Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,761   Posts: 1,516,089   Online: 925
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,104
    One of these days I want to try some reductions of 8x10 to 4x5. The idea would be to see if they would have a quality making them better (more highly detailed) or just aesthetically fascinating, compared to a 4x5 contact.

    When looking at photography books, I am always fascinated by reproductions of that are smaller than the format. They seem to have a precision character to them, even though they are just reproduced at 300 dpi or whatever in the book. Example, reproductions of Adams's 8x10 negative work in books with a picture size smaller than 8x10.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Ont, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by tiberiustibz View Post
    Find a really long enlarger lens.
    "With a shorter focal length enlarger lens than usual and rack the bellows way out, then lower the enlarger to the easel till it is in focus."

    We have two opposite bits of advise here. And I must confess I thought that the use of a shorter than normal lens gave a bigger image on the paper. and that a longer lens gave a smaller image. I guess I will have to experiment in the real world.
    "There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).

    Regards
    Bill

  3. #23
    bowzart's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Anacortes, WA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,217
    Images
    15
    A really long enlarger lens might work ok if you had an enlarger with a twenty foot column!

    So look at it the other way around, because that is what you would be doing - the other way around. With a short lens, you can make a small negative into a really big print, if you have the coverage. Just reverse the idea. Think of the negative as being in the easel, being enlarged really big (to 4x5 or whatever) on material that is on the negative plane of the enlarger. The geometry is precisely the same. Just mirrored.

  4. #24
    bowzart's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Anacortes, WA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,217
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    When looking at photography books, I am always fascinated by reproductions of that are smaller than the format. They seem to have a precision character to them, even though they are just reproduced at 300 dpi or whatever in the book. Example, reproductions of Adams's 8x10 negative work in books with a picture size smaller than 8x10.
    I remember when I first saw Chuck Close's work reproduced in Time Magazine, back in the 60's or 70's. He's a painter who works from small photographs, portraits, and paints them on huge substrates using color separation, which he does entirely manually. Don't ask me how. He is just phenomenal, especially since he is very seriously disabled.

    The reproduction was about 3-14 x 4-14, in color. It looked just like a color Polaroid. The detail was incredible just as it is in his paintings, but even more so due to the reduction. I suspect they reduced it to the size of the original just for fun.

  5. #25
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,104
    Quote Originally Posted by cowanw View Post
    . And I must confess I thought that the use of a shorter than normal lens gave a bigger image on the paper...
    It depends; see here:

    http://www.apug.org/forums/701679-post15.html

  6. #26
    Terrence Brennan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    285
    I used to make 4x5 duplicate transparencies, as well as B&W and colour internegatives, from 10x10, 8x10 and 5x7 originals. The trick was to use a normal focal length lens for the format of the original, mounted on an enlarger with an extra long bellows draw. In my case, it was a 360mm enlarging lens, on a Durst Laborator enlarger. A shorter lens will work, but you may have an uncomfortably short distance between the lens and the unexposed paper.

    If you have a method for reversing the lens when the magnification is 1.0 or less, by all means do so. Normally, the short conjugate of the lens, usually the "back" of the lens, will be oriented so it faces the original, when an enlargement is being made. When a reduction is being made, it should be oriented so it face the unexposed material.

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