Re: [Leica] Enlarger height and enlarging lenses

["Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com>]

I have an Omega D2 enlarger and 135mm, 105mm, 80mm and 50mm lenses.  The
105mm is a Rodenstock and the others are Schneider Companons.

It seems most I get the best enlarging range by using the 50mm for 35mm
negatives, the 80mm for 6X6 negatives, the 105mm for 6X9 negatives and the
135mm for 4X5 negatives.    I am enlarging for 8X10 and frequently cropping
from a much larger projection.

Should I be doing something differently?

Roland Smith

roland@dnai.com

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Enlarger height and enlarging lenses


> Mike Johnston wrote:
> ><Snip>
> > Kip,
> > The idea that you should use a longer-than-normal focal length for any
> > format is an old wives' tale.* It hasn't been remotely valid for thirty
> > years or more, and certainly isn't today. The best performance will
> > almost always be achieved with a lens designed for the format you're
> > enlarging. Stick to 50mm lenses for 35mm.
> >
> > It's also worth noting that virtually no "wide angle" lens for 35mm
> > format tests as well as similar lenses of 50mm focal length. This
> > includes the 45mm Schneider and the 40mm Leitz.
> >
> > --Mike
> >
> > * Figure of speech only. No slur intended against old wives or any of
> > the gentlemen married to them.
>
> Fred Picker taught his popular cult the necessary advantages of going up
one
> format on enlarging lenses but I never got his book or bought his print of
the
> white picket fence. I'm not a follower period. He would push the
Schneiders 90's
> on his unsuspecting  35mm worshipers and I'm sure they did  more than OK
with them.
> My first enlarger that I did any real work with was a Beseler 5x7
coldlight. The
> motorized head would not go low enough to use my dirty 50mm Componon for
my 6x9
> full frame black border images I would always made on 8x10 paper. (and
still do)
> A 6 x enlargement roughly. So I used a 75 mm Componar then an 85 Nikor for
most
> of my work. Then I got a D2 with a cold light and a 50 2.8 Nikkor but my 4
> bladed Saunders easel would almost hit my enlarging lens every time I
opened it
> and I would get a crick in my neck in the whole printing process. Advil in
advance!
> I tested my 50 against my 80 on a neg making matched prints but the only
> difference was my neck.
> I agree the "wide angle" enlarging lenes are a problem and the reason
being
> corner quality but corner quality could also be an issue with a 50 even a
high
> end 50. And that for some people like the Pickerites could be why they
would use
> and 80 or a 90. But I could not tell much of a difference as I said with
my 50
> against my 80. But I stop down one and I'm at f8 that kind of bums me
out!!!
> And Fred Picker ain't no old wife and neither am I!!! I don't think there
is a
> resolution problem as I could see none with in my prints (using various
> magnifiers closely inspecting the grain).
> I think grain magnifiers are deceptive in what they tell you I always
decide
> from the grain in a dried print.
> So there!!
> Mark Rabiner
> I make 7x7" images on 8x10 paper from medium format squre negs with my 135
> Nikkor! What a deal! Same money on Chiropractic work!
>