leveling the enlarger

[L Gebhardt]

At photo.net I posted a answer about using a laser scope to do this, which I have found to be very easy.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=0056Bo

The reason I like the laser over the projected negative is that you can adjust both the lens and the negative carrier to the baseboard separately. If both are out of alignment you will have a lot of difficulty adjsuting using a projected image - I know I did.

[Jorge Oliveira]

Re mirror vs scratches:

Then the mirror method wins - you can do adjustments first in the neg carrier, then in the lensboard, one independent of the other.

Thanks,

Jorge O

[glbeas]

I use the mirror method too, very fast and easy to use. One thing I found when I made the hole in the mirror is the aluminizing wouldn't scrape completely clear. I tried putting some acetic acid on it to etch it off but to no avail. Then I tried mixing a little sodium sulfite into the acid, creating some sulfurous acid I think. Cleaned up perfectly clear. A drop of battery acid or hydrochloric (mix salt and acetic) should do as well. Wash well and keep the stuff off your body.

[Robert]

I really did not understand this question.
The enlarger base DOES NOT needs to be level. It maybe slanted to whatever direction you prefer. horizontal, however, is more common.

What you have to do is to align the HEAD so it's parallel to the BASE.

It's simple. If the base is level and then the head is level the two should be parallel. No?

[Jorge Oliveira]

Yes and no.
If the base is absolutelly level, and the head is absolutelly level, then you are right.
But if one is slightly slanted to one side (beyond the meter accuracy) and the other one is slightly to the other side, you have two times the error and don't know about it.

Using mirrors or a laser, you are adjusting one relative to the other - there will not be addictive errors.

Besides, as Gebhardt pointed, there's lens plane adjustment to put one more variable in the process.

Now, how significant are these errors? I don't know.

Jorge O

[lee]

With the mirror system, you really should use front surface mirrors so the glass doesn't get in the way. I put 2 sets of 4 tape arrows around the hole. This will aid you in seeing the misalignment. Also, when doing the negative stage I would remove the lens and bounce light off the mirror on the base board. What you are looking for is the effect you might see while sitting in a old time barber shop chair with a mirror in front of you and one behind you. If the stage is out of alignment, then those arrows will start out in the center and then veer off in the direction of the misalignment. If you are ok then the arrows will go straight out untill you cannot see them anymore. It is a lot easier to do than explain, really.

lee\c

[Robert]

The lens plane is just putting the level across the lens. That's the nice thing about the level it's quick and easy. I doubt it's 100% accurate but it will easily point out any gross errors. Use a short enough level. Not one that's been kicked around.

[Dave Mueller]

I use the mirror method also. A mechanical level isn't accurate enough, especially for large enlargements from 35mm. The evidence is the enlargers at the local school, where they use levels instead of an optical method (lasers or the two mirrors). First surface mirrors aren't required, most modern glass has the two faces close enough to parallel to not matter, and I find it easy to ignore the extra reflection. I used a piece of heavy copper wire hammered to a point to scratch the silvering off, but any method would work. As others have said, level isn't required, but having the 3 planes parallel to each other is. Using two mirrors to get an endless reflection is close enough for our purposes, and a lot cheaper than the lasers. With the mirror facing down, I put a right angle prism over the hole. This lets me look straight ahead instead of climbing on the table to look down. A normal mirror is placed on the baseboard.

[Aggie]

..

[NER]

Try the zig-align (much like the mirror method mentioned earlier in this thread, except that you don't have to do as much prep work). I have used it on my enlargers with good results. The inventor/seller was not the easiest person to deal with: he demanded to know what I intended to do with it before he would sell it to me. It was not designed for use with enlargers (so I lied to obtain one), but works perfectly for that purpose. I don't recall what I paid, but it was not very expensive as I remember. Here's a URL: http://www.thefstop.com/forums/LFForum/posts/1375.html
You can find others via Google.

NER
http://normanrileyphotography.com