Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,939   Posts: 1,557,406   Online: 970
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Missouri Ozarks
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    6
    Hello,
    I use the enlarging dial in my Kodak Darkroom Data Guide. There is no math calculations involved. A ruler is the only other tool involved. Very simple. There is also a exp correction for using polycontrast filters. Since Kodak seems to be turing it's back on us, they probably don't publish them now(would be nice to be wrong). If you can at least look at a copy, you could make a chart for future reference. If I didn't have a Kodak Data Guide, I'd do the math and make a chart.
    Cecil

  2. #22
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,359
    Images
    20
    This being one of the more thorough discussions of this topic, let's make it a sticky thread.

    My personal take on it:

    Recognize these numbers--4, 5, 8, 11, 16? Both the standard sizes (4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20) and approximately the f:stop series. One stop more exposure for every standard increase in size.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #23
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,377
    Images
    4
    CORRECTION:

    It's been so long since I have written about the ruler, I forgot how to use it.

    You use it to measure lens-to-image distance, not the size of the image on the baseboard.

    The following are experimental results, Beseler 45 series enlarger, condenser lamphouse, 150mm lens.

    Exposure adjustments as measured with a Darkroom Automation meter, the DA exposure compensation ruler and by applying the "inverse square law" on the image size.

    11 mm base image size
    New size.Metered.......DA ruler......Image size square law
    21 mm - 1.11 stops - 1.30 stops - 1.8 stops
    31 mm - 1.97 stops - 2.00 stops - 3.0 stops
    45 mm - 2.75 stops - 2.81 stops - 3.9 stops

    45 mm base image size
    New size.Metered.......DA ruler......Image size square law
    31 mm - 0.78 stops - 0.81 stops - 0.95 stops
    21 mm - 1.64 stops - 1.51 stops - 2.15 stops
    11 mm - 2.75 stops - 2.81 stops - 3.9 stops

    Obviously, the most accurate method is a meter. The stops ruler will get you within better than 0.1 stop for magnifications of 2x or more and within 0.2 stops down to 1:1.

    Gadzooks, just looked at the ruler pdf, and the instructions on it are wrong - cross out 'image size' - it only works for lens height.
    Last edited by Nicholas Lindan; 12-12-2008 at 04:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  4. #24
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,289
    There was a thread about this a while back. Now that this new thread is a 'sticky' it needs to come to the correct conclusion.

    The equation I use is:

    new_time = old_time x (new_M +1)^2 / (old_M+1)^2

    where M = new magnification (print/neg) and m = old magnification (print/neg)

    The exposure time factor would be:

    Factor = (M + 1)^2 / (m + 1)^2

    I wonder if Nicholas could supply the magnification in the above examples. I would like to see how this equation (converted from 'factor' to stops) compares to the metered values measured by Nicholas.

  5. #25
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,377
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    I wonder if Nicholas could supply the magnification in the above examples.
    The negative carrier size is 9.2mm. The projection of the carrier outline was measured, this contributes somewhat to the error as the carrier is 3 dimensional and the lens was focused on the negative in the middle of the carrier.

    Going from a negative size of 9.2mm to the following sizes, the exposure factor correction in stops is:

    Size......Magnification...Metered...Formula...DA Ruler
    11mm ...1.2
    21mm ...2.3...............1.1..........1.1.........1.3
    32mm ...3.4...............2.0..........2.0.........2.0
    45mm ...4.9...............2.8..........2.9.........2.8

    The ruler and the formula should provide identical results as the ruler is based on the same optical formula - I am not sure where the discrepancy arrises at the 21mm image size. Apart from that they all seem to agree within experimental and rounding error.
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  6. #26
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    Just another thought that came to me. There are rulers printed on clear plastic (C-Thru makes nice ones in the US) that could be substituted for the negative at both degrees of enlargement, then magnification changes could be easily calculated against a ruler on the easel. Might be quick enough for those without an enlarging meter.

    Lee

    I may have pre-answered Dan's simultaneous post.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    I wonder if Nicholas could supply the
    magnification in the above examples.
    M&m; magnification. And how are the values for
    the two established? I see that a ratio of squares
    is involved. I'm suspicious. A "...correct conclusion."
    is at stake. Dan

  8. #28
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,327
    Images
    8
    OMG! :o

    Make another test strip ...

  9. #29
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,377
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brown View Post
    Make another test strip.
    I just made and evaluated a test strip and it took 4 minutes, 45 seconds, 2 minutes of that time were in the developer.

    Using the ruler took 30 seconds. Used no chemicals, paper or electricity.

    Add 15 seconds if you don't have an f-stop timer and need to use a chart.

    Saves yer money - saves yer time - takes yer choice.

    A note on using Darkroom Automation's stops<->seconds chart: If you are only applying a stops correction to a time you can simply multiply your present exposure time by the number in the chart.

    As an example:
    1. your present exposure is 5 seconds and you want to add 1.4 stops
    2. look up 1.4 stops in the chart and find 2.6
    3. multiply 5 seconds by 2.6 => 13 seconds is the new time
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    587
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Lindan View Post
    The negative carrier size is 9.2mm. The projection of the carrier outline was measured, this contributes somewhat to the error as the carrier is 3 dimensional and the lens was focused on the negative in the middle of the carrier.

    Going from a negative size of 9.2mm to the following sizes, the exposure factor correction in stops is:

    Size......Magnification...Metered...Formula...DA Ruler
    11mm ...1.2
    21mm ...2.3...............1.1..........1.1.........1.3
    32mm ...3.4...............2.0..........2.0.........2.0
    45mm ...4.9...............2.8..........2.9.........2.8

    The ruler and the formula should provide identical results as the ruler is based on the same optical formula - I am not sure where the discrepancy arrises at the 21mm image size. Apart from that they all seem to agree within experimental and rounding error.
    I have been following this thread with interest and thanks for posting.
    I may have missed something but you are talking here of images in millimetre sizes and this seems really small, can you elaborate please?
    Regards
    John

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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