On 07/16/2018 04:46 PM, Robert Marvin wrote:
"6X6' and "120" and don't forget 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 :-)
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:22 PM, bobkiss caribsurf.com <http://caribsurf.com>
<bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
DEAR JANET,
Yes, initially it can be confusing but the terms "6X6' and "120"
are often used interchangeably. By the way, I love your cell phone's spell
check which rendered Hasselblad as "hassle glad". Those cameras could,
indeed, be a hassle sometimes (when they jammed, you had a very expensive,
useless box!!!) but I was always glad I kept a second body and back up
magazines and lenses. So hassle glad, indeed! LOL!!!
CHEERS!
BOB
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Janet Gable Cull" <janetgcull@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:janetgcull@xxxxxxxxx>>
*To: *"pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
*Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 4:09:57 PM
*Subject: *[pure-silver] Re: Enlarger lenses
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 <http://caribsurf.com>
<bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
<mailto:janetgcull@xxxxxxxxx>>
*To: *"pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
WB6KBL
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
<//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.
