Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,849   Posts: 1,582,828   Online: 765
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,065
    Images
    39
    Well, I usually shoot medium format on vaction, and with these negative I regularly correct keystoning in the darkroom. Luckily my negative and lens stages are very easy to tilt. It's not that hard, but as pointed out above, the amount of adjustment is not as great as with a view camera, and you end up enlarging part of the negative more than the other, which can look odd if enlarged too much. I used this technique here: http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...00&ppuser=2946

  2. #22
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
    Well, I usually shoot medium format on vaction, and with these negative I regularly correct keystoning in the darkroom. Luckily my negative and lens stages are very easy to tilt. It's not that hard, but as pointed out above, the amount of adjustment is not as great as with a view camera, and you end up enlarging part of the negative more than the other, which can look odd if enlarged too much. I used this technique here: http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...00&ppuser=2946
    Well, Peter - you certainly did a masterful job! That one cought my eye in the galleries but I overlooked the method you used - great job. I have only used ithis method uhm.. shall we say... "creatively" because with a simple enlarger anything else is very hit or miss...

    As to the rest of you guys, I hate you all - now you made me look at what I want in my next enlarger... and five minutes ago I was not even thinking about getting one, much less what I want in it! (of course just kidding about the hating part!)

    Peter.

  3. #23
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,706
    Images
    14
    I think I agree with Claire here.

    Everything that I do with an enlarger, is to prevent soft edges on enlargments
    Glass Carriers, longer than normal lens for film size,Apo Lenses *flat field*
    To think one can work an enlarger like a camera kind of makes me think I have been doing something wrong all these years.

    If I am not in alingment ie baseboard, negative stage and lens stage, I do get out of focus prints in one section of the image.
    When I align the three stages and use a glass carrier , I do get sharp images edge to edge.

    I find a very subtle difference in *grain structure *by closing down two stops from wide open. Knowing that my enlarging lenses are not the same as camera lenses , makes me wonder where all this dof is at the base board level.

    Am I missing something in my enlarging proceedure????

  4. #24
    Lopaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    759
    Bob, I don't think you're missing anything...looks to me like you've described some of the basics of best practice enlarging procedure. I tried to reinforce the idea that I think planning on fixing something in the darkroom when you are shooting is usually not the best approach. I do come back with stuff I worked carefully on that turns out to have 'issues' with printing - I just don't plan it that way. My old DeJur enlarger (new retired) had tilts at both the negative stage and lens stage to facilitate this kind of thing. Very few modern enlargers have these features. You can do a small amount of it, but it has serious limitations (as highlited by PE in one particular application) and it is very easy to degrade the image in other ways when you start down this path. I think with landscapes, if I am shooting with a camera without tilts/swings etc, my preference would be to search for compositions that don't scream 'fix me'. If I was doing architecture for a client, a good field camera IMHO is the only way.

    Bob
    "I always take a camera, That way I never have to say 'Gee, look at that - I wish I had a camera'" -Joe Clark, H.B.S.S.

  5. #25
    Charles Webb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Colorfull, Canon City Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,723
    I agree for the most part in what has been written:

    Just for fun, I'll mention just how difficult it was to get and keep the old DeJur Professional 4x5 enlarger in any kind of alignment, let alone square. I share this only because I have paid my dues in money, blood, wasted paper, chemicals, sweat and tears in attempting to maintain some semblance of sharpness corner to corner with the DeJur. :-) I thank my lucky stars for Omega and Besseler.

    I have had no trouble over the years of using the simpelest enlargers for the corrections being discussed. A film holder, a roll of film etc. all serve as tools to aid in tilting an easel. Really pretty simple and straight forward. Some times imagination can be one of your best dark room tools!

    Charlie.............................

  6. #26
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,859
    I like my DeJUR 4x5, but agree that keeping it in alignment is a nuisance. I installed a locking thumbscrew to keep the lens board tilt from accidently changing. Aligning the film plane can be done fairly well by aligning the focusing rail with the column.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie
    I think I agree with Claire here.

    Everything that I do with an enlarger, is to prevent soft edges on enlargments
    Glass Carriers, longer than normal lens for film size,Apo Lenses *flat field*
    To think one can work an enlarger like a camera kind of makes me think I have been doing something wrong all these years.

    If I am not in alingment ie baseboard, negative stage and lens stage, I do get out of focus prints in one section of the image.
    When I align the three stages and use a glass carrier , I do get sharp images edge to edge.

    I find a very subtle difference in *grain structure *by closing down two stops from wide open. Knowing that my enlarging lenses are not the same as camera lenses , makes me wonder where all this dof is at the base board level.

    Am I missing something in my enlarging proceedure????
    Bob,

    I don't know that I would say that you are missing something...no doubt that perfect alignment is necessary for optimal sharpness.

    However I have found that on the Durst that I can have perfect alignment while correcting keystoning or even correcting perspective as I did in one of my images. The distortion that originated at exposure was the reason that I didn't print one image for almost fifteen years.

    I swung the lens and carrier stage and tilted the baseboard to arrive at perfect alignment and distortion correction at the same time. So long as everything is parallel, there are any number of points that can be defined as being in perfect alignment.

    So long as the axis of the enlarging lens is in parallel orientation to the baseboard, there is no difference in the light level reaching the print.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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