[pure-silver] Re: 8x10 enlarger/enlarging oddity
- From: Eric Nelson <emanmb@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:40:35 -0800 (PST)
I was printing full neg. Also since i was printing onto foma warmtone, which
is incredibly slow, I was probably at a fairly wide aperture.
For proofing, the aperture would have varied with the neg densities but since
the everything is in a glass carrier, I would approach things without the worry
of neg flatness or losing focus anywhere. Proofs were 99.9% on Ilford RC.
________________________________
From: Gregory Popovitch <greg@xxxxxxx>
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:57 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: 8x10 enlarger/enlarging oddity
Hi Eric,
When you printed the negative, did you enlarge the whole
negative, or just a portion of it (sorry if you mentioned that before, I didn't
follow the thread)?
It could be the lens falloff. Also possible if you used a
wider aperture for the enlarged proofs than for the print from the 8x10
neg.
greg
________________________________
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of richard
lahrson
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:17 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: 8x10
enlarger/enlarging oddity
hi! so the negative stage to lens stage is the same? rich
On Jan 20, 2012 1:22 PM, "Eric Nelson" <emanmb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>This DeVere is a diffusion enlarger w/4 bright projection lamps aimed into
>the diffusion chamber. The image size I projected was smaller for the prints
>than the proofs by an inch or so. I was printing onto 11x14 paper, but
>that was a common paper size for an enlarged proof.
>
>
>
>As mentioned the falloff occurred whenever I made enlarged proofs, which were
>typically from 35mm rolls. Glass neg carrier, place negs in it, close it and
>stick it in the enlarger. Whether the proofs were 11x14 or 16x20 I'd get the
>falloff on the 4 corners. When I printed an 8x10 neg w/delicate tones in the
>sky, there was no falloff at all. Perfectly even.
>
>
>
>I'm glad of that and the proofing aspect is fast becoming a non-issue as the
>enlarger's sale date is quickly approaching. It just mystifies me and others
>here (as well as those on the list it seems) as to why it would happen. I
>had opened the head up and looked for blockage of one of the lights in the
>past, but never saw anything that would cause this.
>
>
>
>I was just hoping that there was some optical or light theory that would
>explain what I experienced. I can count on one hand the number of 8x10
>client negs I needed to enlarge so most of my experience printing 8x10 negs
>has been of my own.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:31 PM
>
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: 8x10 enlarger/enlarging
oddity
>
> That is rather puzzling. Can you
think of any difference in the set up between using it to
illu...
Other related posts:
