Thank you for your reply, Bob. I was confused when I saw people referring to my
negatives as 6 x 6. I was glad you said hassle glad. Then I knew we were in the
right lane.
Yes, I know what you mean about the quality of the larger negative. That's why
it's a little frustrating to me to try to get a large print when my larger
doesn't seem to be cooperating. I'm going to try another enlarging lands and
see how it goes.
Your body of work certainly sounds interesting!
Janet Gable Cull
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 15, 2018, at 8:53 AM, bobkiss caribsurf.com <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
DEAR JANET,
The difference between printing from a 35mm neg and a 6X6 neg is
amazing. Though I shot lots of b&w fashion and celebrity photos with my 35mm
Nikons, I tried to shoot with my 'Blad as often as possible because the
results were MUCH more beautiful. And it isn't only sharpness. As you are
enlarging less to any size print, you have more "pixels" (grains) per unit
area which, according to communications science, allow more possible grey
scale levels...i.e. smoother tonality. About 5 years ago, I had a show of
mural sized (up to 44X60 inch) prints of the celebrity photos I shot for
Interview, Paris, German, and British Vogues, Town and Country, etc. The 35
mm Panatomic X negs scanned and printed very well but the 6X6 Panatomic X
negs (shot with my 'Blad; mostly 120 mm and 80 mm lenses) produced stunning
prints, by far superior to the prints from the 35 mm negs. I could count
Jodie Foster's eyelashes in a full length photo and, as she was wearing a
white shirt with a black double breasted blazer (a la Veronica Lake), you can
see tone and texture in both the blacks and whites. And don't let anyone
tell you it makes no difference in 8X10 or 11X14 prints. That smoothness of
tonality is soooooooooooo obvious even in an 8X10!
CHEERS!
BOB
From: "Janet Gable Cull" <janetgcull@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 6:41:17 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Enlarger lenses
Yes, when I asked about the stain on the film that was 35mm film. I use a 50
mm enlarger lens for that film but I changed to the 80mm for 2 1/4 x 2 1/4
film.
If I would want to make an 8 x 10 print with a wide border I would have to
crank the head up so high! It seems to me the quality of the print would be
better if that enlarger head (if that's what you call it, I'm not at home
where I can look in the book that came with my larger and I obviously don't
know the vernacular) were not so high up. To get a smaller print that head is
so far down and close to the paper that it's really hard to get the focusing
aid under it. Maybe the 105 mm lens will help, as suggested.
Printing from that larger negative is, I understand, supposed to be a delight
but it frustrates me to the point that I have at times considered selling my
Hasselblad. But it occurred to me that the camera is not the problem but that
perhaps I am using the wrong enlarger lens.
Janet Gable Cull
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 14, 2018, at 11:22 AM, `Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You need to clarify what you want. Keep in mind that if you change focal
lengths you need to adjust the condenser to match. The condenser should focus
the light source on the entrance pupil of the lens. For an enlarging lens the
entrance pupil is on the condenser side of the lens, not the print side. The
purpose is to even out the illumination on the easel.
A longer focal length will require more distance between the enlarger head
and the paper for the same size print, a shorter FL will allow a shorter
distance between head and print.
The illumination of shorter focal length lenses will not be as even across
the print, long FL lenses will be somewhat better than normal.
Your question about film stain indicated you are working with 35mm film.
80mm is "normal" for 2-1/4 x 2-1/4, it will require more separation from head
to paper for a given size print. "Normal" for 35mm double frame is about
50mm, which will allow larger size prints than the 80mm for a given column
height limit.
50mm will require an adjustment to the condenser. I do not remember if the
Durst enlarger has a continuous or stepped condenser adjustment or uses
separate condensers but most condenser enlargers have pre-sets for "standard"
focal lengths or sometimes marked as film sizes. Since the condenser setting
is also affected by the distance from lens to condenser the optimum setting
depends a little on the amount of magnification of image. That is determined
by the uniformity of the illumination at the printing surface. That can be
measured with a printing exposure meter. In all but specialized point source
enlargers the uniformity of illumination will be best with the lens stopped
down a stop or two.
I hope this is not confusing, if any of it is ask and I will try to
clarify it.
On 7/14/2018 6:10 AM, Janet Gable Cull wrote:
I use a Durst M605 enlarger.
I have an 8omm lens that mostly frustrates me (120 film). I need something
that will allow me to get the enlarger head up a little bit without going to
the ceiling. What do I want and is there a direction I can go to look for a
deal on it?
Thank you.
Janet Gable Cull
Sent from my iPhone
--
Richard Knoppow
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WB6KBL
=============================================================================================================
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.
