a lot.
Repeatability for printing in quantity can be a problem.
The range of enlarger light sources from collimated to diffuse is actually
a continuum, not just either/or. A true condenser enlarger with a
point-source is the most collimated, and cold light is the most diffuse,
and other styles of light head fall somewhere in a range in between. Even
what we call condenser enlargers are somewhat diffuse, because they start
with a large frosted light bulb.
Dichroic-style enlarger light sources usually start with an inherently
stable quartz-halogen light bulb similar to a slide projector bulb. This
is beamed into a light-mixing box above a diffusing panel. This is so
close to cold light in degree of diffusion that you'd have a very hard
time telling which was which from prints. But the dichroic-style enlargers
are far less problematic than cold light in terms of output, color,
stability, and repeatability. The Saunders/LPL enlargers are this type.
John Sexton, who was Ansel Adams's last assistant, used to print with a
full-dress cold-light rig--modified Beseler 45 MXT, replacement lamp, Zone
VI stabilizer, the works. Quite a magnificent rig.
He now uses an out-of-the-box Saunders 4550.
So does Bruce Barnbaum. So do a ton of other well-known fine-art
photographers.
Personally I've gotten rather fond of the typical setup of Durst
enlargers. They use a large frosted light bulb set well back from the
negative stage, a 45-degree mirror above the negative, down through a
single condenser to the negative, with no diffusing panel. This
arrangement has a lot of advantages--very little heat, and it's simple,
and the light is sort of smack dab in the middle of the range from most
diffuse to most collimated--it's not a true condenser enlarger OR a true
diffuse enlarger. This controls contrast adequately while also giving the
prints a bit of sparkle--a bit more life, a bit more bite than a
completely diffuse source.
The cold-light fad has more or less passed. There are still a few fine
printers who still use it, but most of those enlarge negatives larger than
4x5 (e.g., Howard Bond, who routinely enlarges 8x10 negatives.). As a
usable diffuse enlarger, I'd recommend a Saunders over a cold light setup
any day for someone who isn't already invested in an enlarger.
Cold light *is* the most diffuse of all, though, and if you want to try
it, you should. Aristo is the way to go. It's a very good company--they've
been at it for a long time and they really know their stuff.
--Mike
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
Two suggestions. One, check out the quality and condition of the
enlarging lens.
Two, make sure the finder is coincident with the taking lens.
The Tessar should be capable of making 16x20's which look sharp when
viewed close up.
The Xenotar and Planar are better lenses but the difference will show up
mostly at larger stops especially at the margins of the image. At f/11
there will not be a significant difference.
There are other problems which can plague enlarging. Among them are
enlarger alignment, negative popping, and vibration. A great many
enlargers are not aligned properly, I suspect you could almost count on
one in a public or school darkroom being out of alignment.
Negative popping is a problem with glassless carriers as is the film not
being flat. A way of avoiding popping is to allow the negative to warm up
in the enlarger for a minute or so before focusing or making the exposure.
If you have popping you may have to control the exposure with a black card
to act as a shutter.
Vibration is a matter of the enlarger mounting, construction, and
location. Many enlargers are really rather flimsey and are often mounted
on rather thin plywood boards. Putting it on a flimsey table is another
vibration causer. Maybe nothing can be done about this in a school
darkroom.
Check your negatives using a grain focuser or a really good high power
loupe. The grain focuser may show up enlarger lens problems since the
grain will not be sharp. You can also check the enlarger lens by making
shallow scratches in a scrap negative and seeing how sharply they focus or
print.
A good high power loupe will show up negative unsharpness problems.
A dirty or hazy lens will also cause a loss of sharpness and a great
loss of contrast. You can see the dirt or haze simply by looking at the
lens with the lamp on but no film in the carrier.
Probably the least likely cause of unsharpness is the camera lens.
The best way of eliminating vibration when checking the camera is to use
a strobe to illuminate the subject. While some strobes have fairly long
duration its usually pretty short compared to even the fastest shutter
speed. Set variable strobes to low output, most of them control exposure
by varying the duration rather than the intensity of the flash.
----
From Camera Makers Mailing List:
Not sure if this message will make it in the thread
1. Enlarger light source.
I used to build 'bank lights'(soft boxes) for studio photography and found
that this rule applies to slide viewing light tables. Unless the inside of
the box is covered in reflective material you will lose half your light
and the light that does reach your diffused face panel will be uneven.
darker at the edges. Best stuff is this patterned foil from Roscoe.
Tinfoil or mirror will just create spectral bright spots.
Enlarger light and lens. The primary reason for the lens focal length is
based on the standard light fall off of any lens as you leave the center
axis--something to do with the square root of 5. this is also why 90mm and
wider lenses are more even with centering filters that drop two stops in
the center.
For an enlarger light I recommend two things. I used a diffused head with
the light shinning through a piece of translucent plex. Use thicker plex,
make sure the inside of your diffusion box is white or patterned silvered.
Trans lucent plex for light boxes transmits the same amount of light
regardless of the thickness. so use the thickest plex you can afford.
Also a trick of the enlarger light manufacturers is to taper the thickness
of the diffusion near the edges. Test this and then maybe try sanding down
the edges. to gain one stop I'm pretty sure you'd halve the thickness. I'd
only work on the lamp, not the neg side of the plex and I would make sure
I had a sander and polisher to return the plex surface to a smooth
original condition.
Keep in mind too that the neg may be a particular size but the lens, and
your printing paper receives most of the light in a straight line. (This
is from Richard Feynman's Quantum Electro Dynamics) It would follow then
that the upper portion of the funnel needs to be wider than the neg. to
have even coverage.
And of course the test is to focus a neg and then remove it from the
enlarger and expose an even gray onto a sheet of paper and process it.
When I did this with my Bessler 45 I almost threw up it was so bad. I
built a better light source with high heat white paint, a little plex a
surplus quartz bulb and tuna fish and pineapple cans. BEssler condensors
are only useful as paperweights.
---William Nettles
From Camera Makers Mailing List;
Hi David,
Years ago I built an 8 x 10 enlarger out of an old 9" x 12" plate camera
(with no permanent modifications so that the camera could still be used as
a camera). I built a small platform for mounting the camera horizontally
so it projected like a slide projector. Immediately behind the camera was
a light trap seal of weather stripping and a wooden and masonite track
that held a hinged negative carrier--two pieces of plate glass (darkroom
tape for the hinge and to define the seating space of the negative.) The
light source was an oversized Aristo 12 x 12 cold light. The lens was a
12 inch Nikkor process lens. The whole platform sat on a small Black and
Becker work table, which clamped on to a small board nailed to the bottom
of the enlarger platform. You could either slide the enlarger assembly
back and forth on the work table or move the whole table further from the
wall for making mural size prints. A focusing cloth was laid over the
enlarger during exposure to cover any light leaks.
You can use the same camera you are shooting with as an enlarger, and
simply remove the ground glass and put a plate glass carrier where the
film holder goes, but the advantage of a slightly larger camera and light
source is being able to print the full negative without any cropping.
Although enlarging and process lenses are best for enlarging, I've also
know people to use the same camera lens for shooting and enlarging. The
sharpness may not be quite as good, but it will work, and if you're using
a large format negative to begin with, the loss of sharpness may not be as
noticeable as you would expect as long as your prints aren't huge.
The main advantage to horizontal projection for me was keeping the weight
down and being able to disassemble the enlarger to store and move it
easily. One difficulty, though, is setting it up to keep the lens plane,
negative plane, and image plane all parallel. Use a plum bob to check and
adjust the plane of the negative, lens, and projection surface. Project a
large half tone pattern as a negative to visually estimate overall
sharpness and the "square" from left to right. Measure the vertical
height of both the left side and right side of the projected rectangle to
adjust for keystone, insure your corners are square, and that both sides
have the same exact dimensions. For enlargements 16 x 20 or smaller, I
projected onto a tacky surface that held the paper flat by putting spaced
sections of 3M "post-it" bulletin board material directly onto a flat
wall. (A vacuum easel can also be made by using pegboard masonite mounted
onto a closed wooden frame fitted with a vacuum cleaner.) For mural size
prints I discovered the concrete wall was not flat enough, so I built a
large easel out of a light weight hollow core door that I mounted on the
wall. The paper was held in place with masking tape. For mural prints, a
focusing extension was made by taping a circle of strong cord onto the
camera's focus nob--the loop of cord long enough to reach while looking
through a grain focuser.
Good Luck.
Rick
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] XTOL Mixing
you wrote:
> you wrote:
>>That noted authority, bon vivant, and Renaissance man, Richard Knoppow, has
>>pointed out that the formula for XTOL is available by checking its patent,
>>USP 5,756,271, at http://www.uspto.gov
>>
>>I would be interested in figuring out exactly how to accomplish this. I've
>>not researched the availability of a few of the more exotic chemicals set
>>out in the patent, but I suspect these are available from folks such as
>>Fisher Scientific in the US and similar houses in other nations.
>>
>>Any thoughts, camera dudes?
>>
>>Marc
>>
>>msmall@roanoke.infi.net
> There isn't much exotic in the formula for the powder. I might as well
>post what is in the patent. The following is in two parts because it is a
>description of a possible packaged formula. Mixing from scratch should be
>easier.
> The suggested formulas for liquid concentrate versions specify chemicals
>which are stable in liquid form. Some of these are alternatives for the
>sulfite and some are emulsifiers, etc. Not necessary for home mixing. You
>will find the same chemicals in the MSDS for HC-110 and T-Max developers,
>among others.
>
>
>From the Xtol patent.
>
>Part A
>Sodium Sulfite 10.0 grams
>EDTA Penta sodium salt 1.0 gram
>Sodium Metaborate (8 mol) 8.0 grams
>Kodak Dimezone 0.2 gram
>
>Part B
>Sodium Sulfite 75.0 grams
>Sodium Metabisulfite 3.5 grams
>Sodium isoascorbate 12.0 grams
>To make one liter of solution
>
>The sulfite is probably dessicated or anhydrous. The two are the same but
>made by different processes.
> Sodium Metaborate Octahydrate is Kodalk
> Kodak Dimezone is a form of Phenidone which is more stable in storage
>than the original.
> Sodium Isoascorbate is the "vitamin C" but is not what you get at the
>health food store.
>
> If this is mixed at once begin with 850 ml of water. The EDTA should be
>dissolved first, then the sulfite, metabisulfite, metaborate, isoascorbate,
>and the Dimezone last.
> EDTA pentasodium salt is used in various alternative processes and should
>be available from photo chemical dealers. Its probably necessary even if
>the stuff is not put up in packages since isoascorbic acid developers tend
>to be sensitive to some minerals in the water.
> The patent gives the pH of the final mixed solution as 8.20 +/- 0.05
>which will be a guide if metaborate with some other amout of water is used.
>The patent does not specify Kodalk and, according to a recent post by
>Micheal Gudzinowicz to the Pure Silver list, Kodak is a little reticent to
>state exactly what water of inclusion Kodalk has.
>
>Photo chemicals are available from:
>Photographer's Formulary
>http://www.montana.com/formulary/index.html
>
>Artcraft Chemicals
>http://www.artcraftchemicals.com/
>
>Tri-S Sciences
>http://www.tri-esssciences.com/
>
>Bostick and Sullivan
>http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/
>
> Some organics are available from ChemicalLab
>http://www.ChemicalLab.com/
>
> There is also a source in San Francisco but they do not have e-mail or a
>web site and I can't remember the name.
> Prices vary all over the place.
>
> There are some additional sources in the Alternative Processes FAQ
>http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg/photo/faq.html
>
>----
>Richard Knoppow
>Los Angeles, CA, USA
>dickburk@ix.netcom.com
A follow up note. One can make something close to Sodium metaborate
octahydrate, or tetrahydrate, a later name for the same stuff as folows:
100 g sodium metaborate tetrahydrate == 90.89 g borax + 9.53 g
Sodium Hydroxide.
The pH value given in the patent formula should be a guide as to whether
some adjustment needs to be made. The patent indicates a range of pH of
from 7 up to, but not including 9, and preferably from 8.0 to 8.4.
Note that the patent specifies the octahydrate (tetrahydrate is
identical) rather than Kodalk. Mike Gudzinowicz points out that the MSDS
for Kodalk indicates it can be a mixture of Sodium Metaborate, octahydrate
and Sodium Metaborate, anhydrous, in any ratio. Since the weight ratios are
about 2 to 1 this is pretty indefinite as to what Kodalk really is. The
patent is quite specific. One could mix the formula with Borax and add
hydroxide in small amounts until the pH comes up to the correct value.
Phenidone, and its derivitives dissolve more readily in alkaline
solutions which is why I suggest adding it last.p
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Kayaker" jaybender@bossig-dontspam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Building an 4x5" enlarger
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002
There was an article written by Nicholas Altenbernd in Camera and Darkroom
Photography magazine (no longer published) in the Jan. 1993 issue, pgs.
12-16. I think you can probably order a copy of this article from your
library. In it he chronicles the building of a 4x5 enlarger.
Jay Bender
From: "Markus Keinath" keinath@gmx.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Building an 4x5" enlarger
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002
Hi,
take a look at Claudio Bonavoltas:
http://www.infomaniak.ch/~bonavolt/enl8x10.htm
Perhaps you can look a my own stuff - but the text is in german:
http://home.arcor.de/keinath/Selbstbau/SBV.htm
The pictures at the bottom show the filter (chancing for additiv work),
Lightning(?) {this version dontYwork with the filter} and the negativ
carrier.
This version was only for try - it does not work, cause it was to much
work for adjustment of all angels - it was a kind of horizontal
enlarger.
Markus
From: robertgriego@onebox.com (Robert Griego)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Building an 4x5" enlarger
Date: 7 Mar 2002
"Marcus Carlsson" marcus.carlsson@ebrevet.nu wrote
> Hi!
>
> I wonder if anyone of you have built an enlarger of your own?
>
> I have built my own 8x10" camera and intend to build an 4x5" camera and an
> enlarger.
>
> Is it harder to build an enlarger or is it just the same as an camera?
>
> /Marcus
I made an enlarger for my 4x5 camera by using the camera as the
enlarger and (get this...) using a computer monitor as the light
source. I removed the back from the camera and taped the negative to
a piece of glass that fit where the back went. Then I put a monitor
up near it and covered the whole thing with towels. I wrote a simple
program to start the screen off all black, then when I hit the
pacebar go all white. I taped the paper to a wall and it worked out
fine. You have to experiment with how far back you need the monitor
from the negative since you will see scanlines in the negative when
you get too close. I think I ended up with about a 6 inch spacing.
The prints made this way are every bit as good as the prints I made
using a Bessler 4x5 enlarger and it cost me nothing since I had
everything on hand. It's a pain to setup but then again, there's
really no limit to the size of print you can make (depending on how
big your room is).
From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: enlarger versus digital
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002
Of course this is the kind of question that starts many bitter arguments.
For me digital has cost far more than my traditional darkroom and will
continue to cost more as the ever improving equipment makes existing things
obsolete. I'm not heavily into digital but in the brief time I've dabbled in
it I've bought two scanners, two printers (and getting ready for a third),
added lots of memory, bought Photoshop 4, bought Photoshop 6, bought lots of
inks at a cost of about $50 a set, bought lots of papers, etc. etc. In that
same time I've added nothing to the traditional darkroom I started about 8
years ago and have no plans to add anything in the future. My only costs
have been chemicals and papers which aren't insignificant but certainly
don't equal the cost of all the digital stuff. . So I'd be surprised if it
turns out that you're correct in saying the cost is about the same.
While many would disagree, I'd say that if you're doing color go with
digital - you can do so much more with digital color than you can in a
traditional color darkroom. If you do mostly black and white, you could go
either way. I do exclusively black and white and the route I've chosen has
been to dabble in digital and try to learn it while continuing with my
traditional darkroom for the moment at least. Of course the main question,
assuming you aren't doing this for a living, is which do you think you would
enjoy the most? Some people hate sitting in front of a computer, some people
hat messing with chemicals.
"John Gunn" John_Gunn@btinternet.com wrote
> hi everyone,
> I'm just about to move up to 5x4, the camera side of
> things I'm quite happy about. The question is which way to go on the
> printing side of things, am I going to be better off buying a 5X4 enlarger
> and producing prints in the darkroom, or would it be better to go down the
> digital road and scan the negs and print them out on a good printer. I can't
> see I would want to print above about 16"x12". Costs seem similiar for both
> options, so has anyone any thoughts on the quality, lifespan of images or
> any other useful comments on which system might be best
>
> thanks in advance
>
> john gunn
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001
From: Richard Urmonas rurmonas@senet.com.au
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Photographic recipes
> Can anyone recommend books with photographic chemistry recipes? (Other than
> S. Anchell's books).
In English:
Developing, C.I.Jacobson & R.E. Jacobson, Focal Press. This was also
published in Spanish, Dutch, and Danish.
This is a very good book, but I think it has been out of print for some time.
Ilford Manual of Photography, Edited by Alan Horder, Ilford Limited.
Very detailed, only Ilford chemistries, but includes many types not sold
directly. Again I think this has been out of print for some time.
The later versions (5th edition, 1958 onwards) are much larger than previous
issues.
Gevaert Manual of Photography, A.H.S. Craeybeckx, translated by C.J. Duncan,
Gavaert Photo-Producten N.V., Fountain Press,
Gavaert formulae, Not as good as the Ilford manual in my opinion.
Definitely out of print.
Of the above the Jacobson & Jacobson book has the widest range of formulae. It
also has a good analysis of the operation of the various chemicals etc.
The British Journal Photographic Annual also contained a good range of
formulae, including colour film developers. This varies from year to year, so
unless you can look at an issue you have to rely on luck.
Richard
rurmonas@senet.com.au
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 220 Film Processing Problem
> From: Doug Brightwell doug@dougbrightwell.com
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] 220 Film Processing Problem
>
> So roller transport processors are better than dip-n-dunk? I thought I had
> read the opposite somewhere on the web, but can't really remember.
No, they're not automatically better, but most dip-n-dunk machines in use
now are older machines and beginning to show their age. Only a few are
still in production. The latest roller transport machines from Noritsu
and other major makers are reliable and produce very even developing.
> I've never seen a dip-n-dunk machine, but I imagine there's a lot of
> physical human handling of the film, lifting it in and out of tanks...
> perhaps more chance for human error.
>
Well someone has to take your film off the reels, or out of the cassettes,
in the dark, clip metal gadgets to the ends, put it over a roller so the
ends hang down properly and load it into the machine! Many a slip twixt the
cup and the lip, as they say. The lab I use has a dip-n-dunk machine
(Mullersohn) for E-6. They replaced their dip-n-dunk C-41 machine several
years ago with a Noritsu. Their volume of E-6 does not justify spending the
money for a new machine yet. Just the other day a new lab technician who is
learning how to load the Mullersohn got one of the clips too far into a roll
and killed the first frame on one of my rolls of 120 Agfachrome. Luckily
it was only one frame out of seventeen rolls from a shoot, but as Murphy
would have it, this frame was one of the best shots. Such is life. When
humans do the work, human error is always possible.
When I went to pick up the film the poor guy was so upset about messing up.
At least he cares, and will learn from his mistake.
Bob
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] WTB: darkroom equipment
you wrote:
>Processing costs are so high I'm starting to do it myself. I'm starting
>with development and need to add a few items to the hardware I used 20 years
>ago, exclusively 35mm then:
>
>Wanted:
>all-Metal tank for 1 or 2 120 reels;
>all-metal 120 reels (is LPL still in business?)
>timer for development (i.e. minutes and seconds);
>lift rod for multiple reels;
>stirrer;
>glass graduate, any size;
>glass marbles;
>there was a device I remember using to squeegee off the water from the
>hanging roll, like a squeegee for both sides
>
>etc.
>
>I live near where Spiratone had been. Sigh.
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Dan Kalish
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] First attempts
you wrote:
>So, having abandoned (at the list's wise advice) any attempt to revive the
>wrecked Rollecord 1 (some person in Japan bought it for far more than it
>was worth over ebay, despite a seriously honest write-up), I ventured out
>for the first time with my newly purchased Vb for my first attempt at MF
>street photography.
>
Snipping here...
>The second surprise about MF was the cost. Roll film is cheap, but
>developing it commercially is not. o1 a picture in London. My first
>rolls were left with Jessops to develop. Three weeks later, some badly
>exposed pale gray tinted 4x4s came back. All went in the bin. (I'm
>getting very tempted by a friend's offer of a Durst M670 plus associated
>darkroom for o350 and developing my own - any views?)
>
>
>
more snipping...
>Matt
I can't comment on the Durst enlarger other than to make sure its
complete. Durst doesn't support their older stuff.
You should very definitely set up to develop and print your own stuff. I
don't know how much equipment is available used in the UK but I suspect you
could set up for a lot less than o350.
For developing you need a tank, preferably one which is agitated by
inversion, a dark place to load it or a changing bag, the chemicals, a
measuring cup and a couple of clothes pins. A good thermometer is a real
necessity. There are electronic thermometers available now at quite
reasonable prices which are much more _accurate_ than any but especially
calibrated liquid thermometers. Although B&W; is more tollerant of
temperature variations than color you still must have the developer within
about a degree of the spedified temperature if film developing charts are
to be accurate in predicting contrast. Most liquid thermometers are no
better than +/- 2F, which is really not good enough. Adjustable dial
thermometers are, almost by definition, out of adjustment and should be
used only as working thermometers, compared to a known accurate one at
frequent intervals. The electronic thermometer is a better answer. Most are
accurate enough and precise enough for color work (+/- 0.5F).
The key item in printing is the enlarger and its lens. The lens should be
the best you can afford. Good used Schneider Componons seem to be fairly
common on the used market at very reasonable prices. Even older chrome
barrel Componons are excellent lenses; they were the best made when they
were new. The enlarger needs to be reasonably rigid and have uniform
lighting of the negative. Beyond that its just a box. Durst's better models
are considered Rolls-Royce quality but the lack of parts and support for
the older ones is a problem.
If you have not done darkroom work before there are a some useful guides
available on-line and some good books. I am partial to a couple of books
published by Kodak, actually the Silver Pixel Press, which are good primers
without a lot of fluff. They are not expensive.
_Black and White Darkroom Techniques_ KW-15 Cat 144 0809
_Advanced Black and White Photography_ KW-19 Cat. E144 1849
Available from The Silver Pixel Press (to whome Kodak farmed out all
publications)
Kodak Black and White Darkroom Dataguide_ R-20 Cat 828 9092 Available from
better photo suppliers or from Silver Pixel.
Ilford also publishes a good book on photographic processes both black
and white and color. It used to be called the _Ilford Manual of
Photography_ but later editions are called something else. My copy is face
down under somthing and so is my memory at the moment.
A trip to the local library will find other stuff.
While a permanent darkroom is wonderful to have its not necessary. Its
possible to set up nearly anywhere. Although the availability of running
water is helpful and a great convenience, its not necessary.
Doing your own work allows you to choose the chemistry you use and insure
the quality of the work. If you follow the instructions you will get
technically good negatives and prints. Kodak especially, always tried to
make photography as simple and as reliable as a copying machine. All the
really hard part is done in manufacturing.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: Two Enlargers?
The main advantage of having two enlargers in the darkroom is that you can
work on two different negatives, transparencies, a negative and
transparency, whatever combination, simultaneously.
With two enlargers, I can print a test print from one transparency on
enlarger #1, and while it is processing (16 min,) I can set-up and print a
test print of a different transparency on enlarger #2, load the test into
another drum, and when the first test is finished processing, I can load
the second onto the processor and push start. Evaluate the print and then
back to enlarger #1 to work on that transparency while the second is
processing. Repeat for #2, etc...
Other than that... I would pick the best enlarger and in your case below,
the Super Chromega Dichroic II is the obvious choice. It is real easy to
dial-in VC B&W; paper contrast filter settings on the color head rather than
screw-up your lens resolution by hanging filters in the lens image path.
MHO,
Jim
Ginex, Mike wrote:
>What would be the advantage of having a D-2 Simmon-Omega enlarger (for B&W;
>work) and a Omega Super Chromega Dichroic II for color work?
>Can't the latter unit be used for both B&W; and color? I have a choice of
>having both or one or the other. Need some experienced guidance from my
>knowledgeable buddies here on the LUG.
>
>Always grateful,
From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] RE: digital grain
The way you do it in film, using an enlarger, is rap your enlarger head
with your hand during your exposure. The enlarger must shake for roughly
10% to 20% of the total exposure. This is called "shaking the grain out."
And as soon as you stop laughing... this is no joke!
The exposure is long enough for the sharp image to register but the edge is
taken off of that oh so gritty grain. It's like a Softar filter without the
filter. The image still looks sharp but the fine detail (grain edge effect)
is smoothed over.
This is an old technique used back in the 20's and 30's. Maybe even the
40's. I learned about it while at Brooks Institute from Boris Dobro, an old
European (German I think) who was old when I was there in 1959-61. Maybe I
was just young... 21.
:)
Jim
Frank Filippone wrote:
>Tina.. the grain is there in terms of Pixels... the difference is that some
>computer geek wrote an algorithm to smooth out the pixel info when
>printing... you COULD do the same thing with film + scanner + computer....
>Film is inherently more detailed. But it is not "geeked upon" so you see
>the grain.
>
>I must say, that the real proof is your customer. If he/she is happy, that
>is all that counts...no matter how you did the shot....
>
>Frank Filippone
>red735i@earthlink.net
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001
From: ShadCat11@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: [Rollei] Omega enlargers - suitability for 6x6
you wrote:
Yup, that's all I have to stop down. More just takes longer exposure,
doesn't improve focus anywhere on the print. I avoid wide open tho, because
of a cynical fear that lens manufactures design wide open for
focus/composition, not print perfection. I could be wrong. But I'm not
saying "Nah"
Out of a gazillion enlarging lenses over the years, all designed for general
use, I have not encountered one that was at its best wide open. Some were
best at 1, 2 or more stops down from max, and some were usable wide open, but
all improved when stopped down.
> I may even try printing wide open as some seem to think an enlarging lens
> should
> not be stopped down!
Not me.
Allen Zak
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] O.T. cold light head or condenser
>{Snip}
> Without doubting Richard's statement I would love to read the original
> article by Dr. Henry. Could Richard possibly send me the reference
> I also would appreciate comments about other folks experiences with
> cold lite enlarging.?
> thanks,
> ellis
I think that from a tonality or ease of spotting standpoint there really are no
advantage to cold light over other heads that's just hype and rumour and I've
made direct comparison prints from the same negative between them. Pre popping
our negs with condenser heads was second nature to myself and everyone i knew
starting out in photograpy in the 70's and 80's. Pretty much all of us have
gotten sick of it as unconscious as it was and have gone cold light. I did go
back and forth a few times between the two. Sometimes I'll use the enlargers at
the color lab which are Ilford 500 multigrade heads with quartz lights inside I
think like a color head and these are VC non coldlight heads which will
sometimes pop your negs but not often.
The Only reason i use cold light is becuae they are cold. They don't pop my negs.
And now I've swithed to the Aristo VC 4500 head with a green and blue separate
bulb it's a whole different ballgame. I can control my blacks and whites as if
they are too separte channels but that's a different story. Two filter printing.
You can go continous with the head as well.
The downside is you have to go slowly if doing a run to avoid inconsistencies as
if you print too fast the bulb gets hot and become of that too bright. There is
an expensive Metrolux timer with probes to get around that but I'm doing ok just
taking my time a little and being smart about it.
http://www.aristogrid.com/heads.html
these guys you definitely want to check out.
I've been bugging Alan Johnson on the phone once or twice a decade for 3 decades now.
He's the designer head engineer of Aristo. Maybe he owns it i don't know.
Their VC head is the culmination of all hour darkroom dreams over the decades if
you ask me.
Not too high tech. I'm not fond of continuous loop stuff for black and white.
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon
USA
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] O.T. cold light head or condenser
you wrote:
>In re Richard Knoppow's statement about Dr.Richard Henry stating,
>" no difference between condenser and cold light except for contrast."
>I have checked both sources myself over the years and could find no
>difference except for contrast and no negative buckling. However I
>have always assumed that my testing was not adequate.
>Of course Ansel Adams seems to prefer cold light as do many other
>authors.
>At 16 x 20 and 20 x 24 my condensers buckle the negs at 25 seconds.
>With cold light I can go up to a minte with ease. Exposure Over one
>minute is not recommended because of reciprocity failure. Also to defeat
>the neg buckling I will use a larger bulb,"250 watts," and place a small
>fan near the enlarger head.
>But at 25 seconds I am in trouble and have to also concern myself when
>I want to dodge and burn.
>Of course I find the cold light useful for softer contrast with a given
>paper.
>Without doubting Richard's statement I would love to read the original
>article by Dr. Henry. Could Richard possibly send me the reference
>I also would appreciate comments about other folks experiences with
>cold lite enlarging.?
>thanks,
>ellis
Its in a book he wrote called _Controls in Black-and-White Photography_
second edition, published by the Focal Press.
My copy is under a stack of other stuff so I can't get the ISBN right
now. Its been out of print for some years and is hard to find used. If you
can turn up a copy its worth parting with some bucks for it.
Hery was a trained scientist, a chemist by profession, and controled and
documented his experiments properly. He shows curves made using the
condenser head on a Bessler 45MX and a cold light head on the same
enlarger. The sensitometric curves show that exactly the same result can be
had by matching either negative or paper contrast. The closest match is
from adjusting the negative contrast where the two curves lie exactly on
top of each other. Probably the reason for this is that the curve shape of
graded paper is not exactly the same from grade to grade where the curve
shape for negative material does not vary much with relatively small
changes in conrast index.
The variation in contrast depends on the callier effect factor. Coarse
grain and thick emulsions tend to cause more scattering of the light going
through them so their effective density is higher where the light source is
specular or partly specular as it is in condenser enlargers. Diffusion
sourced hit the film with light from a wide range of angles so some gets
through despite the scattering. As the grain gets smaller or as the
emulsion gets thinner the scattering becomes less so the difference in
transmission between a specular and diffuse source becomes less. Color
films generally are nearly free of the effect because the image is composed
of dye particles which are very much smaller than the silver particles in
most B&W; emulsions. A very fine grain silver film like Kodak Tech Pan will
also have a little less Callier effect than most other films, although not
as little as dye image films.
The idea that diffusion sources produce a wider range of tones is simply
from the fact that it lowers the contrast by about one paper grade. If this
is not understood it will seem that the lower contrast prints are long
scale. Well, actually, they are, if by scale we mean the range of deisities
on the negative which will be reproduced on the print. The point is that
exactly the same result would be produced by either lowering the paper
contast or the film contrast.
Perhaps the reason that Adams liked cold light heads is that he typically
photographed very contrasty subjects, snow covered mountains with deeply
shadowed forrest surrounding them for instance, and the lower contrast of a
diffusion source may have helped him get the results he pictured.
Note that _any_ diffusion source behaves the same way. Color heads
employing light integrators are highly diffuse and make excellent sources
for B&W.; Cold light has no magic other than the heads can be made to be
quite uniform and, for conventional graded paper, the high output of blue
light results in fast printing times. Cold light heads are also a good way
to get a usable lamp house on some older large enlargers, like the old
Elwood units, where the original lamphouse is missing, damaged, or not
satisfactory for some reason.
I will look for my copy of Dr. Henry's book and post complete publication
data. He also tested out a lot of other popular wisdom about photography,
sometimes finding sense but often discovering it was utter nonesense.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] O.T. cold light head or condenser
you wrote:
>Richard and the other Printers,
>
>I have been trying to figure out if the condenser sources have
>significant advantages in high resolution prints over the diffuser
>sources. The cold light sources seem to have definite practical
>advantages otherwise. How does the balance tilt on this?
>
>Gene
I don't remember if Dr. Henry tested this or not. There isn't any
difference in resolution between a diffuse source and a partially diffuse
source as is the usual condenser head. True collimated point sources have
somewhat better resolution and are used for special purposes like printing
microfilm and making very large murals. I am not sure of the reason for
this other than the gain in contrast of the image. Generally resolution
goes up with contrast. The difference in constrast between a normal
condenser and a diffusion source is really minimal, only about one paper
grade. Its possible that the scattering of a diffusion source may also
suppress some edge effects. One could test this by measuring the density
gradient of a knife edge image printed both ways.
I am BTW another who has made sensibly identical prints using both types
of heads. While I don't have means to make reflection densitometer tests
visual comparison shows no difference. The condenser head was the regular
one on my Omega D1V and the diffusion head was an Aristo cold-light head
mounted on the same enlarger. I've done this many times. I originally got
the cold light head partly to experiment with it and partly because I
thought it would cure an illumination problem. The illumination problem
turned out to be misalignment and a careful adjustment of the enalrger
cured it. The cold light also has some advantage for seriously dense 4x5
negatives since it is considerably brighter than the consenser for that
size. For 35mm its slower.
In answer to the question about color of light. For the most part the
color of the light for graded paper makes little or no difference. Most
graded papers are bromide or chlorobromide emulsons with no additional
senstitizing ingredients. Silver chloride (used for slow contact papers)
has the narrowest sensitivity, confined to visible blue and near UV. Silver
bromide extends somwhat more into the blue toward green. Silver Iodide,
used mostly in film, has some sensitivity in the transition between blue
and green.
Its true that emulsion contrast changes with light color. Data for this
is provided for many Kodak films. Keeping the constrast constant across the
spectrum is an important issue for panchromatic film. However, it would
appear that the effect may be due to the color sensitizing dyes. In any
case, it is either very small or absent for graded paper.
One advantage of cold-light for graded paper is the relatively high level
of far blue and ultraviolet light in the output. This is the color to which
graded papers are most sensitive.
At one time some large format enlargers were equipped with mercury vapour
lamps. This was the standard illumination for the famous Saltzman enlargers.
Another BTW, my memory is that the Simmon brothers, who made Omega
enlargers had some connection with Rolleiflex. My memory is that they may
have worked for F&H.; Marc probably knows story about this.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] O.T. cold light head or condenser
...
>Dr. Henry proved it was possible to get identical prints if you worked at it
>long and hard enough. I don't see the point in expending unnecessary effort
>when I get a print that is just like I want it from my existing system.
>
>Bob
That is really mistating what he did and also irrelevant. The question is
whether one system has a built in advantage over the other. The answer is a
resounding no. He didn't need to work long and hard other than he was doing
a controlled experiment so that he could actually KNOW what he had and not
be guessing at it. If you know the rate at which contrast varies with
devlopment and that is pretty easy to find out (as anyone who has worked
with Zone System knows) and you know what the grade specs of the paper are
(published) you can match prints pretty easily. The callier effect is
nearly the same for most pictorial films and amounts to about one paper
grade. So, if you are reasonably tuned up on a condenser enlarger you
should get very close to the same result on a diffusion enalrger by using
the next higher paper grade for the same negative.
There is simply no magic in either type of source.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002
From: Gest2001@aol.com
Reply to: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Darkroom benches
Bob,
You may want to visit your local Home Depot store or lumber yard. They carry
the Simpson "Strong-tie" line of metal lumber joiners. They (Simpson) have
available a series of brackets designed specifically to create things like
benches from 2x4 stock. They also supply washer headed self drilling wood
screws to be used with the brackets. Not only that they have brochures that
have the plans.
In my own darkroom, I used KD kitchen type utility cabinets that were being
closed out. For counter tops I cut up 5/8" particle board and glued 5/8"
strips around the periphery. Several coats of polyurethane varnish gives a
good protective finish. This is not as pretty as a laminate top but is far
less costly. Another option would be to find used kitchen cabinets removed
for redecorating they are often available for a pittance.
The advantage of the cabinets is the interior storage afforded by shelves and
drawers.
Barry Flashman
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002
From: "Leigh Solland (on Crow)" solland@telusplanet.net
Subject: Re: R: [Rollei] Omag enlarger.
According to what I found on a web search, Omag was a part of the
Wild-Heerbrugg empire. Here is a page with some details:
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/dedual/wild_heerbrugg/milestones_in_the_story.htm
Leigh
Subject: Re: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?
From: Bob bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002
ArtKramr at
artkramr@aol.com wrote on 7/4/02 5:39 PM:
> BTW, now that you no longer handle Rodenstock
> BTW, now that you no longer handle Rodenstock
What ever makes you think that?
We are still Rodenstock's U.S. Distributor.
Perhaps you are confusing the fact that Dr. Rodenstock had sold the
Rodenstock Precision optical Division (the lens manufacturer) to Linos a
couple of years ago.
That has had no effect on our distribution.
And if I was to pick the absolutely finest enlarging lens, cost no object,
it was the Carl Zeiss S Ortho Planar. But like most of these cost-no-object
lenses this was a microfilm blowback lens which also was used for printed
circuit board prototyping.
But for practical, modern manufacturing for normal range printing - the
Rodenstock Apo Rodagon N series of 45, 50, 75, 90, 105 and 150mm.
But then I am sure you knew that we are the Rodenstock distributor and just
wanted to point out that it got left out of my signature. Thanks for
pointing it out so it is now corrected.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal
Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print
protectors, Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?
...
Actually I nooticed that Rodenstock was missing and thought you gave it up.
And I would never doubt that the superb Carl Zeiss S Ortho Planar is at the
very top of the list. It cost $3,000 the last time I looked, probably more
now. But that was the same price as the Apo El Nikkor. I came close to getting
an S Ortho Planar, but passed it up since I have an Apo-El. Nikkor. I regret
that just a bit. (sigh)
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From camera makers mailing list:
From: "John Cremati" johnjohnc@core.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Computar Lenses
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002
Does your brochure give any specifications as to resolution , lines per
inch, number of elements , ect? The Computars are considered sleepers
because they are a quality lens that you can usually buy very
cheap....There was a write up on them ( I don't remember the magazine }
a number of years ago that made the claim of extremely high resolution,
fully color corrected apo design..........
From what I understand , Most El-Nikkor Lenses are 6 element coated
lenses, made with special optical glass ( even he older chrome models
from the 1970's ) that will pass Ultra Violet light...
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: Manu Schnetzler marsu@earthling.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Negative carriers
> Aren't all the Holga posts getting a....trifle out of hand..
It should be easy enough to filter out or simply delete the message
since "Holga" is in the subject line... :)
To get back on more Hasselblad oriented stuff (well someone might still
say it's OT since I'm talking enlargers...), I have a question. Do those
of you still doing wet darkroom work use a glassless or a glass negative
carrier?
The reason I am asking is that I'm in the middle of reading "Edge of
Darkness" by Barry Thornton (excellent) and a lot of stuff he writes
goes directly against what I've been doing for ages. Regarding carriers,
he says: "If you use a glassless negative carrier, you might just as
well buy the cheapest enlarging lens you can find."
The neg is not kept flat (I did his test of looking at the reflection of
a light in a neg kept in my glassless carrier and he's right, it's far
from flat) and "no lens at any price can bring this non-flat negative
into focus all over its surface simultaneously, no matter how much you
stop down."
And of course stopping down too much brings problems of its own.
Any thoughts/experience?
Manu
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: "Ing. Ragnar Hansen AS" raghans@powertech.no
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Negative carriers
The best is to use tension carriers if you want to avoid glass. These stretch
the negative to keep it flat, but you normally only can use them on larger
enlargers or printers.
Ragnar Hansen
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: Stuart Phillips stuart.phillips@rcn.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Negative carriers
I always learned (read/assumed) that glass carriers are better, but come at
the price of increased problems with dust. I use Meopta Magnifax (Czech -
not very common here but but well known in Europe - Roger Hicks uses them)
and the frame includes a "rangefinder" to line up on the baseboard which is
very convenient - and Nikon glass. It's sharp.
...
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Negative carriers- hardener
Stuart Phillips wrote:
>Can I ask you why you stopped using hardener?
You didn't ask me but I'll put my $.02 in...
My (and my colleagues) experience is that hardener is one of the newton
ring enablers. And newton rings are one of the M-O-S-T frustrating problems
with glass enlarger carriers, anti-newton ring glass be damned!
Jim
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: Manu Schnetzler marsu@earthling.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Negative carriers
Eric wrote:
> small. With 6x6, I think it is pretty flat. Again, it depends. A
> long time ago, when I used to process film with Kodak fixer+hardner,
> my negs were flat as ironing boards. I don't use hardner any more so
> the negs are a bit more pliable.
>
> Are you testing with anything bigger than a 6x6 like a 6x7 or 6x9? A
> 6x6 square is pretty rigid I think.
I'm looking at 6x6. The test is really simple: put a neg in the carrier,
look at the reflection of a light (he suggests a fluorescent tube light
but frankly any light would do) on the shiny side of the negative. I
have a Saunders 670 and the 6x6 carrier is nice and holds the neg very
tight, but the test clearly shows that the neg is far from flat. My
feeling is that it's as flat as it can get given the size of the neg. In
addition, the heat of the enlarger would only make it worse.
A side question to anyone who knows the Saunders and the carriers: what
size is the "Universal Glass Masking Negative Carrier for 670 and 6700
Series Enlargers" and is it anti-Newton? I'm also looking at the
"Anti-Newton Top Glass for Universal Negative Carrier (for 670 and 6700
Series Enlargers)" which might be a better choice (way cheaper too).
manu
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Negative carriers
I have both carriers. But I mainly use my glassless carriers. I have the
largest Peak grain focuser, the one with the very long mirror. This allows
me to move the focuser all around the easel, out to the edges, and check
the focus. I have no flatness problems with my glassless carriers,
regardless of size. 35mm, 35mm slide, 6x6, 6x7, & 4x5. And I print mostly
20x24 prints (20x20 from 6x6). The resultant prints speak for themselves.
No fall off on the edges. The grain sharpness is the same everywhere over
the print. I print at a constant f/8. And use Schneider APO Componon HM lenses.
I occasionally use the glass carrier when I have a problem piece of film.
Occasionally I have something with a big curl, or a kink, or something like
that where a glass carrier is needed to flatten it. Then comes the dreaded
newton ring problems...
I ordered Barry's book... thanks.
But the years have taught me that everyone's darkroom and darkroom
procedures are different. Barry's film may be curled more. His enlarger may
heat-up the negative more. Who knows... All I know is that I don't have
that problem most of the time. When I do, I can see it and I change my
procedure accordingly.
:-)
Jim
Manu Schnetzler wrote:
>To get back on more Hasselblad oriented stuff (well someone might still
>say it's OT since I'm talking enlargers...), I have a question. Do those
>of you still doing wet darkroom work use a glassless or a glass negative
>carrier?
>
>The reason I am asking is that I'm in the middle of reading "Edge of
>Darkness" by Barry Thornton (excellent) and a lot of stuff he writes goes
>directly against what I've been doing for ages. Regarding carriers, he
>says: "If you use a glassless negative carrier, you might just as well buy
>the cheapest enlarging lens you can find."
>
>The neg is not kept flat (I did his test of looking at the reflection of a
>light in a neg kept in my glassless carrier and he's right, it's far from
>flat) and "no lens at any price can bring this non-flat negative into
>focus all over its surface simultaneously, no matter how much you stop down."
>
>And of course stopping down too much brings problems of its own.
>
>Any thoughts/experience?
>
>Manu
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Negative carriers
Manu Schnetzler wrote:
>One remark he makes is that "It isn't glasses wghich attract dust, but
>film! In fact putting it between, or under, glass prevents dust veing
>attracted to its surface by static electricity." (I hope Mr. Thornton
>won't get after me for typing his text...). He suggests a negative ioniser
>in the darkroom to help cut static. Who knows?
>
>manu
Since I've been using a Sharper Image Ionic Breeze in my darkroom, I have
no dust problems. And from my suggestion, there are other darkrooms
(HUGgers, LEGgers, LUGgers, PSers, etc.) now using it and having the same
result. It works!
Jim
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003
From: Philippe Tempel ptempel2000@yahoo.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] RE: hasselblad V1 #1860
I've never tried it, but the Massive Dev Chart (at
http://www.digitaltruth.com/) says EI 100 and 9.5 min
@ 68F (20C) for the 35mm version. No info for the 120
version (but I'd try the same as a start). Why not
try Paterson FX-50? It's easier to mix (comes in
liquid form), can be used in a two bath method and is
also a Vitamin C based developer.
From manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003
From: "R.C.Booth" r.c.booth@att.net
Subject: Re: [SLRMan] "L" adapter for Minolta
Not all enlarger lenses are 39mm - I have a Schneider and El Nikkor that are
25mm (or thereabouts) mount.
...
From: gblank_@bellatlantic.net (Gregory Blank)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Platinum Prints
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003
two23@aol.comSPAMnot (Two23) wrote:
> I know just enough about platinum prints that they last nearly indefinitely,
> have tones like no other process, are contact printed, and are made by hand.
> Can anyone give me a little more info on them, such as cost (from 4x5 neg) and
> what sorts of subjects do well with them? How many here have ever had any
> made? What's the scoop?
> Kent in SD
First you cannot project on to Platinum, you have to contact print.
If you buy a kit from the Formulary,or Bostick & Sullivan it will
run about $95 for ten eight by tens (I seem to remember). You can
print either outside or use a special UV source to expose the contact print.
You"ll need to coat your own paper,.....I have a kit that I have yet to use.
I have however coated POP salted paper using several formula I dug up
and have used precoated POP papers,......I like the idea of getting the
papers pre coated....unfortunately the one supplier of Platinum
precoated paper no longer sells the paper. With
practice one supposedly gets better at hand coating but I think silver
is better to try the technique with intially, as it is way less expensive.
Silver nitrate makes your fingers and skin very black.
--
website{ members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank }
Gregory W. Blank Photography
From: "Norman Worth" nworth@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Platinum Prints
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003
Because of the high cost of platinum, a newcomer may want to hone his skills
on Kallitype or even cyanotype before venturing into the high priced spread.
You can then learn the techniques of making large negatives and contact
printing with home grown sensitive materials without worrying as much about
the budget and the mistakes you will make.
...
From: Tom Ferguson tomf2468@pipeline.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Platinum Prints
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003
Simplified answer: They are made by mixing together a collection of
liquid chemicals and painting the mix onto drawing paper. Once dry you
contact print a large neg using UV light (such as the sun or UV
florescent tubes). Exposure is measure in minutes, not seconds like
modern silver. Much like silver prints they are then developed
(differant chemical than silver), cleared (somewhay similar to fixing)
and washed. One of the "tricks" is that platinum needs a much more
contrasty (higher DR) neg than modern silver.
See here for my alt process tutorials:
http://home.pipeline.com/~tomf2468/downloadsalt.html
See here for Bostic and Sullivan (supplies):
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/
Two23 two23@aol.com wrote:
> I know just enough about platinum prints that they last nearly indefinitely,
> have tones like no other process, are contact printed, and are made by hand.
> Can anyone give me a little more info on them, such as cost (from 4x5 neg) and
> what sorts of subjects do well with them? How many here have ever had any
> made? What's the scoop?
> Kent in SD
From: newsgroups@kerik.com (Kerik)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Platinum Prints
Date: 16 Apr 2003
> Can anyone give me a little more info on them, such as cost (from 4x5 neg) and
> what sorts of subjects do well with them? How many here have ever had any
> made? What's the scoop?
> Kent in SD
Kent,
Platinum printing is not as expensive as it's reputation would make
you think. Materials for a 4x5 print would cost approximately $1.25
to $3.00 depending on what papers you print on, whether or not you buy
your materials in small or large quantities, what your ratio of
palladium to platinum is (many people print with straight palladium -
more for the look than the cost savings).
As far as subjects, I've seen almost anything you can imagine done in
platinum. Landscapes, figure studies, still lifes, portraits all work
very well. Only limited by your imagination, not by the process.
Smaller prints are better suited to closer subjects and details,
rather than grand landscapes.
The scoop is that platinum/palladium printing is fun, relatively
simple once you learn a few techniques and make your negatives
appropriate for the process, and once mastered allows you to produce
incredibly beautiful prints without much effort.
I teach platinum printing and you can find workshop information and
many platinum images on my website.
Kerik Kouklis
www.Kerik.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 5x7 enlarger:180 or 210mm lens
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003
"Harold Clark" ashwood@eagle.ca wrote
> I know this is technically a darkroom question, but as it is specific
> to LF darkroom work I thought I might post it here. I use a Durst 138
> enlarger with dichro head for 5x7. Currently I use a 210 g claron but
> would like to get a "proper" enlarger lens, as the magnification range
> is more appropriate than the 1:1 the g claron is optimized for. For
> large prints, the easel has to be lowered a fair bit below optimum
> working height with the 210. Has anyone compared a 180 and 210
> directly? On the 8x10 enlarger, the difference in light falloff in the
> corners is substantial between a 240 and 300mm lens, although corner
> sharpness is ok with the 240 (rodagon). Also, has anybody noticed any
> difference in performance in the 180-210 focal length between El
> Nikkor, Rodenstock or Schneider? I hear rumors that the Nikkors are a
> bit more crisp, but I don't know if this was determined by testing or
> is just an opinion.
>
> Harold Clark
Theoretically there should be a noticable difference in
light fall off between the two. The best test is to set up
for a full frame print, get the enlarger focused and take
the negative out of holder. Make an exposure for a mid gray
and print on variable contrast paper with the hightes
contrast filter. This will exagerate any uneveness in the
illumination.
210mm is close to the "normal" focal length for 5x7. 180mm
is somewhat shorter. I use a 135mm Componon-S for 4x5 and
must burn in the corners although this lens is only about
0.9 the "normal" focal length. The ratio of 180 to 210 is
slightly greater.
Process lenses will generally show little difference in
performance over a range of about 1:5 to 5:1 and not much
well outside of that. The Claron is a very well corrected
lens and other than speed I am not sure you will get much
better performance from another lens.
A shorter lens is useful where you don't have enough
column height but, if you can use one, a longer lens will
have more even illumination.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "headscratcher@nospamforme.net" headscratcher@nospamforme.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarger leans for 6x6
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003
"jeffworsnop" jeffworsnop@whsmithnet.co.uk wrote:
>I've just taken the first step into MF by buying a Mamiya TLR.
>I now need to get an enlarger lens. The Nikkor f4 50mm works well for me in
>35mm. I see from adverts that Nova Darkroom have a few used Nikkor f4 75mm
>lenses for sale at around o100. Can anyone advise whether this lens will do
>justice to Mamiya glass or offer any advice generally about second hand MF
>enlarger lenses? Thanks in advance for any help.
>Jeff
I'd recommend the El-Nikkor 80mm 5.6 or a Schneider 80mm f5.6. I
haven't used the Nikkor, but some 75mm lenses cannot cover a full
2-1/4 square negative. You could get light fall-off at the corners
should you decide to print the entire negative.
Check the prices on Ebay. Many sellers have this lens in nearly new
condition at very low prices.
headscratcher
From: "Mark A" ma@switchboard.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarger leans for 6x6
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003
> Mark A wrote:
> > I don't rely on anecdotal comments from people in this newsgroup about
> > what negative size a lens covers. That's why I place so much emphasis on
> > the manufacturers specifications, which clearly and unequivocally state
> > that the Schneider only covers up to 6x6.
>
> So from this latest post can we assume your coments here should also be
> considered "anecdotal" since you have yet to post a reliable link to
> anything you've said? :-)
>
> Anyway if that is the case (it barely covers 6X6), I sure will stop
> recomending that lens to anyone as the others would be much more useful!
> Shame no one who knew this "unequivocal" fact bothered to mention it if the
> goal is to inform the consumers..
>
> B&H; lists their newest samples as covering 6X7? Are you talking about the
> old ones or the new ones? Or are they wrong? I thought the chrome componon
> (not the componon-s) f5.6 would cover 6X7 OK? Aren't the newer ones f4.0
> and did the design change any when they did that? I wouldn't think you
> could apply the specs for the f4.0 to the f5.6?
>
> And looking at nikons site I couldn't even find their enlarging lenses
> listed anymore. Since you seem to be sure about all of this stuff, maybe
> you can confirm some of it so we aren't just taking your word on it?
> Stacey
I did not think it was necessary for me to post a link to the official
Schneider web site for specifications on the 80mm f/4, but here it is (from
Schneider Optics USA):
http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/photo_enlarging/componon-s/pdf/componon-s_40_80.pdf
(the above link may split on 2 lines on your email client)
On page 2 of the PDF file it shows the format as 55mm x 55mm. Note that the
actual negative size of 6x6 is 56mm x 56mm, but 55mm is probably close
enough. The negative size of 6x7 is 56mm x 69.5mm (give or take .5mm
depending on who you ask).
Here is a link to a brochure on the Schneider Kreuznach website in Germany.
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/foto/vergroesserung_e.pdf
The information on "recommended negative size" is on page 11 of the PDF
file. This document is also available in German.
I don't know about the manufacturer specs for the "old" chrome versions of
the Schneider 80mm, but I am not sure that the 6x7 format even existed back
when that lens was made.
So I would say that the B&H; information is definitely incorrect if it says
that the Schneider 80mm supports 6x7, and is based on the false assumption
that all enlarging lenses with the same focal length have the same covering
power. One thing that causes these mistakes to be made is that covering
power increases as the aperture size gets smaller, so some people have used
the 80mm Schneider with 6x7 and found it to be satisfactory (probably at
f/11 or f/16).
Thank you for supporting my claim that anecdotal statements (without
specific verification from the manufacturer or the manufacturer's official
marketing company), are not reliable.
With regard to Nikon (El-Nikkor) you are correct that there is no web site
that I have ever seen that has the info. However, there is a printed
document that comes with El-Nikkor lenses that shows the format supported
(and other specs). I have a printed "Instruction Manual" that came with my
80mm f/5.6 that shows specs for the following 6-element "N" series El-Nikkor
lenses: 50mm f/2.8N, 63mm f/2.8, 80mm f/5.6N, and 105mm f/5.6N. The
4-element 50mm f/4 and 75mm f/4 are not included in this printed document. I
have seen El-Nikkor instruction manuals for sale on ebay, or you see it
inside the box of a El-Nikkor lens at your retailer. You might be able to
get this information by contacting Nikon USA.
Information about Rodenstock lenses can be seen at:
http://www.rodenstockoptics.de/pg3.html
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarger leans for 6x6
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003
Mark A wrote:
> I don't know about the Rokkor, but unless you are certain that it is a
> 6-element design, I would pass on it.
The 80mm f5.6 CE Rokkor-X =is= a 6 element design. It's easily the equal of
a f5.6 componon-S with a better build quality. I sold a componon-s after
testing the rokkor.
http://jwhub.xtdnet.nl/mug/mf-lenses.html
> I am always amazed at the number of people who respond to these questions
> who have no idea what they are talking about.
Yep it is amazing people giving advice with no research/knowledge of what
they are talking about isn't it?!...
--
Stacey
From: "Mark A" ma@switchboard.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarger leans for 6x6
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003
> >So when making a recommendation to someone, the big 3 are the most
> >practical recommendations.
>
> Hmm might be why I sugested them first and just added that I personally use
> a rokkor and if they see one for sale, buy it? Then you decided to post
> that the rokkor might be a bad idea when you know absolutly nothing about
> them, then procede to insult the other people posting here?
NO. I said that the Rokkor might be a bad idea UNLESS they knew for sure
whether it was a 6-element design. Given that new Rokkor lenses are not
currently sold in the US (or maybe anywhere), there is not any official
information available about them, such as which ones are 6-element and which
ones are 4-element designs. I am glad that your unofficial web site provides
such information in the unlikely event the original poster finds an 80mm
Rokkor for sale on ebay.
> > I often think that people are just trying to sooth their own ego (with
> > regard to the lens they personally own), rather than offering practical
> > advice for someone looking for a good enlarging lens.
>
> I actually owned a componon-s that came with a later enlarger and sold it as
> it didn't perform as well as the rokkor (rokkor was sharper in the corners,
> especially on 6X7). Given that the rokkor sold for half what I got for the
> schneider (mainly due to people like yourself recomending them) I found the
> rokkor to be a much better deal.
I am very happy for you. If you find a Rokkor 80mm for sale on ebay (for the
person who started this thread), then please let us know.
If you were comparing a Schneider Componon-S 80mm with the Rokkor 80mm (or
other 6-element 80mm lens), you should be advised that according to official
manufacturer specifications the Schneider 80mm does not cover 6x7 (unlike
the Rokkor, EL-Nikkor, and Rodagon 80mm lenses). That would explain the poor
edge performance of the Schneider with 6x7 negatives.
Despite what many believe, there is no direct correlation between focal
length and covering power (image circle) on enlarging (or taking) lenses.
This is not just a matter of "conservative" ratings by Schneider. For
example, the Schneider 100mm lens covers 6x9, while EL-Nikkor and Radagon
use a 105mm focal length for that size negative.
> Seems to me your coment about "I am always amazed at the number of people
> who respond to these questions who have no idea what they are talking
> about." was for what purpose other than boosting your own ego?
> Stacey
My comment was not in response to your post (as I have already explained). I
was referring to other people in the thread who were recommending the
El-Nikkor 75mm enlarging lens (and other 4 element designs), apparently
without knowing that they are inferior to the 6-element designs. The typical
difference in price on ebay between the El-Nikkor 75mm (4 elements) and the
El Nikkor 80mm (6 elements) is usually quite small, which reinforces my
point that not many people understand the difference in quality between
them.
I post as an anonymous name and have not interest in boosting my ego.
Rather, my only interest is in helping consumers become well informed so
they can make a knowledgeable purchasing decision.
From: "Mark A" ma@switchboard.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarger leans for 6x6
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003
"jeffworsnop" jeffworsnop@whsmithnet.co.uk wrote
> I've just taken the first step into MF by buying a Mamiya TLR.
> I now need to get an enlarger lens. The Nikkor f4 50mm works well for me in
> 35mm. I see from adverts that Nova Darkroom have a few used Nikkor f4 75mm
> lenses for sale at around o100. Can anyone advise whether this lens will do
> justice to Mamiya glass or offer any advice generally about second hand MF
> enlarger lenses? Thanks in advance for any help.
> Jeff
The 75mm El Nikkor is 4-element lens that is not of particularly good
design. The same is true of most Schneider and Rodenstock 75mm lenses.
What you want is a good quality 6-element design like the El-Nikkor 80mm,
Rodenstock Rodagon 80mm, or Schneider Componon-S 80mm. These lenses usually
sell for about $75 USD on Ebay in good condition.
I don't know about the Rokkor, but unless you are certain that it is a
6-element design, I would pass on it.
I am always amazed at the number of people who respond to these questions
who have no idea what they are talking about.
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lenses - yesterday, today and tomorrow
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003
> Bob Monaghan wrote:
>> . . . .
>> the tominon suggestion is a good one; I've got the copal shutter and
>> 105mm (?) lens with it from such a polaroid closeup kit, but didn't get
>> the other lenses, sad to say. So these are probably a good option too.
>
> Hey Bob, any other views about older Polaroid gear? I keep seeing short
> references to some of the older lenses, including some of the three
> element glass designs of the early pack film and roll film cameras. Care
> to comment about the defocus highlights of any, perhaps even the roll film
> types?
I've had good luck with the rodenstock ysarons. I have the 105 and the 75mm
and both work great for close up work. I used the 105 as my 6X9 enlarging
lens for years and when I "upgraded" to a real enlarging lens, couldn't
tell much if any difference.
--
Stacey
From: John Garand Garand_over_50@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarger leans for 6x6
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003
"Mark A" ma@switchboard.net WROTE:
snip
>I freely admitted that I did not know about the Rokker, which is not sold in
>the USA and is very rare here for that reason. Some people who posted on
>this thread do not know the difference between a 4-element and 6-element
>lens and spoke highly about 75mm El-Nikkor, and that is who I was talking
>about.
>
>Maybe there a lots of Rokkors in the EU, but recommending an obscure lens,
>while technically good advice, may not be of much practical benefit.
I don't know the current manuafacture/US import status of the Minolta
enlarging lenses, but they were imported in the past. They do show up
on the used market from time to time and are often undervalued due to
the lack of familiarity. IIRC, I gave $35 USD for an 80mm Rokkor-X
about a year or more ago (mint cosmetics and glass, in the bubble).
From: James Meckley jmeckley@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Regarding lens reversal
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003
Xosni wrote:
> Don Stauffer stauffer@usfamily.net wrote
> > An enlarger lens often makes a successful macro lens, since they are
> > designed for similar conjugate distances to a macro lens.
>
> I thought they are designed to give optimum results with magnification
> ratio around 4:1. That means using it in its normal position (back
> facing film) would perform best at circa 1:4, while reversing it would
> give best results around 4:1 circa.
Most 50mm enlarging lenses are optimized for 10x enlargement. In the
Schneider Componon-S line for example, lenses 80mm and below are
optimized for 10x and lenses 100mm and above are optimized for 4-6x.
James Meckley
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl
Newsgroups: sci.optics,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Regarding lens reversal
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003
Don Stauffer wrote:
> An enlarger lens often makes a successful macro lens, since they are
> designed for similar conjugate distances to a macro lens.
In an enlarger the distance film-lens usually is lots smaller than the
distance lens-paper. Very similar to camera lenses in normal use.
Not very similar to the almost-equal-conjugates, or even reverse-conjugate
situations encountered in macro work. So even enlarger lenses need to be
used reversed in macro work, same as normal camera lenses.
The thing that makes enlarger lenses good macro lenses is something else,
i.e. that they are optimized to have a good flat field.
[Ed. note: tip on finding a low cost high quality lens...]
From: "David Ruether" rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.darkroom
Subject: Re: Vivitar VHE 135mm
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003
"Boo" no@no.com wrote
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=2974152006
This lens basically is the Schneider Componon S, which is
excellent. Vivitar added external barrel parts, but optically,
there is no difference, making these a bargain...
--
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: Denis Pleic [dpleic@open.hr]
Sent: Thu 1/22/2004
To: Monaghan, Robert
Subject: Possible link for your Medium Format site
Hi Robert,
I'd like to propose another link for your Medium Format mega site.
I've done a few Web pages dealing with my DIY projects, which were
mostly inspired by the articles from your site.
I've got three pages, dealing with:
1) Using Palm Pilot in the darkroom to drive the enlarger, in
conjunction with freeware program "Foto Timer", resulting in
"computerized" exposure control of prints;
2) Lens hacks for 2x3 Speed Graphic: adapting a Rolleiflex Xenotar
80/2.8 and another barrel "long focus" lens for the Speed Graphic;
3) DIY shuter speed tester - done from the scheme mentioned on your
pages.
All pages are illustrated, and the "Speed Graphic Lens Hacks" also
has sample photos taken with those "hacked" lens.
Finally, the link is:
http://open.hr/~dpleic/photo/photo.html
Regards,
Denis Pleic
[Ed. note: no doubt this enlarger was sold long before you read this! just fyi...]
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003
From: Ted tedburford@yahoo.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] 5X7 Elwood enlarger
I have a 5X7 Elwood enlarger that needs a good home. I do not want to
have to ship it, but I only want $30.00 for it.
Ted in Tacoma Wa. 98465
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 135 mm or 150 mm Schneider enlarging lens 4 x5 ?
Date: 7 May 2004
exproducer@aol.com (EXPRODUCER) wrote
> To All:
>
> Have seen varying degrees of opinion first, if millimeter size of lens between
> 135 mm or 150 mm enlarging lens have any distinct advantage/disadvantage over
> one another for printing 20 x 24 in B & W printing?
>
> Second, any distinct advantage/disadvantage to go 135 mm or 150 mm in choice of
> Schneider Componon-S or Schneider APO-Componon-HM in B & W 20 x 24 printing?
>
> Thanks ahead to all
>
> Jack Eyler
150mm is the "normal" focal length for 4x5. The "normal" FL for a
format is ususlly the diagonal. A 135mm lens is a "wide angle" lens
for enlarging, allowing larger baseboard images for the same enlarger
height, it is mainly advantageous where the column height is limited.
The greatest difference between the two is fall off of
illumination. The narrower the required coverage the less the fall off
will be. If you can make your large prints with the longer lens do so.
In fact, if I had the capability of having a long enough throw I would
use about an 210mm lens for 4x5 because of the improved illumination.
The 135mm will do but you will probably find you mist burn in the
corners. I use a 135mm lens and do this routinely except where I've
had to crop a lot.
For very large prints, and I think 20x24 is getting there, you
might also check the optimum magnification of the lens. Most modern
top of the line enlarging lenses specify the magnification range they
are optimised for. The difference in image quality is not large but a
lens which is optimised at the magnification you will be using will be
able to use larger stops for the same quality. This may be significant
where large prints are made since light at the easel may be marginal.
AFAIK, none of the current crop of "apo" enlarging lenses is a true
apochromat. They are acromats (corrected for two colors) of a very
high degree of correction. Despite the fact that B&W; papers are either
blue sensitive (fixed grade) or orthochromatic (variable contrast) the
correction of apo lenses still tends to be better than cheaper lenses.
There is also the issue of visual vs: photographic focus. This is
likely to be closer as the chromatic correction of the lens is
improved.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: Image area of 5x7?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004
Bob G bobjames27@aol.com wrote:
> It's roughly 4 and 5.5/8 by 6 and 5.5/8 square inches.
>
> The diagonal is 8+ inches long (use Pythagoras), so forget about converting
> your enlarger to 5x7.
>
> Beseler and Omega enlargers are already pretty bad enough handling 4x5 --
> corners are never too sharp or properly illuminated.
I've got an older Beseler. Last time I talked to Beseler they told me
none of the current 4x5 light sources are big enough for my 4x5. They'd fall
down the mounting hole without some sort of adaptor-) They sell an 8x10
upgrade kit but it's about $3k. The upgrade kit is what's got me wondering
about trying to fit a larger light source.
Thanks
Nick
From: bobjames27@aol.com (Bob G)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 26 Jul 2004
Subject: Re: Image area of 5x7?
> What is the image area of a 5x7 negative? I assume it varies a
>little with the holder but I'd love a rough idea. I'm trying to figure out
>if I have any chance converting a 4x5 enlarger to 5x7. The throat opening at
>the negative stage is only 7" in diameter.
It's roughly 4 and 5.5/8 by 6 and 5.5/8 square inches.
The diagonal is 8+ inches long (use Pythagoras), so forget about converting
your enlarger to 5x7.
Beseler and Omega enlargers are already pretty bad enough handling 4x5 --
corners are never too sharp or properly illuminated.
To do justice to 4x5 you need a 5x7 enlarger and a decent lens, or perhaps one
of the expensive variable contrast cold light 4x5 heads.
For 5x7 you need...
Cheers,
Bob G
From RF mailing list:
From: rflist@cameraquest.org on behalf of Jeffery Smith
Sent: Mon 7/12/2004
To: RFLIST
Subject: Re: [Rflist] Fun with Neopan 1600
The late Fred Picker (in his book "The Fine Print" claimed that he could not get a good black tone
from Kodak papers, and suggested that people (1) use Ilford, and (2) tone it to make the blacks look
even darker (I'm not sure which tone, though. Maybe selenium?). Ilford came out with a new paper
named Galerie that claimed to have even more silver in it.
Jeffery
...
From RF mailing list:
From: rflist@cameraquest.org on behalf of Jeffery Smith
Sent: Mon 7/12/2004
To: 'RFLIST
Subject: RE: [Rflist] Fun with Neopan 1600
Back during the silver problem a few decades ago, Kodak got the
reputation of being frugal in the silver content of their papers. I
switched to Ilford back then and even used Chinese "Seagull" paper
instead of Kodak. I just never went back to Kodak when Ilford had a
comparable product.
Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA
...
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4 x 5 Tri-X tray development
From: Louie Powell lpowell1@nycap.rr.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
"Matt Ashbrook" ash13brook@comcast.net wrote
> When tray developing Tri-X, what size tray, what quantity of
> developer, and how many sheets at one time is recommended. I'll be
> using HC-110 dil B or D-76.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt A.
Matt:
I use trays for 4x5 - and find that 6 is about the largest number of
sheets that I want to do at a time. I've done more, but I'm more
comfortable with six or fewer.
Its generally recommended that you use trays that are larger than the film
sixe. I use 5x7 trays for my entire processing sequence. I've tried 4x5
trays - that's OK for a single sheet, but it's too hard to life a sheet
out for agitation if you are doing multiple sheets in small trays. I've
also used 8x10 trays - but I prefer 5x7 since the sheets don't "wander
around" in the tray and instead remain in a fairly neat stack.
My darkroom was calibrated for 35mm using a Durst tank. So I have a
graduate that I've marked for the amount of HC110 concentrate (the stock
concentrate, not the syrup)for one or two rolls of 35mm in dilution B. If
I'm doing only one or two sheets, I will mix up a "one roll" batch of
HC110. Otherwise, I mix up a "two roll" batch. Not scientific, but it
works for me. Obviously, I use the developer as a one-shot.
I always presoak my film, and I believe that is a critical stap. I remove
the film from the holders and place it in a spare box for holding while I
mix the chemicals. Then, with the lights off, I transfer sheets, one at a
time, into the presoak bath and agitate for 15 - 20 seconds. It is
critical to get each sheet thoroughly wetted before adding another sheet
to the stack. If this is not done properly, the sheets will stick
together (ruining the film). Incidentally, the risk of ruined film is
another reason to limit the number of sheets processed at a time - its
call risk management!
I process face down. This is a controversial point - but my experience is
that the greatest risk of scratching film comes when you add a sheet to
the stack - the leading edge of the film will scratch the sheet below it
if the emulsion is face up. But if the emulsion is face down (asuming
that the bottom of the tray does not have any burrs that can scratch),
then the risk of scratching is minimal (but not non-existent).
Final point - I always wear latex or vinyl gloves when tray processing.
I've never had an allergy problem, but there's no reason to take
unnecessary chances. Furthermore, gloves minimize the risk of damaging
film (fingernails are sharp!).
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4 x 5 Tri-X tray development
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004
"Matt Ashbrook" ash13brook@comcast.net wrote
> When tray developing Tri-X, what size tray, what quantity of developer, and
> how many sheets at one time is recommended. I'll be using HC-110 dil B or D-76.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt A.
A good rule of thumb for sheet film is to use at minimum an
8x10 for sizes up to 5x7 and at least the next larger size
tray for larger film.
For single sheets you don't need much developer but if
you are shuffling several sheets there should be enough
developer to cover the stack well. Tray developing is not
economical of developer. Shuffling takes practice if
scratches and gouges are to be avoided. Some find it easier
to shuffle with the film emulsion side down, however, that
increases the chance of trapping bubbles. Which ever way you
place the film it should be put into the solution by sliding
it in sideways with a smooth motion, that will help keep
from trapping air under the sheets. Large trays give you
enough room to shuffle gently.
The number of sheets you can do depends on how good you
are at shuffling. I can do about six sheets but this is not
one of my talents.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: My first use of my 11x14 Seneca --I'm impressed with that "BIG" negative!!
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004
"Jos. Burke" josburke@bellsouth.net wrote
> Just a few thoughts on my first shots with my 11x14 Seneca. I just set the
> camera up and snapped (Yea!! Right!) a shot of my two boys in my front yard
> in front of some kinda flowing bush (real botanist--NOT!). I used some 10
> year old EktaPan that was given (20 sheets) to me by a man I purchased my
> Fidelity Elite 11x14 holder (nice film holder!) from. Sure was easy to focus
> that 11x14 GG--I really was shocked at that!! I processed the film last
> night in my Jobo Paper tube in Rodinal 1:50 (Grain is not a facor here!!).
> Both negative(s) look great (exposure- processing and sharpness) but I'm yet
> to make the contacts to confirm. I processed, stopped and fixed in the tube
> and cleared/washed in a processing tray. I have a couple of 11x14 film
> hangers but I found the neg. really hard to handle still. So floppy even in
> the hanger to dry. Any suggestions on easier handling? I know I've got a few
> fingerprints on one to clear. I'll make my contacts later today
> (dark/evening---my darkroom is a little darker at night if you know what I
> mean!!)
> Yes!! I'm rather elated at the whole process and even if my first efforts
> fail to impress anyone else (not my intention anyway!), that big 11x14 inch
> negative really impresses me!!
> J Burke
Drying in film hangers is not a good idea even when they
are used for processing. Water tends to get trapped in the
grooves and to tear down the film during drying leaving
streaks. Spring clothes pins work fine, or X-ray film
hangers, which clip the corners of the film. X-ray clips are
more secure but leave little holes in the film.
I work with film up to 8x10 and use clothes pins, one at
a corner to hang it and another at the opposite corner to
keep it flat and to act as a drain. I also hang large RC
prints using clothes pins.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Fun with a press camera
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004
"Gary Beasley" beasleyglb@mindspringnospam.com wrote
> marsgal42@hotmail.com (Laura Halliday) wrote:
> >
> >I've never tried shooting colour LF, but I have a package
> >of 4x5 Velvia 100 in the fridge that I really must do
> >something with some time. I've had good results doing
> >my own E-6 processing with roll film, just need to
> >figure a way to keep the temperature right when I do
> >it in trays. The hard way, I know. :-)
> >Laura Halliday
>
> Look into a Nikor Sheet film tank. Theres some on Ebay right now.
> usually go for around $80 - $100 but they are great for that kind of
> work.
The Nikor is an outstanding tank for sheet film.
Unfortunately, they have become very expensive. If you look
at one make sure that: 1, the cap and lid fit the tank (true
of all Nikor tanks, the caps and lids were individually
fitted); 2, check that the spring strip film retainer is not
missing. This is a saw-tooth shaped strip which goes around
the center of the cage and holds the film in. They are often
missign. While a large rubber band will serve its better to
have the complete tank. I agitate mine for 10 seconds once a
minute. I get surge marks if I agitate 5 seconds every 30
seconds as with roll film tanks.
There are other sheet film tanks available. The only one
to avoid entirely is the Yankee tank. Pretty bad for B&W; and
useless for color. Patterson and Jobo both make good sheet
film tanks.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hidden costs in medium format?
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004
Laura Halliday wrote:
> Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote
>> But the OP was complaining about costs! Prints from chromes have never
>> been the cheap way to get prints and sometimes trying to print a certain
>> chrome on ilfochrome paper can be a nightmare.
>
> Try reading the post *I* was responding to, which had
> raised a side issue.
>
> At the cost I pay for Ilfochrome paper and P30 chemistry
> locally, I can do 20 to 25 prints for the cost of one
> of the original poster's scans.
But you obviously own a darkroom, I doubt the OP does..
>
> Is that not cheap enough?
>
After you've set up a darkroom and if you consider your time worth nothing I
supose. :-) I've done ilfochromes at home and know how long it takes to get
a good one done. Printing from print film is MUCH easier to do and 1/3 the
price if not less than that!
100 sheets of paper is $80
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=24913&is;=REG
Chemistry to do the above type paper is another $40
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=144539&is;=REG
While RA4 is $25 for the chemistry (for the expencive room temp type, the
high temp is half that much..)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=109273&is;=REG
And 100 sheets is $30
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=261890&is;=REG
Plus the chemicals for RA4 aren't anywhere near as toxic as the ilfochrome
stuff is.
--
Stacey
From: Ante ante1@polbox.com
Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Time for a new enlarger?
ANTE
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Do Glass Carriers Affect Sharpness?
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998
Paul Doty pauldoty@gis.net wrote:
>Hi, I'm looking to try using a glass carrier on my
>Beseler 4X5 for 6X7,6X9 because the negatives
>don't stay flat and the other negs on the strip get
>beat
>up. Since the glass is on both sides of the negative
>and
>the image is having to go through it, does it affect
>sharpness or am I splitting hairs?
> Thanks for any insight you can provide.
>
> Paul Doty pauldoty@gis.net
>
>
If its good quality glass and not too thick it won't affect optical
performance. The important quality is homogeniety, i.e the optical
properties should be uniform througout. The glass in most commercial
negative carriers is selected plate glass is will work just fine.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: brownt@ase.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Do Glass Carriers Affect Sharpness?
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Do Glass Carriers Affect Sharpness?
Date: 11 Apr 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Do Glass Carriers Affect Sharpness?
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998
> Paul Doty
Zane
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Loss of detail in enlargement
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998
jonmor@paston.co.uk (John Moore) wrote:
>I'm pretty delighted with the very high level of detail I can now capture
>with my Yashicamat 124G. But I was looking today (with a very critical eye)
>at a village scene in an 8"x8" print I had done, and noticed a sign on a
>house which was not actually possible to read when looked at through an 8x
>loupe - it was too fuzzy. I assumed this was the limit of resolution of the
>lens or the film, but when I stuck the negative on a lightbox and looked at
>it with the loupe, I found the sign was quite readable, in fact still pin
>sharp (which is frankly amazing, as this was a hand-held shot).
>
>Is this loss of resolution, this fuzziness, a natural and unavoidable
>consequence of enlargements? Or will it vary from lab to lab, depending on
>equipment used? Also, does the absolute resolution vary according to
>whether glossy or lustre paper is used?
>
>
>John
Zane
From: DO1 vpd1@fyiowa.infi.net
[1] Re: Converting old 8 X 10 field camera into enlarger.
Date: Mon Jun 29 1998
fotorand wrote:
>
> I have heard that you can use an 8 x 10 camera for an enlarger, but
> you have to make special modifications. If anybody has any info or
> nows of magazine articles that refer to the subject, I would appreciate
> the help. Thanks Randy Landry
>
> fotorand@gate.net
From: Peter Klosky PKlosky@bdm.com
Subject: Re: announcement URL and photos Re: Hasselblad 35 mmcamera-Reply
Subject: Re: Resolution 6x7 cm vs. 4x5 inch
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998
> I use a glass carrier all the time (Elwood user). I do have to clean the
>glass some and probably more that most do but I have never had Newton rings with
>even the cheapest glass available. I think the key is not to have it really
>smashing the neg.
From: Bresler bresler@oeonline.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Softar on Enlarger
> Noticing previous messages about Softar I and II, I was wondering if
> their effects could be duplicated in the darkroom using a Softar between
> easel and enlarging lens?
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Softar on Enlarger
>Noticing previous messages about Softar I and II, I was wondering if
>their effects could be duplicated in the darkroom using a Softar between
>easel and enlarging lens?
>
>I took some shots for pre-wedding stuff for a young couple. I don't
>think the lady appreciated the fact that the 2.8E and 2.8F that I used
>for the shoot show every one of her facial pores quite sharply! It
>would be nice to be able to apply the softening effect after the fact,
>though I still have to reshoot. I don't have a soft focus filter anyway
>so why do I have to worry! Still what's the verdict? Will this trick
>work?
From: Bob Keene/Karen Shehade kabob@tiac.net
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Rollei] Softar on enlarger
From: Gene Crumpler nikonguy@emji.net
Subject: Response to Beseler 23c Enlarger - Convert to XL
Date: 1999-01-09
From: dandan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
[1] Building an 8x10 enlarger
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999
[Ed. note: This posting reminds us of the common practice in the early
1930's of using the camera's normal lens (e.g., 50mm or 35mm on 35mm
rangefinder or SLR) mounted on an enlarger.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off Topic - Please Excuse
> In Kimngslake's book Lenses in Photography he states that there is
> no reason why an excellent camera lens could not make for an
> excellent enlarging lens. Go for it!
From: Dan Post dwpost@email.msn.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Of Loupes and enlarging with the camera lens!
From: Richard Lahrson tripspud@hooked.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Of Loupes and enlarging with the camera lens!
>I tried to mount the 5cm Elmar on a friend's new Saunders 4x5
> VC enlarge (slaver, drool!) but the collapsible lens will take a special
> board - one with a fairly deep indentation. Will keep trying!
> Dan
From: Mel Brown melbrown@eatel.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] Enlargers
> Good morning to the KO group-
>
> As a change of pace to the recent chat regarding critical focus and depth of
> field I have a question about enlargers.
>
> I have a big old Beseler Model CB7 with a motor driven movement of the
> housing and a built in electronic timer. The thing is awkward as H--- to move
> around and must weigh at least 80 pounds. It was used exclusively for 35mm
> negatives when I got it and has a 1:5.6/135 Schneider-Kreuznach lens. Other
> than a 6X7mm film holder what will I need for a lens. I'm assuming the lens I
> have is best suited for 35mm work but I don't know for sure.
>
> Does anyone know anything about this enlarger? Is it just a big ole outdated
> dog or can it be used to advantage with medium format stuff?
From: KTXD37A@aol.com
Subject: Re: [KOML] Enlargers
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Building an 8x10 enlarger
Date: 9 Feb 1999
From: "R. J. Bender" rjbender@apci.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] Beseler negative carrier
> If this carrier is usable I need to replace a rubber belt that advances the
> negative strip. The belt is approximately 26 < inches long and 1/16 inch in
> diameter. Are these easy to find?
mailto:rjbender@apci.net or
mailto:Mamiya645@aol.com
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~rbender/RS.htm
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" peterk@lucent.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Off Topic - Please Excuse
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Enlarger Followup
>Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>
>> you wrote:
>> >All the info on enlarger has been quite helpful. I did notice a decided
>> >preference for the Beseler 23C series and Beseler and Omega because of used
>> >part availablility. But if I cannot find a used one, the $600 to $760 (B+H
>> >prices, depending Condensor or Dichro) new price is steep for me. What's the
>> >opinion on the 67XL series ($211 to $395)? (all prices without lens; probably
>> >still get the Nikkor or Schneider)
>> >
>> >Bob Bedell
>> >
>> >
>> I'd like to put in a good word for the Omega D2V. These are 4x5
>> enlargers but not that much larger than the 2x3 jobs. There are a lot of
>> them around and prices are reasonable with some shopping. The V indicates
>> that the condenser system has a movable element which allows adjusting the
>> lamphouse to the format (or more correctly the lens focal length). A cold
>> light head is available from Aristo if you prefer one but the standard
>> condenser head does a very fine job.
>> For color this is not the ideal enlarger. Omega made a version with a
>> color head. If you find one you should make sure it is the later dichroic
>> type and not the earlier kind with gelatin filters.
>> Excellent used D2V's go for around $300 or less.
>> The later Omega D-6 is also excellent but hard to find.
>> ----
>> Richard Knoppow
>
>The D2V is the enlarger I use although I recommended the 23c beselar for
>price reasons. Wouldn't the D2V cost twice as much? I believe they are a
>recognized professional standard and are widely sought. I've had several
>people rudely offer me money for mine. But for the amount of 4 by 5 I've
>ended up doing over the past twenty years I could have easily gotten by
>with the 23c.
>It is my impression that the diachronic head will fit on the D2v. I also
>thought the v meant the column was taller. These are all minor fine
>points in the end though.
>Also I have used the condenser quite a bit years back but myself and
>everyone I knew who did so were also quite adept at the pre popping of
>negative technique as glass carriers in our opinion don't work out. Not
>a consideration with cold light.
>It is my opinion that cold light doesn't not make for less dust to
>retouch on a print as is widely thought as a big advantage. That's hype
>as far as I go. I also don't think this collier effect deal with chalky
>highlights holds any weight. I've been able to make matching prints from
>the same neg with both sources. BUT, the cold light won't pop your negs
>and you can easily do the new split printing thing with the variable
>heads and I think this is the printing technique of the future if not
>the present.
>Mark Rabiner
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarger Bulb
Date: 30 Apr 1999 GE made enlarger lamps, label on side and opal glass.
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999
From: JEFF TEICH jteich@mpdr0.chicago.il.ameritech.net
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com
Subject: Re: [KOML] Enlarging lenses
> Carl Wegerer, III wrote:
> I now this may be somewhat off topic for this list, but I need help.
> The newsgroup rec.photo.darkroom provided no responses.
>
> I recently purchased a Omega D-II enlarger with the standard condensor
> setup and an Omegalite cold light. as the normal lens for the camera. I will be
>printing mostly B&W; from my KO or equivilent 6x7cm cameras. I am interested
>in your opinions.
> Carl
> wegerer@flash.net
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999
From: bigler@jsbach.univ-fcomte.fr
Subject: Re: [Rollei] darkroom question, AHEL
> from Bob : ....the Ahel people at one photokina.. Do you know if
> they are still in business?
bigler@lpmo.univ-fcomte.fr
From: dpgrabow@capecod.net (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Low Cost Enlarger
>I may be in the market for an enlarger for my home, but I am not sure
>how "much" enlarger I need. I do only B&W; printing--nothing bigger than
>16x20 (maybe 20x24 someday)--medium format and 35mm.
>
>I keep seeing that Besseler PrintMaker 67 (which I presume means it will
>take negs up to 6x7 in size) that comes with a ton of darkroom supplies.
> It's in the B&H; catalog for a fairly low price compared to the others.
>
>The question: Is this a sufficient enlarger for fairly straight-forward
>B&W; printing? I am not a professional photographer nor do I aspire to
>be one. This is a serious hobby (one which alreayd sops up a ton of
>$$s, so I do want to be careful).
>
>To give you an idea of my general approach--I would probably choose a
>Canon AE-1 over the newest Windows-compatible Nikon F-OneMillion --
>meaning, I am not looking for an enlarger to make coffee for me; I am
>perfectly happy using filters manually, etc. I just don't want to shell
>out money only to find out that I am so limited that I can't even do
>straight forward printing.
>
>THANKS
From: Tom Raymondson rayson@pacific.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Low Cost Enlarger
> IMO your query beckens for the answer, look to 4x5 in an enlarger.
From: MIKE GRACE amazing50@hotmail.com
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Pan roll paper recommendations?
From: Ed Buziak ed.buziak@camera-and-darkroom.co.uk
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: Camera & Darkroom magazine
Camera & Darkroom magazine
http://www.camera-and-darkroom.co.uk
From: "Tom Davis" tomrdavis@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Home Made Enlarger
www.geometer.org
>Greetings...
>
> Does anyone have any info on how to make a home made enlarger. I
>could buy one, but I would like to make one instead. Anyone know of a
>web site that might have such info. TIA.
>
>Larry
>Garland Tx
From: "Al Denelsbeck" denelsbeck@ipassonspam.net
[1] Re: Home Made Enlarger
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Best Reel/Tank for 120/220
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Enlargers for 6x7/6x9 b&w; printing
> Hello ALL,
>
> I am very interested to get any info about Enlargers for
> 6x7/6x9 b&w; printing. Maybe some www-pages?
From: John Sparks sparks@sparks.cos.agilent.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlargers for 6x7/6x9 b&w; printing
>Judging from the info you have found, I'm guessing you're not in the
>US. Here in the US, Beseler's 23C series enlargers have been the
>workhorses in a lot of school darkrooms. There are few enlargers that
>go up to 6x9, unless you want to go really big and get an enlarger that
>handles sheet film.
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlargers for 6x7/6x9 b&w; printing
> I am very interested to get any info about Enlargers for
> 6x7/6x9 b&w; printing. May be some www-pages?
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] [rollei] enlarger lens advice/suggestions
> Hi,
>
> I'm presently using a 105 Nikkor with my 2 1/4 negs & can't enlarge past 8 x
> 8...(My enlarger is pretty basic) I'm thinking of getting a 75mm lens to get
> bigger prints & have the ability to do some cropping. Will this lens work out
> ok (in terms of no vigneting) or am I better off with an 80?
>
> thanks!!
>
> Frederic
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 27 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Converting a 4x5 view camera to an enlarger?
Roy
From: Raymond Copley raycop@bigpond.com
To: "Monaghan, Robert" rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Gordon Hutchings
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT:Fun photo web site
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Filters
> From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] Filters
>
> A lot, if not most, of the Vivitar MF enlarging lenses are made by
> Rodenstock. I use Rodenstock enlarging lenses in MF, Leitz for
> miniature-format work.
From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001
From: "J-2" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph
Subject: Re: Soviet Enlargers
>This is a list of Soviet enlargers, that i have compiled from various handbooks
>and journals (like Sovyetskoye Foto).
>
>Per B.
>
>
>
>U-0, 24X36mm, two condenserelements?,
>
>U-100, 24X36mm, two condenserelements?,
>
>U-200, 24X36mm, two condenserelements?,
>
>U-2, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, to 24X30 cm
>
>Fotak, 24X36mm, two condenserelements
>
>Fotam, 6,5X9cm, two condenserelements, to 24X30cm
>
>Smena-1, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 1,8-8X
>
>Smena-2, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 1,8-8X
>
>Smena-2U5, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2,5-7,5X
>
>Start, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 1,8-8X
>
>Moskva, 24X36mm (6X9??), two condenserelements, 1,8-10X
>
>Yunost, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 1,8-8X
>
>Neva, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2,7-10X
>
>Neva-2M, 6X9cm, two condenserelements, 1,7-4X, filterdrawer
>
>Neva-3M, 6X9cm, two condenserelements, 2,6-11X, with autofocus 2-5X, different
>sets of condensers
>for 35mm and mediumformat, filterdrawer
>
>Neva-4, 6X9cm, two condenserelements, 2,6-11X, different sets of condensers for
>35mm and
>mediumformat, filterdrawer
>
>Luch, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2,7-8X
>
>Leningrad, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2,5-10X
>
>Leningrad 2, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, rangefinder
>
>Leningrad FU 3, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, rangfinder, filters can be
>attached in the
>negativeholder
>
>Leningrad 4, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, filterdrawer
>
>UPA-2, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2,5-9X, store-away, uses special bulbs,
>autofocus
>
>UPA-3, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2,5-8X, store-away, autofocus
>
>UPA-4 (Zenith), 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2,5-8X, store-away, autofocus
>
>UPA-5M, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2,5-8X, store-away , autofocus
(?)
>
>UPA-601, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2,5-8X, store-away, autofocus
>
>UPA-603, 24X36mm, can be used to project slidefilms
>
>UPA-609 (MINI 105), 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2,5-8X, store-away,
>autofocus
>
>UPA-613, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2,5-8X, store-away, autofocus
>
>UPA-715, 24X36mm, mirror-condenser system, -8X, store-away, filterdrawer
>
>UFU, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2-8X, can be used as a slideprojector
>
>Iskra, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, rangefinder
>
>Raketa, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, rangefinder
>
>Raketa 2, 6X9mm, two condenserelements,
>
>Belarus 2, 9X12cm, two condenserelements?, two different sets of condensers,
>0,5-16X (35mm),
>1,5-7X (6X9cm)
>
>Belarus 5, 6X9cm, two condenserelements?, autofocus
>
>Don 110, 24X36mm, mirror-condenser system ,1-10X, rangefinder
>
>Tavriya, 24X36mm, two condenserelements, 2-10X,
>
>--
>The PHOTO page;
>http://hem.fyristorg.com/pbackman
>
From: Martin Jangowski m.jangowski@phoenix-ag.de
Date: Sat Mar 10 2001
[1] Re: enlarger lens test ?
> Is there a way to test enlarger lens as to there resolution at different
> f=stops ? I have an expensive Schneider lens that seems no better that the
> cheap one (also a Schneider) that I used previously.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: enlarger lens test ?
> Is there a way to test enlarger lens as to there resolution at different
> f=stops ? I have an expensive Schneider lens that seems no better that the
> cheap one (also a Schneider) that I used previously.
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001
From: David Morris davidrobertmorris@lineone.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Photographic recipes
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 6x6 negs and enlarger light source
>I am getting ready to enlarge my SL66 negs with an old Omega B22 enlarger.
>Can I expect satisfactory quality from the point light source that came
>with it or should I get an Aristo coldlight head for these large negs??
> Also do folks on this list filter variabe contrast paper below the lens
> or betwen lamp and
>negative stage?
>Thanks,
>Jan
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001
From: S Dimitrov sld@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 6x6 negs and enlarger light source
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001
From: "Stephen J. Dunn" bicycle55@blazenet.net
Subject: [Rollei] Omega enlarger--Harry Taylor
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001
From: S Dimitrov sld@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Omega enlargers - suitability for 6x6
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001
From: Edward Meyers aghalide@panix.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Omega enlargers - suitability for 6x6
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Omega enlargers - suitability for 6x6
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > > I guess it's time for me to comment on the B-22 Omega enlarger.
> > > It was famous for not-so-good coverage of the 6x6 negative.
> > > In their quest to make it small, they made it too small.
> > > Try testing the enlarger by making a gray exposure with the
> > > neg carrier in but no negative in it. Check out the uneven
> > > coverage, and then live with it. Makes a really good 35mm
> > > enlarger. Ed
> >
> > Agreed. The D2 is my favorite choice of B&W; enlargers. One with steel
> > rails...NOT the aluminum ones...which scallop...
> >
> >
> Somewhere in my vast files I have the instructions for realigning
> the D-2, as it often goes out of alignment, especially if you
> forget, and drop the condensor head onto the negative carrier,
> instead of lowering it slowly.
> This is why I use the Durst M700 enalrger. It cannot go out of
> alignment as the thing is machined, or whatever. The Omega people
> used screws to adjust and hold them in place. Doing alignment
> might mean using a mallot and bashing it into place, then
> tightening the screws again.
> There's a guy in Conn. who rebuilds Omega enlargers. He machines
> parts and makes them like new. If I find his name I'll post it.
> Ed
http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Omega enlargers - suitability for 6x6
Harry Taylor
Classic Enlargers
145 Jeanne Ct.
Stamford, CT 06903
203 329 9228
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] [OT] colour darkroom tips
From Rangefinder Mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001
From: Mike Johnston d76121@voyager.net
Subject: Re: Cold light heads
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Tessar vs. Planar
>Hi Rug,
>
>I'm probably really asking for it, but here goes. I recently started
>doing my own printing at a local adult school. This is more fun than
>is usually allowed by law. In doing this I have found myself wondering
>if my Automat mx with coated Tessar could be a little sharper. I have
>been blowing up some portraits that I did pretty carefully with tripod
>and cable release, using TMX and Rodinal, and shooting at f11. At 11 x
>14 there is a definite loss of fine detail. Would a planar or Xenotar
>be likely to noticeably improve on this? Keep in mind, I think these
>are pretty good pictures. One of my classmates is printing some similar
>shots taken with her megabucks Nikon using Tech Pan(!), and my shots
>compare very well for fine detail rendering. But it looks like her
>Nikon optics and superfilm are overcoming her format size disadvantage.
>Opinions?
>
>Gene Johnson
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
From: William Nettles nettles@wgn.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #162 - 6 msgs
nettles@wgn.net
Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
From: Rick Dingus rick.dingus@TTU.EDU
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] 4x5 enlarger - building yur own
rick.dingus@ttu.edu
> From: david davo@mitmania.net.au
> Reply-To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
> Subject: [Cameramakers] 4x5 enlarger - building yur own
>
> Has anyone on the list had experience with building their ownenalrger
> for large format work - I coul use some plans or just advice.
> David Oliver
> Bowral
> Australia
From: "maf" mfeldman@qwest.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.mediumformat
Subject: Re: Enlarger Lens for 6x7
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001
The minimum you will need is 80mm. You can go up to 105mm with some loss of
maximum enlargement capability on your baseboard. Some 6x7 enlargers may
have problems with the 105mm lens.
The only 80mm lenses that I would recommend (besides APO lenses that are not
cost effective for most purposes) are the following:
Schneider Componon-s f/5.6 80mm
El-Nikkor f/5.6 80mm
Rodenstock Rodagon-n f/5.6 80mm
The El-Nikkor is probably the best bargain, either "used" on ebay or "new"
at B&H; Photo (import version).
"Robert Simpson" rss@clover.net> wrote
> I've decided to take the plunge from 35 mm to medium format and I am going
> to need a new enlarger lens.
>
> I would like recommendations regarding the best focal length for 6x7
format
> negs.
>
> TIA.
>
> -robert
From: bob@hpmarketingcorp.com (Bob Salomon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,
Subject: Re: Enlarger Lens for 6x7
Date: 24 Oct 2001
Stephe Thayer ms_stephe@hotmail.com> wrote > Bob Salomon wrote:
>
> > Max Perl at
> > max_perl@post11.tele.dk wrote on 10/23/01 6:36 PM:
> >
> >> How good is the 60mm Rodagon?
> >> I konw a place where they have one 2nd hand.
> >> It is a 6 lens design I assume?
> >> If is can be used for 6x7 then if must be perfect for 6x6.
> >> It must have quite a big image circle.
> >>
>
> >>
> >>
> > Rodagon WA not 60mm Rodagon. They are 2 different series of lenses.
>
>From the Rodagon WA/Rodagon factory literature at F 8 the 60mm WA has
a half diagonel of 38.6 mm that is an edge to edge coverage of 77.2
mm which more then covers most, if not all, 67 negatives.
Rodenstock is always on the conservative side for coverage but even at
f 4.0 the lens fully covers a 67 for focusing. At 8.0 relative light
fall off at 8x is under 1 stop. Distortion from 4 to 15x at f8 at
38.8mm half diagonal (It grew 0.2MM) is less then -0.5%.
You can use this lens for 67cm.
Would an Apo Rodagon N 80mm, 90mm or 105mm out perform it? Certainly.
But it will give you the most magnification with the shortest column
height if big prints in tight spaces is a requirement.
> from their site:
>
> RODAGON-WA
>
>
>
>
>
> 277.0060.001.040
> 60mm f/4.0
> 6 x 6cm
> 4-15X (8X)
> 55.5mm
> 50.0mm
> M 39 x 1/26"
>
>
> 277.0080.001.040
> 80 mm f/4.0
> 6 x 9cm
> 4-15X (8X)
> 77.0mm
> 50.0mm
> M 39 x 1/26"
>
> the 60 won't cover 6X7
From: "maf" mfeldman@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarger Lens for 6x7
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001
>"Bob Salomon" bob@hpmarketingcorp.com> wrote in message
> From the Rodagon WA/Rodagon factory literature at F 8 the 60mm WA has
> a half diagonel of 38.6 mm that is an edge to edge coverage of 77.2
> mm which more then covers most, if not all, 67 negatives.
>
> Rodenstock is always on the conservative side for coverage but even at
> f 4.0 the lens fully covers a 67 for focusing. At 8.0 relative light
> fall off at 8x is under 1 stop. Distortion from 4 to 15x at f8 at
> 38.8mm half diagonal (It grew 0.2MM) is less then -0.5%.
> You can use this lens for 67cm.
>
> Would an Apo Rodagon N 80mm, 90mm or 105mm out perform it? Certainly.
>
> But it will give you the most magnification with the shortest column
> height if big prints in tight spaces is a requirement.
Bob, the dimensions of my 6x7 negatives are 56mm x 70mm. While there is some
variation in negative size among 6x7 cameras, I don't believe that it is
more than a millimeter or two difference between any of them. The diagonal
of a 56mm x 70mm negative is 89.64mm, far above the 77.2mm that you specify
for edge-to-edge coverage of the 60mm Rodagon-WA. So it appears that the
Rodenstock literature is accurate and the 60mm should be used for a maximum
negative size of 6x6, but not 6x7.
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [Rollei] black and white development
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Jerry Lehrer at jerryleh@pacbell.net wrote:
> Ansel Adams would turn over in his grave if he
> heard some of the suggestions offered.
Well, in his later years AA dried prints in a microwave oven!
Bob
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] M-Componon
Roy Dunn wrote:
>Anyone have any experience of the 50mm or 28mm M-Componon lenses for mac=
ro
>work? What other lenses would folks suggest to stick on the end of the
>bellows/shutter adapter (6000 series) for magnification ratios of 3 to 1=
0?
The standard choices would be either the Leica Photars or the Zeiss
Luminars. Only a couple of the Photars are still available new, but ther=
e
are buckets of both used floating about, and these often appear on e-Bay.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From: David.Clark@Walsworth.com
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Buying enlargers (OT)
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001
The place to shop for enlargers is printers. Lots of printers are getting
rid of enlargers. I have seen 8x10 Durst Laborators given away for nothing
just to free up floor space.
Vacuum frames are another item you can find for little or nothing.
From: "Joe Lacy" jmlacy1@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 105mm f/3.7 Ektar - Heliar
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002
Just for fun today I swapped out my enlarging lens (Rodenstock Rodagon) with
this 105 Ektar. I also have a 100 Componon - S. I can't usually tell the
difference in the Rodagon and the Componon prints but I can say this...that
Heliar may be sharper then both! That little dude is a BLAZINGLY sharp.
Chris Perez sent me an e-mail about this lens and said it resolves at about
100 lpmm at f11 in good cases. That's sharper than Mamiya 7 glass! I didn't
do any "real" tests but you can count the twigs on the twigs on the twigs on
this print. Someday ... I'll get a camera and shoot it . :-)
There's one on ebay for sale BTW, not mine.
Joe
"Joe Lacy" jmlacy1@attbi.com> wrote
> Anyone know anything about this lens?
>
To: "Camera-Fix" camera-fix@yahoogroups.com>
From: "Bob Mazzullo" rmazzullo@si.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001
Subject: [camera-fix] Re: Photo-Flo
Sorry to butt in like this...I haven't seen the whole thread....but I have
never used Photo-Flo from Kodak. When I was younger, "messing
about" in the Ft. Wadsworth Army darkroom (my friends were Army
brats) we were told Palmolive dishwashing liquid was essentially the
same as Photo-Flo. About 5-10 drops per 1/2 gallon made usable solution
for tank developing. In the 30 years since, it has never failed me, left any marks,
residue, or any type of ill-effects on my film (B&W;). You can imagine how long
a quart bottle of dishwashing liquid lasts, diluted 10 drops per half gallon.....
as well as how much $ I saved......
Thanks,
Bob Mazzullo
Staten Island, New York
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT cold mirrors in color enlarger heads, DURST
you wrote:
>"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
>>
>> Mark Rabiner wrote:
>>
>> > I always wonder about all this because sooner or later the light is
>> > going to be focused on the negative and the heat issue is right there as
>> > to if the neg is going to pop or not.
>>
>> The light is not going to be focussed on the negative.
>> If it were focussed on the film, the negative would not pop but melt away
>> real quick, despite dichro=EFc mirrors. ;-)
>
>You're right, not focused on the negative unless it is a condenser
>system. You could call it that on that one.
>
>But it's gotta PASS THROUGH the neg sooner or later
> or i really am missing something! :)
>
>Mark Rabiner
>Portland, Oregon USA
>http://www.markrabiner.com
In a condenser system the light is focused on the entrance pupil of the
lens.
Common condenser enlargeres are actually partially diffusing. The light
source is a large diffuse lamp. This has the advantage of making condenser
focus much less critical than it would be where a point source of some sort
was used. Further, the effects of the light are somewhere between those of
a true diffusing source and a truely collimated light source.
True point source condenser systems are made for enlargers. They are used
for special purposes where the utmost in edge contrast and resolution are
needed, such as enlarging from microfilm or making photo murals. They bring
out negative blemishes too much for routine use without offering any real
advantage.
A true colimated source requires that the condenser be focused rather
precisely every time focus or magnification is changed. Also, because the
source is focused inside the lens, the iris no longer functions to control
the brightness of the image. Stopping down only increases diffraction. In a
true collimated source system the lens is used wide open and intensity
varied in some other way.
So called cold light lamps are actually fluorescent lamps. They like to
run hot. The light output of a gas discharge lamp varies with its
temperature so where the lamp is run intermittently, as it is in most
cold-light enlargers, a heater is supplied to keep the lamp temperature up.
The heater may cause popping but it will stabilize the negative position
since the popping will happen before exposure. Obviously, the same thing
will happen in any enlarger where the lamp is allowed to burn continuously
and exposure controlled by a shutter. The old Saltzman enlargers were
arranged this way since they used Cooper-Hewett mercury lamps as a source.
This type of lamp can not be operated intermittently so a shutter, a
variation of a Packard shutter, was mounted on a post in front of the lens.
This is not a bad technique where one wants to avoid blurring from
negative motion but doesn't have or want to use a glass sandwich carrier.
The negative is allowed to heat up and pop before the exposure.
Dichroic filters on the lamp prevent excessive heat from reaching the
negative and may also remove enough IR to avoid problems with some color
materials which are sensitive to it (it can throw off color balance) but
probably do not remove enough heat to prevent negative popping. The only
sure cure for that is a glass carrier.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Re: LTM for enlarger
I have used the following on my Beseler 23C II enlarger:
2/5cm CZJ Sonnar T, rigid
2/50 Jupiter-8
1.5/5cm CZJ Sonnar T, rigid
1.5/50 Jupiter-3 (both an early chrome and late black one)
2/8.5cm CZJ Sonnar T
2/85 Jupiter-9
All performed more than adequately. The 2/8.5cm CZJ Sonnar T was
especially useful with really dense MF negatives.
I normally use a 2.8/50 Rodenstock APO-Rodagon and a 4/80 Beseler-HD
(Rodagon) on my Beseler and a Leitz 2.8/40 Focotar-WA on my Leitz V-35.
(Yes, I will be upgrading the 4/80 to an APO-Rodagon or APO-Componon or
the like, as soon as a cheap one pops up on e-Bay, and I'll be upgrading
the Focotar to a 2.8/40 or 4/45 APO-Componon when the same condition
applies!)
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: LTM for enlarger
I agree. Camera lenses, generally speaking, make awful enlarging lenses.
Macro lenses are an exception.
Light falloff and field flatness are separate properties, though, and not
necessarily related.
Bob
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: Which lens to replace Focotar?
I have and use the Schneider 40mm APO Componon HM lens and it is the best
short enlarging lens I have ever had!!! And I've had a lot over fifty
years. I bought it several years ago when Schneider was giving a $50
rebate on their APO enlarging lenses. I actually bought the 40, 90, & 150
APO Componon HM lenses. These lenses are unbelievable!!! Not too long ago
Erwin (I believe I remember correctly) endorsed the 40 as the best he has
used.
Jim
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Jobo processors
I had one of the big Jobo processors, maybe CPA-2, not sure. I used
it for more than ten years and was always happy. (If you didn't get
the Jobo Lift, add one. It makes the work so much more convenient.)
I just wasn't using mine enough so I sold it on eBay something like a
year ago, and got every penny I had paid for it back!!!
I now have a Jobo automated film processor, ATL-1000, that I use
for all my film processing. Absolutely reliable, and produces the
most uniform negatives you can imagine.
I think Jobo makes really good equipment.
Bob
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
From: ShadCat11@aol.com
Subject: Re: RE: [Rollei] O.T. cold light head or condenser
Dr. Henry plotted curves and also printed sample photographs. He did not say
there were no differences in those prints between the two light sources, but
that they were perceived subjectively. As I recall, when asked their
preferences between one or the other, his viewers polled almost evenly
between them, slightly in favor of the condensor results, but statistically
insignificant. His own opinion was weighted sometimes in favor of one or the
other, but that often reversed when viewing them again. My understanding of
his conclusions were that there wasn't enough of a difference to declare a
clear "winner."
you wrote:
> Dr. Henry did insist that he had proved there was absolutely no difference
> between cold light and condenser enlargers in terms of print quality.
Then how come no one I know that has a cold light, or that sees cold light
prints next to each other believes that? Me either...