Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,827   Posts: 1,582,084   Online: 921
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    Jon Shiu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Elk, California
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    2,593
    Images
    33
    Some 50mm El Nikkors have a 10mm removable extension tube on the back, meant to be used with a turret.

    Otherwise, you should be able to focus fine with the head halfway up the column?

    Jon
    Mendocino Coast Black and White Photography: www.jonshiu.com

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    142
    Images
    4
    Take some photos of the enlarger and post them. Someone will have an easy solution to your problem.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    13
    OK if these show up correctly they were taken with an 8x12 image in focus (just a random size). The right side focus knob is off of it in the pic because I am fixing it. The first pic is the S.K. 50mm F4 next to the El-Nikkor N 50mm F2.8 just to show you the size difference and why the Nikkor was originally hitting the filter tray by half the height of a lens boards thickness. All parts involved except the lenses are Beseler brand.

    We seem to have established that what I have going on is not correct (repeatedly) but if someone that actually has a 23c II could take a 50mm lens with the enlarger set for 35mm and get an 8x12 image in focus to show me how much the lower bellows is supposed to be compressed that would be helpful.
    If these pictures are not good enough or do not show what you need please tell me what you require.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	lenses.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	44.9 KB 
ID:	79231

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	enlarger1.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	43.3 KB 
ID:	79232

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	enlarger2.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	41.7 KB 
ID:	79233

  4. #14
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,564
    Images
    46
    This is how it measures for my enlarger, and I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for any other enlarger on earth...

    From the Easel to the Negative Carrier, about 21 1/4 inches.

    From the Easel to the Lens Board, about 18 3/4 inches.

    The difference is a couple inches which should be room for the bellows to expand a little.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    13
    OK cool, I have about: (hard to measure lens board super accurate from underneath)
    21 1/2 to the center of the negative carrier
    19 3/4 to the lens board

    If I use the S.K. 50mm it makes the lens board about 1/4" lower in height or so which is about the height difference between the two lenses if you look at the pics so that makes sense.

    Assuming that was an 8x12 image from a 35mm negative where am I losing a whole inch? Focusing is universal math last I checked. An inch would be all I would need to uncompress the bellows.
    I have seen this same topic in a number of other threads on the net so it doesn't seem to be unique to me but common to 50mm and the 23c II though I still don't have a clue whats wrong.

  6. #16
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Page County, IA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,499
    Images
    47
    If you say where you are, maybe there's an APUGer not too far away who'd be able to look at it?

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    13
    Middle of nowhere central Wisconsin, but the problem is the 23c is super simple, there's not really anything to adjust that I can think of that would allow the same focus with the lens and film farther apart, seems to be a fixed bit of math to have film, lens and easel a certain distance apart to be in focus.
    Until I hear differently from someone with the same unit, this is just how it is with a 50mm lens for 35mm film I think, the cadet is actually the 35mm unit from Beseler and like I said the 23c was apparently designed for medium format with an 80mm or so lens which would put the focus point right smack in the middle of the adjustment range.

  8. #18
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,564
    Images
    46
    Is everything square? One of your photographs looks like the negative carrier is not true, but it could be an illusion.

    What if you hold the lens loose out in space... If you get the same differences, where you lose a whole inch compared to me, maybe you have a lens with a defect. Is there any evidence of tampering? Maybe the previous owner took it apart to clean it and put it back together wrong.

  9. #19
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,918
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by PPPPPP42 View Post
    Middle of nowhere central Wisconsin, but the problem is the 23c is super simple, there's not really anything to adjust that I can think of that would allow the same focus with the lens and film farther apart, seems to be a fixed bit of math to have film, lens and easel a certain distance apart to be in focus.
    Until I hear differently from someone with the same unit, this is just how it is with a 50mm lens for 35mm film I think, the cadet is actually the 35mm unit from Beseler and like I said the 23c was apparently designed for medium format with an 80mm or so lens which would put the focus point right smack in the middle of the adjustment range.
    There are thousands and thousands of Beseler 23C enlargers that have been used regularly (if not almost exclusively) for 35mm film in school and other darkrooms.

    While I've never owned a 23C enlarger, I have used a few in my time with a variety of formats, including 35mm. And I used a Beseler 67C for 35mm for decades.

    I've never had a problem using either version with 35mm. They are designed for use with 35mm.

    There should be more than 2 inches (50 mm) between the centre of the 50mm lens and the negative. If not, there is something wrong with either the negative stage or the lens stage.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  10. #20
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,564
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    There should be more than 2 inches (50 mm) between the centre of the 50mm lens and the negative. If not, there is something wrong with either the negative stage or the lens stage.
    I'm thinking lens. Maybe a botched cleaning job.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin