[pure-silver] Re: 8x10 enlarger/enlarging oddity
- From: "Eric Neilsen" <ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:35:21 -0600
Well, here is my take on it. When you un focused your light to project the
onto the easel, you created an issue with the lens to lens board to light
source which caused a fall off. When you printed the 8x10 neg, you focused
the light and at the required focusing distance, there was no fall off.
I assume you unfocused your light when making contacts. I assumed you
printed in focus. ; )
Eric Neilsen
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
214-827-8301
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
SKYPE ejprinter
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of shannon Stoney
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 8:40 AM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: 8x10 enlarger/enlarging oddity
I used to have one of those DeVere 8x10 enlargers, and I'm pretty sure the
box was a diffusion light source rather than a condenser head. It always
gave very even illumination. I'm not sure why it wouldn't with the 35mm ones
though.
On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Speedy wrote:
I am completely unfamiliar with the enlarger you are using...
A LONG time ago - probably on my very first enlarger I had a
similar occurrence. There was a drastic fall off of light between
the center of a print and the edges.
I took a print and showed it to a friend who had been in photography
and printing for a very long time. He deduced my problem quickly.
He said that the lightbulb in my enlarger had been moved out of
position and was now either too close to or too far from the condensors
I went home and checked and sure enough that was my problem. I am
guessing that if that had been your problem in the past that it may be that
the light source has somehow been shifter back into the proper position.
A print of one of your previous negatives that had the fall off problem
would
confirm or not if this is the case...
Good (Even) light!
Speedy
> From: dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: 8x10 enlarger/enlarging oddity
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:31:04 -0800
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Nelson" <emanmb@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "pure silver" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:50 PM
> Subject: [pure-silver] 8x10 enlarger/enlarging oddity
>
>
> Since I'll be moving soon-ish I decided to print a few 8x10
> negs of mine before everything is sold or stored.
>
>
> 99.9% of my printing w/that enlarger was rolls of 35mm film
> making enlarged proofs for clients. Whenever I did that, I
> had to burn the corners 2-3x to get them even w/the center
> of the print. I attributed this to the 240mm lens I used
> being too short and doing some vignetting. I didn't do
> enough of this type of work to make the investment in a
> 300mm worthwhile.
>
> So I printed a couple negs and there was no burning needed
> whatsoever. Landscape shot, studio shot all perfectly even.
> Same 240mm lens, same diffusion chamber, etc. It's a DeVere
> 5108 tabletop model.
>
>
> So what gives? The proofs definitely needed burning on their
> corners whereas these normal prints from 8x10 negs needed
> absolutely none.
>
> Eric
>
> That is rather puzzling. Can you think of any
> difference in the set up between using it to illuminate
> contacts and using it for prints. And BTW, when you talk
> about making 35mm contact sheets was this using the enlarger
> to illuminate a contact frame or were you making enlarged
> contact sheets with the negatives in the enlarger? If the
> latter its even more puzzling.
> FWIW some enlargers use tapered illumination to correct
> for the fall-off which is present in all standard lenses.
> Usually this is accomplished with a tapered light attenuator
> in the form of a sandblasted sheet of glass. Of course, this
> is in strictly diffusion enlargers such as the old Elwood
> ones. If the enlarger is a condenser type (and there were
> 8x10 condenser enlargers) perhaps there was some variation
> in the focus of the condenser system. I can't really think
> of anything taht seems to be within the laws of physics.
>
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles
> WB6KBL
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
============================================================================
=================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
