Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,859   Posts: 1,583,126   Online: 845
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    dphphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Knoxville, TN 37931 USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    349
    Images
    27
    Chris: I've never heard of this enlarger before, but it looks 1st rate.
    I used to work at Meteor Photo (now owned by Photobition) outside Detroit back in the '70's. They had an analyser/translator system with a standard exposure time of 2.5 seconds for commercial color enlarging with Chromega 4X5 enlargers. Yes, that's custom printing, and you get pretty used to the short exposures.
    I'm used to the Beseler MX enlargers with the built-in dimmer, but I usually keep the voltage set close to 110. Maybe a smaller bulb is the answer.
    Mike S: I just moved to Knoxville within this past year. After living in S. Florida, it's a delightful change of pace, with real mountains, rivers, waterfalls and incredible scenery. All in all, a wonderful place to practice large format. Dean
    dphphoto

  2. #12
    ann
    ann is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,883
    Images
    26
    just as aside, lights64 listed on the ebay site, provide some one the cheapest bulbs prices around. they beat my dealer all the time, and my dealer provides a professional discount to our purchases and they can't beat the prices.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisC

    I'm using Ilford FP4+, and Rodinal 1:50 to develop for 12 minutes, much the same as I've been doing on MF negs for a year or so. The negative in question is a semi-close-up rock face down at Makara just after 4pm on the 9th of this month. It was bright sunlight shining onto the rock face, and I used 1/60 @ f22. I spot metered off a grey card I keep in my backpack.
    Chris

    all your numbers sound like you're in the right ball park so I would look back at the enlarger, try a lower wattage bulb.

    Incidently, next time you shoot something like this shoot some extra sheets. Add a stop more exposure to each one and reduce dev times 20-30 percent. You'll see shadow detail pick up and they'll be easier to print.

    Clayton

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    If it is a regular enlarging bulb then a inline bulb dimmer is around 12.00 USD. It works like magic. Very versatile.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  5. #15
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeS
    5 seconds at f22 sounds about right to me for going from 4x5 to 8x10. Those are close to the times I get as well. I've used a dimmer in the past, and it does work, but depending on the type, it can shorten the life of the bulb greatly (why I stopped using the one I had).

    -Mike
    The time of 5 seconds, f/22 under 250 W and concenser doesn't seem at all unreasonable. My 135 mm lens goes down to f/45 (and I'm not afraid to use that small a stop with only 2x enlargement); when I'm enlarging 9x12 cm to 8x10 under a Zone VI cold light, I'm finding f/28 times of about 15-20 seconds with each filter in split filtering; that'd be comparable to that same range of time (15-20 seconds) in a single exposure with a #2 or so filter. Changing to f/22 would give me times more like 15-20 seconds, and the cold light isn't anywhere near a 250 W tungsten equivalent; seeing a stop and a half difference based on the light source seems entirely reasonable.

    One thing I might suggest -- different papers differ considerably in speed. The Ilford MG/RC that gets rebranded a lot is in fact one of the fastest papers going, perhaps as much as three stops faster than other common multicontrast emulsions. Changing to a slower paper would lengthen your printing time without having to mess with filters...
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    I'd be a bit hesitant about using an inline resistor to limit the voltage going to the bulb. You describe a conventional tungstem bulb, so it worn't shorten its life. That can happen with a tungsten halogen bulb which needs to run at a certain temperature to perform well. I'd be more concerned with the change of color temperature and the way it will cause your paper to respond.

    You can get a very large piece of Rosco ND gel material for very cheap, cut some appropriately sized pieces from it and insert them into the filter drawer. The stuff comes in 1/2, 1, 2, and 3 stop densities. I use the 1 stop density when I need it and it works very well with a diffusion light source. If you need more density, you can stack them. There is no color temperature change and your paper will respond the way you've come to expect. It's easy and costs only about $6US. What's not to like? No guesswork involved.

    See here: http://www.adorama.com/RO3402.html

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    37
    You'll need to be careful using a dimmer in your enlarger. When you dim (undervolt) a bulb you change its color temperature toward the warm (lower color temp) end of the spectrum which will also act to change contrast. You will probably want to find the spot in the dimming that gives you workable times and then leave it alone, since fiddling with it a lot will probably throw your print consistency out the window.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by dphphoto View Post
    They had an analyser/translator system with a standard exposure time of 2.5 seconds for commercial color enlarging with Chromega 4X5 enlargers. Yes, that's custom printing, and you get pretty used to the short exposures.
    Yes, but you gotta be good. My wife Frances can handle this (just) but I'd prefer 10 seconds or so: I'm not as good as she is.

    Cheers,

    R.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Qualls View Post
    One thing I might suggest -- different papers differ considerably in speed. The Ilford MG/RC that gets rebranded a lot is in fact one of the fastest papers going, perhaps as much as three stops faster than other common multicontrast emulsions. Changing to a slower paper would lengthen your printing time without having to mess with filters...
    This is definitely true, but there are even faster papers than MGIV out there--the Kentmere RC papers are particularly ridiculous. I've found that I like printing on Forte Polywarmtone mostly because of the lovely paper color, but it also is rather slower than MGIV, permitting easier controls.

  10. #20
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,859
    Soince consistancy, not absolute accuracy, is required if you use a neutral filter to extend exposure time, a properly exposed and developed sheet of film makes a serviceable ND filter.

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