Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,568   Posts: 1,545,440   Online: 1093
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    Camera on a tripod, lens hood, cable release, mirror up, fine grain film, correct exposure and development enlarged to no more than 4X. Excellent quality camera and enlarging lenses with an aligned enlarger and a glass carrier for negative flatness. The camera must be check for the correct position of the exchangeable viewing screens and backs for film plane agreement. If it's used equipment expect to clean it up, adjust it, and replace the seals.
    Holy moly, man! You mean all those 6x9 and 8x12 prints I have from crummily exposed and developed 35mm negs and held in the open neg. carrier with masking tape in a non-alignable enlarger that is leaning forward slightly and uses a no name lens are no good? They look fine to me.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 01-02-2009 at 12:25 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    905
    Wow, think of all those prints made with old Elwood or Solar enlargers, all junk.... maybe Curt's a little more exacting than the rest of us.

    Of all the RB's I've owned through the years, I've never had an issue with the focusing screen not being in the proper position. The RB is a bit of a tank, but, like a tank, durable and just works.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    Camera on a tripod, lens hood, cable release, mirror up, fine grain film, correct exposure and development enlarged to no more than 4X.
    And here I thought I was picky, preferring enlargements up to only around 6x or so....

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    76
    With a good negative, 24x36 can easily be done. I do a lot of them using cropped 6x6 negs. But most important is the quality of your negs. If the neg doesn't look good under a 10X lube, forget it.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Windscale View Post
    . If the neg doesn't look good under a 10X lube, forget it.
    or just call it art.


    erie

  6. #16
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,551
    Images
    15
    Holy moly, man! You mean all those 6x9 and 8x12 prints I have from crummily exposed and developed 35mm negs and held in the open neg. carrier with masking tape in a non-alignable enlarger that is leaning forward slightly and uses a no name lens are no good? They look fine to me.
    You prints probably are very good. I had a Mamiya 645 for several years, bought it brand spank-in new, it wasn't until I got to Brooks where I took a weekend seminar specifically for camera adjustment and focus issues that I learned to check the mechanics. The screen on that camera was off, when adjusted the negatives went from good to excellent. I could not believe the difference. For a couple of years I was out of focusing and made some fine prints, after all I had moved up from 35mm so they had to be better, right? When I started to print in the very beginnings I bought an enlarger with a Voss enlarging lens. The lens can be had for a couple of bucks. When I bought my second enlarger, an Omega B600 I bought an El Nikkor 75mm and an Aristo Cold light head. It made another increase in quality, really remarkable. An old enlarger with an old lens would have been better than my first one.

    Old equipment can be fantastic and new can be crummy, how you use it matters too, we sometimes develop workarounds for bad situations though, like making small prints because the larger ones are out of focus or grainy.

    An Ansel Adams 2X enlargement of an 8x10 negative and a contact print from Edward Weston depicts quality to me but so does a lot of enlargements from small negatives to large print size. In the end you can make an enlargement to any size you can physically produce. The quality is in the eye of the beholder.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    The quality is in the eye of the beholder.
    Hear! Hear!

  8. #18
    Frank Szabo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad Bireley View Post
    I'm getting reading to buy a RB67. I'm mostly photographing landscapes. I hoping to get at least 16x20's.
    16 X 20 from an RB is a quite simple thing to do.

    The print is quite sharp at that magnification (assuming you've done your part). It's a 7X mag, close to an 8X10 print from a 35mm (8X).
    ...

    "Beer is proof that God wants us to be happy."

    Benjamin Franklin

  9. #19
    craigclu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    NW Wisconsin, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    769
    Using high-grade optics and doing our part with choice of materials and technique, enlarger alignments, etc, I've found that 35mm can do quite sharp 8X10's and acceptable 11X14. Each bump up in format size seems to hold the increment of print size that's sharp with the next size as acceptable for general proper distance viewing (typical indoor presentation). 645 seems to be capable of very sharp 11X14 and acceptable 16X20 with 6X7, 6X9 and 4X5 following up the trail in a like manner. Issues of pure optical performance (correction over greater image circles), film flatness issues, etc conspire to make the format advantage less than linear in pure resolution but the tonal gradation advantages also add some of the quality back.

    This has been my experience and I imagine that it's likely consistent with most people. So many variables! The biggest may be our reference points and expectations..... As others have mentioned, I've also stretched these boundaries with surprisingly satisfactory results when the subject matter and presentation needs have demanded but generally try to stay to these general limits and select the right format for the expected enlargement size needed.
    Craig Schroeder

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    105
    Images
    14
    Brad,
    16x20 from 6x7 is realistic. Going beyond that introduces a lot of factors that may produce a print that you will not be satisfied with, like lack of detail or more grain than you want, and probably both. A reasonable guideline is to look at what you are satisfied with from whatever format you are currently using. For example, if you get 8x10's that satisfy you now from 35mm, you should be able to get something like 11x14 from 645 or maybe a little larger, and 16x20 from 6x7 on a fairly regular basis with good technique. Everyone's standards are different. If you don't need detail in your images and if grain is something that you want, the sky is the limit for enlarging. There really is a reason for using large format if you want large prints, if the tradeoffs like weight and slower work rate are acceptable.
    Good luck,
    Doug Webb

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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