Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,704   Posts: 1,548,474   Online: 865
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39
  1. #21
    JohnArs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,068
    Images
    40
    In the 60 is it could be truth, but today its more important to use the sharpest f stop of the lens then anything else!
    You have also to know thad the MF enlarging lenses are made for less enlargingfactors then the 35 mm lenses, because MF has not to be so much enlarged then a 35 mm neg normaly!
    I work with the Schneider 40 mm APO Componon and I'm very happy with it and could not see an improvement in corner sharpness against the Rodagon 80mm which is for MF a very fine lens!

    Just my 2 cents Armin
    Good light and nice shadows!

    www.artfoto.ch

  2. #22
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,872
    Using a longer lens than what the format normally would call for, in this case a 50mm for 35mm film can have another advantage if the enlarger collumn i tall enough.
    Let's assume that the OP have a specific print size in mind and have determined that the lens performs best at f8. Depending on the negative density it could make the exposure to short for complex doding and burning.
    Using a longer lens and thereby raising the head up further would extend exposure time and perhaps make it easier to perform the task at hand.
    I could be wrong about this, but it's my understanding that using different focal-length lenses at the same aperture gives the same exposure, or in other words, what you suggested doesn't work, because using a longer lens doesn't change anything exposure-wise.

    I like to use my 75mm lens for 35mm because 1, it's always on the enlarger, and 2, it is easier to print up to 8x10s because the enlarger head is higher.
    f/22 and be there.

  3. #23
    bowzart's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Anacortes, WA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,217
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    I could be wrong about this, but it's my understanding that using different focal-length lenses at the same aperture gives the same exposure, or in other words, what you suggested doesn't work, because using a longer lens doesn't change anything exposure-wise.

    I like to use my 75mm lens for 35mm because 1, it's always on the enlarger, and 2, it is easier to print up to 8x10s because the enlarger head is higher.
    You are right, BetterSense. While the distance is greater, the aperture area is greater also. The f/stop is the ratio of the aperture to the focal length. When we change focal lengths on our cameras, the amount of light delivered to the film remains the same at any given stop, like say f/8. Same with the enlarger.

    There may be some difference, though, if the extension factor differs for the focal lengths in comparison. I haven't looked at this, and probably won't bother, but anyway, it won't be a great difference.

  4. #24
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by JLP View Post
    Using a longer lens than what the format normally would call for, in this case a 50mm for 35mm film can have another advantage if the enlarger collumn i tall enough.
    Let's assume that the OP have a specific print size in mind and have determined that the lens performs best at f8. Depending on the negative density it could make the exposure to short for complex doding and burning.
    Using a longer lens and thereby raising the head up further would extend exposure time and perhaps make it easier to perform the task at hand.
    Seeing as such a dense negative would already have compromised quality, I'm not sure it's such a big advantage just to target f/8 on the lens. So I consider it false economy.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  5. #25
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,872
    There may be some difference, though, if the extension factor differs for the focal lengths in comparison. I haven't looked at this, and probably won't bother, but anyway, it won't be a great difference.
    I started a giant thread dealing with the issue of enlarger bellows factor and whether it matters or cancels out. The more informed opinion is that the bellows factor of enlargers cancels out and at a given magnification, there is exactly no difference between different focal length lenses. I'm still not sure why, however.
    f/22 and be there.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bari - East Southern Italy
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    71
    To my knowledge, the 60 mm lens is the wide angle version of the 80 mm lens (both suitable for medium format negatives), same way the 40 mm lens is the wide angle version of the 50 mm lens (both suitable for 35 mm negatives). All these wide angle versions allow to obtain the major enlargements without raising to much the enlarger column, a nice plus for those who have compact enlargers and/or in order to contain at minimum level the vibrations. However, the wide angle enlarger lenses work very best with diffusion head enlargers. With a condenser enlargers are not so good, than the normal enlarger lenses.
    Ciao.
    Vincenzo

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,052
    True decades ago when such good 50mm lenses were not available. Any 6 element 50 will be perfectly alright.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    LaJolla, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm Pan
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by gamincurieux View Post
    With regards to aligning, mine is a Durst M605 and I'm not sure it is really prone to getting out of alignment to begin with, unless you go fiddling with the bellows, but actually aligning it is as simple as setting it to zero at a couple of points - the tilt head & the bellows. I mean it's not that complicated an enlarger, know what I mean?
    Greetings. Absolutely all enlargers need to be aligned. The original factory/manufacturer machined settings are only approximate, and always need to be corrected over time and use. The negative stage needs to be parallel to the easel. And likewise, the lens stage needs to be parallel to the easel. Without verifying your enlarger alignment, you cannot possibly achieve the optical performance your enlarging lens was designed for.
    With your very nice Durst M605, it is a relatively easy task. You need to first align the negative stage parallel to the easel using the enlarger head focusing lock knob. Loosen the enlarging head lock knob and you can move the head and negative stage incrementally and minutely side to side from the factory set detente position.
    Once you have aligned the negative stage, you then need to align the lens stage. On your M605 this can be accomplished by loosening the lens stage bellows knob and moving the lens stage minutely side to side from the factory detente position in order that the lens stage is parallel to the easel.
    You may also need to use thin mylar adhesive strips on the top of your Durst siriotub lensboard to achieve perfect lens stage alignment.
    In any case, I use a laser alignment tool, the versalab parallel, to quickly and accurately align my enlargers, one of which is a Durst M605 Classic. If you can take the time, and expense, to check your own M605 enlarger alignment, you likely will be surprised at how much it can be improved? Good Luck.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,052
    A fact decades back when 50 mm lenses were not as good as today. The idea was you used only the better center area of a longer lens.

    I have tried and found no advantage unless I was making small prints and needed more distance.

    Align the enlarger, get a flat neg with glass carrier, and a 6 element enlarging lens and you are good to go.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1

    What about glass?

    Although it's a pain keeping four more surfaces clean, I found changing to glass neg carriers did the most to improve across the frame sharpness, given that everything else is parallel and the enlarger column is secured to the wall ... all reasonable enlarger lenses are designed to be flat field, but 35mm and 120 negs never are in my experience.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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