Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just want to share my experience which I made with a nearly mint Beseler 23C enlarger which I got from a friend of mine for free (in fact it is now my 4th enlarger after getting a 45M, 45MXT, and a 67S II). After having set up my existing enlargers for large format (4x5") and small format negatives printing, I planned to use the 23C for medium format size negatives (6x7 cm) since I also had a Schneider-Kreuznach 80/5.6 enlarger lens. What I was missing is the fitting negative holder for 6x7 cm - I checked online and found a few horrendously expensive used negative holders (the new ones from Beseler were even more expensive). I checked in my clutter box where I kept other scavenged darkroom material, and I found an Omega-enlarger based 6x7 cm negative holder. Glad I didn't buy any of the overpriced Beseler ones - because actually the Omega one fits in portrait mode nicely into the 23C enlarger. Of course there is a little gap between closed upper bellow unit and the holder, but I found it is not an issue at all (no light leaks out to an extent that it would endanger the printing process during exposure). I didn't find it described online anywhere that Omega negative holders can be used in certain Beseler enlargers! The Schneider-Kreuznach 80/5.8 lens also handles the 6x7 cm negative size well with sharp corners when stopped down a bit (I normally use my enlarger lenses at f/11). Didn't find this information mentioned anywhere either - only posts online about the Nikkor 80/5.6 enlarger lens which is able to handle 6x7 cm negative size, too.  

 

Does anybody else made similar experiences and used parts of different enlarger types on another to make things work? Or using an enlarger lens less known or supposedly not to work well with a specific negative size but it still works okay? Please share some low cost - big gain experiences!

Edited by Martin B
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

My low cost - big gain has been to use one enlarger, an Omega B22 that I bought in the late 1960’s. I did, around 1970 buy a Chromega head so I could print in color. Now I use the color head as it works for black and white variable contrast paper. Color is all digital now.

The enlarger is fine for my needs as 6x6 is the largest negative I make with my cameras.

Edited by Bill Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree on the Omega - I bought a B22XL in college in the late '60s, and used to do a lot of 16x20s just using the kit 50mm lens, and still can't fault the results. Now also have a Focomat 1B and Focomat V35 (with both heads) both at giveaway prices a few years ago. But I still like the results with the B22 better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My low cost - big gain has been to use one enlarger, an Omega B22 that I bought in the late 1960’s. I did, around 1970 buy a Chromega head so I could print in color. Now I use the color head as it works for black and white variable contrast paper. Color is all digital now.

The enlarger is fine for my needs as 6x6 is the largest negative I make with my cameras.

 

Two of my four Beseler enlargers are equipped with color diffuser heads to allow prints in color. I did this a few times, but the RA-4 print process is tedious and the developer is very air-sensitive and decomposes too rapidly even if stored in glass bottles filled to top. I also do all color prints digitally now and only use my enlargers for B&W printing. The advantage of using a color diffuser lamp for B&W printing is to be able to change the contrast with the purple filter instead of using a contrast filter underneath the enlarger lens. But both ways work of course. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting article on contrast control of photographic paper by Ilford:

 

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Contrast-control-for-Ilford-Multigrade.pdf

 

Excellent link - was not aware of it! Especially on page 3! Even I rarely use additional contrast throughout my negative frame and rather dodge/burn specific parts of it in the print. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By apbphoto
      I am restoring a Focomat 1c (complete with Ilford Multigrade HLZ system) and all seems fine except it is missing one small but important part. I attach a photo of the part on another 1c as well as the bare spindle/screw on mine.
      I don’t know what it is called but I’m guessing it is a roller bearing and is roughly 10mm in diameter. It supports the curved autofocus cam and without it I need to manually focus all the time.
      Now I am aware that Leica stopped support for enlargers some time ago but I wonder if anyone could help: is this a standard component I could source from a roller bearing supplier or would I need to have it fabricated?

      Second query is does anyone know of a good lens repair place that could clean the haze from a couple of Focotars I have. Leica no longer provide this service. I'm in the UK.

      Thanks

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
    • By onasj
      Leica’s new M10 Monochrom (M10M) has been touted by multiple reviewers as offering image quality rivaling that of medium-format film.  And Sony explicitly claims that its a7riv camera rivals medium-format cameras.  In this test, I compare side-by-side the Leica M10P (24 MP, color) with the M10M (41 MP, monochrome), the Sony a7riv (61 MP, color), and the “full-frame medium format” (54 x 40 mm sensor) Phase One IQ4 (151 MP, color), currently the largest and highest-resolution imaging sensor available to most photographers.  (Note that the 102-MP Fuji GFX-100 has a cropped (44 x 33 mm) version of the Sony-manufactured sensor In the IQ4.)  For each camera, I used the very best available lens at the best-quality aperture and at base ISO.
       
      Test conditions:
      Leica M10P + Leica APO 50 Summicron at f/5.6, ISO 100
      Leica M10M + Leica APO 50 Summicron at f/5.6, ISO 160
      Sony a7riv + Sony 85/1.4 GM at f/5.6, ISO 100
      Phase One IQ4 + Rodenstock HR90 at f/9, ISO 100 (yes, the base ISO of the IQ4 is 100, not 50).
       
      Shooting the IQ4 at f/9 gives a comparable depth of focus as shooting the other cameras at f/5.6.  I know from my other tests, and from discussions with Phase One dealers, that at f/9 diffraction is not limiting in practice for the IQ4 sensor (though it can be limiting at apertures smaller than f/9).
       
      Everything was shot on a tripod with 2-3-second release delay to avoid shake, at subject distances to give similar subject size and position.  Note that the aspect ratio of the IQ4 sensor is 4:3, rather than 3:2 like the other sensors, so I used frame width to match framing.  Since I was shooting the IQ4 on a technical camera, all four cameras were mirrorless, with no risk of mirror slap vibrations spoiling sharpness.
       
      Raw files were exposure-matched and converted to monochrome using Capture One 20.  Then each converted max-quality JPEG was auto-bicubic-scaled in Photoshop to either 7864 pixels wide (the width of native M10M images) or to 14204 pixels wide (the width of native IQ4 images).
       
      You can download all the raw files and full-resolution max-quality JPEG files here:
      https://www.dropbox.com/sh/scvrfg8h41naux4/AADw8Cfm37db2BWkGTbie3M2a?dl=0
       
      A tiny 100% crop from near the center of the 14204 pixel-wide images was composited into a matrix for comparison, attached to this post.  Click on the image to see the comparison full-size.  I choose to use the scaled-up 14204-pixel-wide images since one goal of this test is to determine if any of these imaging systems can approach medium format quality, not to test if they can approach down-sized medium format quality.  You can build analogous matrices from the smaller images as well using the files in the above link if you would like. 
       
      Summary of findings:
      1) As expected, all of these four imaging systems with optimum glass, ISO, and aperture produce excellent images at their native sizes.
       
      2) The Bayer CFA-less M10M does indeed punch above its megapixel weight.  With respect to capturing subject details, I found the M10M (41 MP) and Sony a7riv (61 MP) to be virtually identical.  In fact, to my eye the M10M+50 APO was able to capture slightly more details than the a7riv+85 GM—compare the lint on the upper grey band of the vessel in the attached matrix.
       
      3) The Phase One IQ4 eats all the competitors for lunch if you compare image quality at 100%.  But a 14,204-pixel-wide image printed at 200 dpi is 6 feet wide (!).  At any practical viewing distance (assuming you don’t need to crop heavily), I would say that the IQ4, M10M, and a7riv are actually quite similar, even when scaling up the latter two images to the 14,204 pixel width of the IQ4 image.  Which is pretty cool.
       
      4) The M10P, as you might expect for a 24-MP camera thrown into a resolution and sharpness gunfight, lags well behind the others, but even so, once I view the M10P image at about 50% magnification it begins to look quite similar to the other images.
       
      5) In terms of bang for the buck, Sony offers outstanding value, as usual.  The Sony a7riv + 85 GM lens costs ~$5,200.  Either Leica body + the 50 APO costs ~$17,000.  And the Phase One IQ4 + Rodenstock HR90 costs around $55,000.  And the Sony is the only one of the four tested systems that offers autofocus.
       
      So can the Leica M10M or the Sony a7riv offer image quality rivaling that of state-of-the-art digital medium format systems?  Yes, at practical viewing sizes and distances, when using optimal glass.  But if pixel peeping or (very) large prints are your target application, then medium format, for now, has no peer.
    • By Vieri
      Ladies and gentlemen, I just published my latest Blog post with some reflections on the state of Internet publishing, as well as with some truly exciting news: I am honoured to announce that I will be writing for Medium Format Magazine!
      Follow the link to read the article: https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2019/08/vieri-bottazzini-on-medium-format-magazine.html
      Thank you for reading, best regards
      Vieri
    • By yigitaltay
      One guy was offering a complete darkroom equipment for 50 euros incl. Durst M605 bw enlarger with Schneider companon lens (he doesn't mention which one). I will go and see its condition but I have very limited knowledge. 
       
      So I need your help. I would like to ask what should I look for? Only things that I am think of the film carriers, fungus/scratches on the lens, timer, bulb.
       
      Thanks a lot in advance!
         

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
×
×
  • Create New...