Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,197   Posts: 1,531,430   Online: 829
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,226
    Images
    148
    With most enlargers it's easy, as long as the bellows have sufficient extension, I've been doing this regularly to make small reduction prints from 5x4 negs for hand made books. I've always used my normal 135mm lens.

    Ian

  2. #12
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,229
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    With most enlargers it's easy, as long as the bellows have sufficient extension, I've been doing this regularly to make small reduction prints from 5x4 negs for hand made books. I've always used my normal 135mm lens.

    Ian
    I am sure Ian is right if you are talking about 4x5 enlargers. The bellows extension available on my Beseler 67 (for example) is limited, so it would be difficult to use it.

    Matt

  3. #13
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,205
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    As normal enlarging is actually macro photography, then macro photography in reverse must be normal photography!

    You need an ensmaller rather than an enlarger for this.


    Steve.
    It's something like that.

    About 4x5" enlargers, I find that with an approximately normal lens for the format I'm enlarging/reducing, I can usually manage a reduction of about 25% on my Omega D-II without having to dust off the extension bellows.
    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

  4. #14
    greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    377
    Images
    6
    At last---I've been wondering for a few years when someone else would want to know how to do this. Although the original poster didn't specify how much reduction was needed, I once shrank two 4x5 portraits to about 0.4 x 0.5 so that they would fit into a photo locket for a Mother's Day gift.

    I used a 28mm Nikon bayonet-mount lens, reverse mounted by means of a UV filter screwed into the front element as a retaining ring; the lensboard was a scrap of mounting board trimmed to fit onto the nose of a 135mm lens cone on an Omega D2. It worked beautifully; exposures on Azo paper were a few seconds at about f/8 or so and the images were tack-sharp.

    (I suspect that the Nikon is a reverse telephoto design; the 24mm lens from a closed-circuit television camera vignetted terribly with the same arrangement, even though the focal lengths are comparable. Someone more knowledgeable than myself can explain why, or whether, a very short enlarging lens would be usable.)

  5. #15
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,164
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    (I suspect that the Nikon is a reverse telephoto design; the 24mm lens from a closed-circuit television camera vignetted terribly with the same arrangement, even though the focal lengths are comparable.
    Just a matter of coverage. Probably independent of weather it is retrofocus or not.

    It was pointed out that enlarging was like macro photography. Well, reductions are like regular photography. The photographic paper is like the film and the negative is the subject. Focal length can be based on the diagonal of the paper. You can use a longer focal length, but it will require more bellows.

  6. #16
    greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    377
    Images
    6
    Hmmm. Since the projected image was about the size of the original CCTV chip, I had assumed that coverage angle would not be an issue. On the other hand, I reversed the Nikon W.A. lens but only tried the TV camera lens mounted on its normal threads, so perhaps there is some optical issue here that is not obvious to me.

  7. #17
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,164
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    Hmmm. Since the projected image was about the size of the original CCTV chip, I had assumed that coverage angle would not be an issue. On the other hand, I reversed the Nikon W.A. lens but only tried the TV camera lens mounted on its normal threads, so perhaps there is some optical issue here that is not obvious to me.
    Yes that is a little curious. Because since the subject (negative) is not at infinity, the image circle when using that lens for reductions would be bigger than when it was mounted in the CCTV camera with infinity-focus capacity. Maybe the chip in the camera was smaller than you thought?

  8. #18
    greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    377
    Images
    6
    Or my memory is garbled...not for the first time. I should try both configurations again, and see if I remember correctly. But the Nikkor W.A. worked like a charm, and I have the (tiny) prints to prove it. It's a bit funny when people who see the prints ask what camera I used, and I tell them that it was a 4x5 view camera!

  9. #19
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    Find a really long enlarger lens.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,036
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    Or my memory is garbled...not for the first time. I should try both configurations again, and see if I remember correctly. But the Nikkor W.A. worked like a charm, and I have the (tiny) prints to prove it. It's a bit funny when people who see the prints ask what camera I used, and I tell them that it was a 4x5 view camera!
    i have some reductions i made with 5x7 and 4x5 sheet film
    that are tiny. whenever i show them to people they can't understand
    how such a big negative could be "enlarged so small".
    i used a schneider 135, and wollensak 210 .. and
    the auxiliary bellows extension for what its used for, on my omegas d + e.
    usually i use the aux bellows instead of dealing with lens cones...
    Last edited by jnanian; 01-25-2009 at 03:28 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    im empty, good luck

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