Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,524   Posts: 1,543,836   Online: 857
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21
    RH Designs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Yorkshire Dales, England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    657
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith
    Dan is quite correct.

    I was not suggesting that doing a square law conversion would give a highly accurate new exposure time for each size of paper but it will give a very good indication of a starting point without having to do a full range test strip each time.
    Indeed. The OP was asking if there's a simple way, and the inverse square law is a simple way if the size change is not too large. By way of a check, the difference between what the formula predicted and what I actually measured with an Analyser when changing from a 10" width to a 16" width was less than a tenth of a stop - barely noticeable except for the finest quality work, and if you're working to that quality level you'll want to do another fine test strip anyway

    Regards
    Richard

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,670
    See if you can get a copy of the Kodak Darkroom Handbook. There is a calculator for this purpose in it, sort of a circular slide rule, which is very handy. Lots of other stuff too.

  3. #23
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,533
    Images
    1
    Richard

    Just use the inverse square law with the lens to paper distance, and there will be no difference to your analyzer measurement. You can check in 'Way Beyond Monochrome' on page 291 (same graph as I posted here before). There are no short cuts required for this. It's pretty simple as it is.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy Hamon
    If you are working from 35 mm negatives and using
    your calculation for the change from 5x7 to 8x10, it
    will be closer in accuracy than printing from a 4x5
    inch negative and going from 5x7 to 8x10, as
    pointed out by Michael Briggs and others.
    I'll point that out also. The reason the calculation for
    35 mm is more accurate is due to less of a change in the
    speed of the lens when going to 8x10. To 5x7 a 35mm is
    5 times enlarged while the 4x5 is only 1.4 times enlarged.
    For the 4x5 little more than a same size print. Think of
    the bellows extension. At a 1:1 ratio a lens, camera
    or enlarger, is down 2 stops. Dan

  5. #25
    RH Designs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Yorkshire Dales, England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    657
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
    Just use the inverse square law with the lens to paper distance, and there will be no difference to your analyzer measurement. You can check in 'Way Beyond Monochrome' on page 291 (same graph as I posted here before). There are no short cuts required for this. It's pretty simple as it is.
    Just done a rather more scientific check and you're absolutely right - if you substitute lens-paper distance for print length in my previous post then it will work accurately.
    Regards,
    Richard.

    RH Designs - My Photography

  6. #26
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by RH Designs
    Just done a rather more scientific check and you're absolutely right - if you substitute lens-paper distance for print length in my previous post then it will work accurately.
    Good, I'm glad that's settled.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  7. #27
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    Could I expand on the above a little by suggesting that it is the image size, and the lens node to paper surface that are the important dimensions. Paper size is not important.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    One can mark the negative to paper distance on the enlarger column but can not do so for the lens to paper distance, but lens to paper distance is what we really need. Now can we calculate the lens to paper distance if we know negative to paper distance as well as the lens focal length?

  9. #29
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Chan Tran
    One can mark the negative to paper distance on the enlarger column but can not do so for the lens to paper distance, but lens to paper distance is what we really need. Now can we calculate the lens to paper distance if we know negative to paper distance as well as the lens focal length?
    Chan, why do you want to calculate the lens/paper distance when it is quicker to measure it?
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Because I want to install an encoder in the enlarger head lift and display the height directly. If I can calculate the lens distance then I can make the gizzo display the exposure time automatically. Just for fun really AS we all know it's much easier to measure the light intensity.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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