Cobbled together? Isn't that how Dr. Frankenstein created a monster? No thanks. Think I'll skip the duct tape and Krazy glue and stick to
a real machine. Good enlargers can be had for downright free these days.
Send me an 8x10 enlarger then....
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller
This is something I've also very seriously considered. Not because I couldn't afford a decent used 8x10 enlarger. But because I don't have room for one.
Mine is a Calumet C1 8x10 camera. Before me it was only used indoors in a studio as a copy camera. I already have two G-Clarons that came with it. Nice lightweight lenses for outdoor use, when sufficiently stopped down. But also nice for flat field copy work, the inverse of enlarging.
Since all of the precision is already built into the camera, it would only require a customized light source (LEDs?) to replace the back. This would also include a way to perhaps sandwich the negative between two sheets of AN glass and slide it into the custom back. Horizontal projection would be fine. I do have room in the darkroom for that.
Now I'm no high-precision woodworker. But the back design of a C1 is so damned straightforward (two set screws with a simple rectangular light-trap inset required) that I'm certain even I could cobble together a very workable solution. Mount the camera/light source horizontally to a piece of plywood, add a little flat black spray paint, sit it on my enlarging table pointed at the far wall, and it's there.
The advantages would be numerous. Savings in space and money are obvious. Less obvious is that by using the same lens for both exposing and projecting the negative, I think that things like edge illumination falloff should be automatically eliminated when going from negative to positive. Wasn't that the case with the Graflargers?
All I need is the time...
Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 07-29-2014 at 05:57 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."
— Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs
Your favorite analog format? Why?
If you luck into them and if they are close enough to pick up - both a matter of luck.
Because I plan to make my own 13" x 19" B&W Carbon Transfer prints, I settled on 6cm x 9cm roll film. It's much more convenient than 4x5 to shoot and much more 'enlargeable' than 35mm. Especially since I plan to develop my own film. Costs go up exponentially when you go over roll fill sizes. I also favor 6cm x 12cm, but I don't have a camera for that yet. I'll rely on my Fuji GSW 690 III rangefinder for now. It has a great lens.
'tis an ill wind that blows no minds...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
This thread has turned out into a great read for me, especially since I'm newer to film. Keep it going and thanks guys!
35mm of course, but for mf I really like the square 6x6, and naturally 6x9 since its the same proportions as 35mm, and I am totally digging 4x5 right now. Hard question but if I had to choose out of all of them, most probably 35mm just because I am most likely to have a 35mm camera around with me at any time.
Although standard 35mm is the format I have shot more images with than any other (for cost, convenience and accessibility), my favorite format is 35mm Realist (a stereo format that yields 28 pairs of 24x23 mm images from a standard 36x roll of 35mm film), simply because I have always been enthralled by the image of a stereo slide as seen in a good transmitted-light stereo viewer with achromatic viewing lenses.
I've shot some MF, including 6x6, 6x9 and 6x6x2 stereo, and the images can be impressive, but it seems I have never had the "luck" I expected from it as I did with 35mm.
Now, people who know me know that I have a weak spot for two formats that most photographers just hate - 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Polaroid (AKA 100-series) and 126 (I always liked how you could throw every 126 slide into the tray the same way, and every image would fill a square screen). Some 126 cameras actually could produce superb images.
I've loved to play with formats. I wonder if anyone else on this forum has used all of these formats, that I have used at least once:
Minox (in Yashica Ataron camera)
240 (AKA APS™)
35mm Half Frame
Agfa Rapid 24x24mm
35mm Nimslo Stereo (21x18mm x2)
35mm Realist Stereo (24x23mm x2)
35mm full frame
120 stereo (6x6 x2, on a Sputnik)
620 square (4x6)
Polaroid 20 (Swinger)
Polaroid Captiva (later called "95" - integral)
Polaroid 3 1/4 x 3 3/8 (80-series)
Polaroid 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 (Roll) (40-series)
Polaroid 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 (Pack) (100-series)
Polaroid SX-70/600 (integral square)
Polaroid Spectra (integral oblong)
Polaroid I-zone (integral miniature)
8mm roll movie
Super 8mm cartridge movie
Last edited by 1L6E6VHF; 07-30-2014 at 11:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.
1. 6x6, Hasselblads and Mamiya 6, best combination of large negative and fast operation, my best images are made with it. I also use 120 film in 6x12 format with the 4x5, great aspect ratio and versatility.
2. 4x5, basically a "Giant" medium format with movements, easiest to enlarge, plenty of films available and still very economical. While I get nice images out of it and love to use it, pre-exposure dust is much more of an issue and it is much slower than 6x6.
3. 35mm, Leica, Nikon & Xpan, all for photojournalism, Xpan for landscapes sometimes, makes up less than 20% of my shooting. Plays exceptionally well with digital, swap glass.
12 camera bodies, 36 lenses, full darkroom that I can print up to 20x24, office for print finishing and a monster computer for scans, not much you can't do with the above....
I've only used 135 and 120 format before. I like 120 more because there's only 12 exposures so I can use them up faster rather than wait to get through 24-36 exposures. Image quality is better too, and I get to haul my TLR around.