These are tips that I learned years ago--all are good. Also, this is why I never liked the Beseler design or any other "factory set" enlargers except perhaps the Leica Valoy or Focomat. I always preferred the the Saunders Omega D or Dllv and found the condenser heads gave me a crisper print. As far as dust, just slow down a little and fastidiously assemble the neg and carrier. Glass carriers also prevent the neg from "popping" out of focus from long exposures that could heat up the neg.
Dust will forever be a pain... but slowing down and cleaning the neg well seems to take care of it! My Omega D was a bit of a pain and did not like the way the boldts at the lens stage (or maybe film and lens) needed two wrenches to tighten... felt like I needed a third arm. I believe it was the D2 Chasis and am sure they made improvements with the later ones. Thanks for the input!
High quality lenses (usually 6 elements) tend to optimize about 2 stops down from wide open. When enlarging formats up through 120 roll film, I've found the best arrangement of negative carrier to be an upper plate of anti-newton ring glass and a glassless lower plate in the carrier. The natural curl of the film will flatten the film against the upper plate, making use of an additional lower glass holder unnecessary. Much easier to keep clean. Some makers make this easy to arrange (Durst); some do not (Omega).
That does seem to be a good compromise having anti-newton glass on the top. A few less surfaces for the dust to hide and the same result as full glass carrier. Not sure if they make these for the LPL though. Thanks!
Randall I totally agree, readers be careful to stop down the lens too much. The best thing is to test your EL with a target and print it at normal enlagments on grade 3 starting full open, 1/2 stop down and so on you will be amazed by what you see. I found out that my Nikkor 50 mm EL-N was way scharper and contrastier than the lengendary Leica Focotar 40/2,8. 😱 So boys and girls, word is: TESTING-TESTING-TESTING Concerning the dust issue: glassless negative carrier = 2 dust area's Single glass carrier = 4 dust area's Double glass carrier (best for flattnes) = 6 dust area's Choose your weapons 😂
Oh, forgot something...it is a kind of a myth that you should use a lens with a larger focal length than normal. Reason: the larger the focal length implies a larger format film, ergo the lens has to work "less hard" because of the larger film format and has therefor less resolution (look up the resolution figures supplied by the manufacturer). What you do get is a larger image circle and less falloff but that should not be an issue when you stop down your lens a little as normally needed. My tip: Buy the book POST EXPOSURE by CTEIN, he also has a channel, this is gold. Good luck.
@@randallstewart175 Hi Randall, yes it was, there is also an updated version wich corrects the flaws, you can also connect with Ctein easily, he is verry aproachial and willing to give data.
I had bought my first enlarger from Jeff at Badger Graphics and he paired my 6x7 negs with a Rodenstock 105mm. Later I looked into the reasoning and it did make sense. One of those things where if you are having problems in the corners you might definitely want to give it a try. I also use a 150mm for 4x5. I do have the 80mm and 135mm if I need to enlarge bigger or crop heavily and the other lens ‘s reach their max enlargement. Thanks for watching.
As simply stated in the video, this is the only tip that I and my 60+ years of experience disagree with. The idea of using longer focal length lenses to use just the center sweet spot for your enlarging seems logical, but if you look at the resolution performance of top quality enlarging lenses, not so at all. Let's use his literal example. He is using a 105mm El_Nikkor lens (4.5?) designed to cover the 6x9cm format for his 6x6cm negative. First, that 105mm has to give up some resolution performance for its larger coverage compared to the 80mm El-Nikkor normal used. You also accept the smaller operating aperture of the 105mm. The "sweet spot" for lenses of this quality is quite minimal, so there may be little to no return on using the longer focal length lens. As for 6x7cm, the 80mm El-Nikkor does not adequately cover the 6x7cm format according to Nikon, although you'd be hard pressed to see that normally. Since Nikon never made a lens optimized for 6x7cm, you have to step up to the 105mm or go to a different brand. Since I eventually went to 6x7cm format, I also ended up shifting from Nikon to Fuji. Their top tier Fujinon-EP or -EX (later improved coatings) lenses are as good or better than the Nikkors, and the focal lengths match formats better. (Pry my 90mm Fujinon-EX from my cold, dead hand.)
I have a book by Gene Nocon in which he advises/promotes use of a grain finder with a blue filter as the paper is most sensitive to blue light and the focus of the enlarger lens does shift according to frequency of light. He gives examples to prove his point and they do show a pronounced grain sharpness in the end result.
@@Distphoto essentially yes though I bought one (second hand) with a built in filter which can be dialled in when required. Can't remember make - might be Peak will comment later.
# 8 : shoot medium format or larger 😄 The larger the negative the less is the enlargement factor. So you do not depend on expensive ultra high resolution enlargement lenses. Another factor is the type of light source. Some people trust in condenser enlargers some believe in diffuser type. Condenser are sharper but show every grain - if someone sees a disadvantage in it.
I did not think of that but have wanted a condenser enlarger for quite a while. Mostly to print grittier grainier negatives when the subject calls for it. Seems like another useful tool to have. I mostly learned the Ansel Adam’s way of printing and everything referenced cold light and diffusion heads so I always thought that was the only way to go. I really want to set up a condenser head now. Thanks! Yes, larger negatives are always a joy to print from!!!
I found that HP5 developed in diluted D76 gives very good sharpness. It seems to have a bit more bite than the finer grain emulsions like tmax, acros and Delta. Those films do have very fine grain and high resolution though.
D76 is great. Might be heading back that way. I have used HC110 for the convenience for quite some time and think it is equally as sharp as d76 but not sure if I can get it anymore...🥲
Amen. If I want sharp, I need to know how to do it. But the image is not about how sharp it is, it's about how it makes you feel, if it captures your attention. I work at a camera store and everything is about "how sharp this lens is" Naw, it is about what helps you create great images... and sometimes, it's making less sharp images to get the feel and mood and character you want in a shot.
Do you have any thoughts on what is best practice for sharpness using a besseler 4 x 5 enlarger? You can acheive focus through a combination of raising/lowering both the negative carrier and the lens. Should both bellows be equal or is having the negative closer to the light or closer to the lens better? Thank you for your channel and sharing your knowledge!
Great question... wish I had a good answer for you. I really do not know but would not think it would differ greatly one way or another unless you start lossing lens coverage. so might make a bigger difference at the edges and corner that in the middle. So maybe the range that gives you the most lens coverage? Maybe someone else will chime in? or look on Phototrio. Some very knowledgeable printers over there!
All these points are true . Some other things to consider are : glass neg carriers are great to flatten the neg but create newton rings that are hard to make out unless you look closely for them ; condenser enlargers help emulsion grain edges have more definition and appear more sharp but reveal more pronounced grain as opposed to using a diffusion or cold light source that suppress hard edge effects , softening the image by wrapping light around the emulsion grains creating a softer , rounder arial image when printing ; and be careful and on the lookout for negative pop and paper movement from the Effects of light source heat expanding the negative from long exposure times and paper movement from high humid darkroom conditions . There are A lot of things to control beyond having a nice neg to work from . Tops in my book …. is all of these things !
I have one carrier that has anti newton glass and it works well. Every time I have tried plain glass have gotten terrible newton rings. At the time I was puzzled and did not know what they were.... Most of my experience printing is with diffusion enlargers. I do have a condenser and used them a lot when I was in school. Much prefer the forgiving nature of diffused light, For the right subject want to give a condenser enlarger a try though. A lot of other things to consider as well! Many thanks!
I remember in one of your videos you talked about your ventilation fan for your darkroom.. there was one you didn’t like and replaced it with a new model! What fan did you end up with? I need one with a little over 100 CFM
For sure that will give you sharper prints… I have a condenser enlarger I want to set up for certain negs. It gives a different look. Overall I much prefer a diffusion source for most printing though.
Critical comment re his tip #4. His argument is that using a longer focal length lens than normally used will concentrate the image used in the "sweet spot" of the lens has some merit, but how much will depend on how good your "normal" lens is. What he is suggesting is to enlarge your 35mm negative with perhaps a 75-80mm lens instead of a 50mm. However. there are a couple pf factors which might neutralize any such benefit. (1) You have a longer projection distance, so the enlarger head is further up the column "flagpole", and more susceptible to vibration. This is highly dependent on your enlarger and its mounting. (2) The longer focal length lens is deigned to cover a much larger negative area, which requires that its resolution will be reduced to some extent. Because the lens is designed to make smaller degrees of enlargement from those larger negative, manufacturers were not concerned over that tradeoff. So, the best performance (the sweet spot) of the longer lens may be inferior to the shorter "normal" lens. Again, clearly a matter of the individual lenses being compared. Using El-Nikkor lenses over the years, I've tried this longer lens idea and have never found any benefit.
Very valid points. Thanks for the input and I fully agree. It is largely lens dependent and the ones that tend to come with enlargers will be of poor quality compared to better made lenses, so there is some grey area. One other point is there is less light fall off on the edges using a lens with greater coverage. Using a meter it is cosiderabally more with the shorter lens, but again will depend on lens, aperture, etc…. You can get excellent lens used for a great price these days so get the best quality you can at the focal length that covers your needs. I “usually” use 50 for 35 mm sometimes 80mm but almost always use 105mm for 6x6 and 150mm for 4x5. And do not hesitate to recommend them. (All are Rodenstock Lenses) I am fairly certain my longer focal length lenses are as sharp and resolve as much as the equivalent focal length for the given format. If you are not happy with a lenses performance I would consider experimenting till you find what you like.
Don’t remember where I got the laser that I used but it was only like 5-10 buck I believe. Just had to make the jig to level it. Boresight would work great!
