Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,692   Posts: 1,548,957   Online: 762
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    653
    Don,

    I'd also appreciate an AGUG article on masking!

  2. #12
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    Just thought I'd mention that I also have Lynn's masking kit - the complete system.

    Regarding quality, the construction of the carrier, and carrier holder is very nice. Black anodized aluminum is the name of the game. Looks very professional.

    The holder is positioned in the enlarger through a 'friction-fit' type system. On my Saunders 4500-II, I had to remove the lower portion of the negative stage (it just lifts out). Insert the holder, lock it in place, and it stays put. It's square, so you can rotate it 90 deg. for different orientations.

    I've done some masking with it, and it does work well. Now that I have a new darkroom with more room, I expect that I'll spend more time working with the masking process.

    While expensive, it is recommended.

    Cheers!
    Cheers!

    -klm.

  3. #13
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  4. #14
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    Would people be interested in a few pictures of Lynn's carrier, and of it mounted in the enlarger?
    Cheers!

    -klm.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Aggie,

    The modifications and additions that allow precise registration on my enlarger are in the nature of the following:

    1. Film punch with redesigned and installed punch dies and a fence to provide for precise film positioning while punching.
    2. Mask printing frame that has registration pins incorporated to allow the film and mask material to be printed in registration.
    3. Redesigned enlarger negative stage that is bolted to the enlarger lamp house for stability and that has stops installed for negative carrier positioning and also an adjustable tightening bar to lock the negative carrier in position.
    4. Redesigned negative carrier that has registration pins to provide for precise negative and mask positioning.

    As I have previously mentioned my system is enlarger mfg and model specific. I purchased Lynn Radeka's original system and looked at Lynn's new system and opted to spend the additional money because of greater precision.

    My actual cost of these modifications came to very near $1,000.00.
    Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.

    Visit my website at http://www.donaldmillerphotography.com

  6. #16
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    As I have previously mentioned my system is enlarger mfg and model specific. I purchased Lynn Radeka's original system and looked at Lynn's new system and opted to spend the additional money because of greater precision.
    I'm not sure what you mean by 'greater precision'. The current system uses a two hole 1/4" punch which offers large holes. The supplied negative carrier has the 1/4" brass pins already spaced. Once you've taped the film leader to the original negative, and punched the masking film, you get perfect registration (or as perfect as it needs to be) every time.

    The negative carrier slides into the mount, and is held in place by a magnet, again offering perfect replacement. You can remove the negative carrier, replace it, etc. and it always goes back to the same place.

    Am I missing something?
    Cheers!

    -klm.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by KenM
    Would people be interested in a few pictures of Lynn's carrier, and of it mounted in the enlarger?
    Yeah I would like to see a picture.....

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by KenM
    As I have previously mentioned my system is enlarger mfg and model specific. I purchased Lynn Radeka's original system and looked at Lynn's new system and opted to spend the additional money because of greater precision.
    I'm not sure what you mean by 'greater precision'. The current system uses a two hole 1/4" punch which offers large holes. The supplied negative carrier has the 1/4" brass pins already spaced. Once you've taped the film leader to the original negative, and punched the masking film, you get perfect registration (or as perfect as it needs to be) every time.

    The negative carrier slides into the mount, and is held in place by a magnet, again offering perfect replacement. You can remove the negative carrier, replace it, etc. and it always goes back to the same place.

    Am I missing something?
    The problem that I envisioned with Lynn's system is in the area of the negative stage and negative carrier. The information that he provided did not address the matter of the negative stage being immovable and I also was bothered by the fact that the negative carrier wasn't specific to my enlarger. Additionally at that time he offered an over the counter paper punch as a film punch. The punch that he offered is not a machined item, they are rather a stamped production item and not subject to a great deal of integrity insofar as precision is concerned. I have found that absolute repeatability is required when degree of enlargement becomes great. In my masking I most usually remove and reinstall negatives and masks many times in producing a print. I am quite obviously not in competition with Lynn Radeka since I don't sell a competitive system. I try to spend money for valid reasons, as well. I researched the matter thoroughly and had valid reasons for taking the approach that I did. Those reasons were greater precision.
    Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.

    Visit my website at http://www.donaldmillerphotography.com

  9. #19
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    I use tape - it is really hard to do but after five or six tries, I start to like to original more. The special effects I get are also somewhat interesting.
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  10. #20
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by dnmilikan
    The problem that I envisioned with Lynn's system is in the area of the negative stage and negative carrier. The information that he provided did not address the matter of the negative stage being immovable and I also was bothered by the fact that the negative carrier wasn't specific to my enlarger.
    If I remember correctly, you have the 4550 XLG, which has the same negative stage as the 4500 II. Let me say that the negative carrier frame is locked quite securely in place when you flip the lever. In fact, once you lock the negative carrier 'frame' in place, it does not move. Yes, you can move it if you push hard enough, but if you're doing that sort of movement to the enlarger, you've got other things to worry about.

    Quote Originally Posted by dnmilikan
    Additionally at that time he offered an over the counter paper punch as a film punch. The punch that he offered is not a machined item, they are rather a stamped production item and not subject to a great deal of integrity insofar as precision is concerned. I have found that absolute repeatability is required when degree of enlargement becomes great.
    Admittidly, the punch is a mass produced item, but in my experience, the punch and supplied pin strip/negative holder are in perfect registration. I have a print of a tree I tried to work with (unfortunately, not even masking could save this one!), with lots of leaves - there was no shadowing/double images on the leaves, which to me indicates that registration is pretty good, if not exact.

    Quote Originally Posted by dnmilikan
    In my masking I most usually remove and reinstall negatives and masks many times in producing a print. I am quite obviously not in competition with Lynn Radeka since I don't sell a competitive system. I try to spend money for valid reasons, as well. I researched the matter thoroughly and had valid reasons for taking the approach that I did. Those reasons were greater precision.
    My personal feeling is that the kit would have worked just as well as your solution, but then again, perhaps it wouldn't have. All I can say is that it works very well for me, and works very well in my enlarger. Obviously, if you've spent over $1000, you must certainly believe that your setup warrants it. So, everybody's happy! :-D
    Cheers!

    -klm.

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