[pure-silver] Re: 8x10 enlarger/enlarging oddity
- From: "Gregory Popovitch" <greg@xxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:34:10 -0500
Since you don't remember exactly, I think it is likely that you printed the
enlarged proofs at a wider aperture (causing vignetting) than you used for
the 8x10 neg. You could try printing the neg at max aperture to see if the
falloff is present.
greg
_____
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Nelson
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 7:41 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: 8x10 enlarger/enlarging oddity
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:
