Duh?

Discussion in 'Enlarging' started by Pfiltz, Jan 8, 2013.

  1. Pfiltz

    Pfiltz Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Location:
    NW TN. USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    So far, I usually just print the full 4x5 neg. Today, I developed a neg that was shot in Florida late last year. I saw this BIG yellow/black field spider just chill'n out. So I print the full neg, which shows the background and the spider, but the spider is kind of small relative to the over all shot.

    For what ever reason, I think Hey. Crank up this enlarger to as high as it will go, and print the spider BIGGER :smile:

    Now I have something else to keep my eye on. Really cranking in on some of my negs to fill the print with something possibly special -vs- just printing the whole neg.. I've never thought about "zooming" in on a neg for a different perspective.

    Just too cool.
     
  2. horacekenneth

    horacekenneth Member

    Messages:
    439
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Location:
    MD
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    yeah it is
     
  3. horacekenneth

    horacekenneth Member

    Messages:
    439
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Location:
    MD
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I want to see it
     
  4. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,473
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Use your 50mm lens and really zoom in on a small detail!
     
  5. Pfiltz

    Pfiltz Member

    Messages:
    176
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Location:
    NW TN. USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ahhh, didn't even think of that. There's so much of this, that I still don't know, or even think of.

    Weird... I us a 135mm lens on my Beseler, and printed at 20 sec@f32 and got a nice looking print. So, I tried my 90mm, because I didn't have a 50, and I had to expose it for 2 minutes at f22, using the same 3.5 filter I've been using for contrast.

    Why the big difference in time?

    BTW, here is the full neg version

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2013
  6. E. von Hoegh

    E. von Hoegh Member

    Messages:
    3,925
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Location:
    Adirondacks
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Because you're taking less light (smaller section of negative) and spreading it over the same size print.
     
  7. David Brown

    David Brown Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,597
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That's why the head on your enlarger is adjustable ...
     
  8. L Gebhardt

    L Gebhardt Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,769
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Location:
    NH
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    There should be no difference between the 90mm and the 135mm if the image on the easel is the same size and the aperture is also the same. That's true for a diffusion enlarger. I don't know how it works with a condenser. My guess would be you didn't switch condensers when you switched lens, but that's just a guess.

    But in either case you will get much sharper results if you don't stop down so far. Try f/11 or f/8. If your enlarger is aligned you don't need much depth of field.
     
  9. polyglot

    polyglot Member

    Messages:
    3,472
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    South Austra
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The time got longer because you made the image larger - effectively you had more bellows-factor, except in this case the "bellows" is the gap between enlarger lens and paper. Or stated alternately, you had to get the same amount of light from a much smaller part of the negative, so it took longer.
     
  10. ROL

    ROL Member

    Messages:
    792
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format