You idiot, don't you know we have inkjet printers now!?

nathanm · « **on:** 8 Sep 2007, 04:17 am »

After a full month after the auction closed I finally got my damn enlarger. *whew* This thing was "creatively" shipped with the top end poking out the top of a large box with a little mini box taped over it. The inside was loaded with scraps of newspaper and styrofoam. Quite a beastly sight. Anyway, here it is mostly set up. I've gotta get a new lens apparently, the 50mm that came with it doesn't work properly with 4x5 negs. But it works. Came with this monstrous photometer\densitometer thingy (somewhat visible in the background there). Not quite sure how to use that or why, but I'll figure it out eventually.

It's already bringing back many fond memories of the days of yore! Old school! Even the musty, burning smell.

F-100 · « **Reply #1 on:** 8 Sep 2007, 05:21 am »

You need a Jobo CPA-2 processor to go with that enlarger? I got one sitting in the garage that can produce prints up to 20x24". Will sell it cheap !!! aa aa

SET Man · « **Reply #2 on:** 8 Sep 2007, 05:47 am »

Hey!

Congratulation on your new old 4x5 enlarger.

Omega D6 is a very nice compact 4x5 enlarger.

Yes, the 50mm lens is for 35mm, too short for anything larger than 35mm film. For 4x5 film you will need a 135mm or 150mm. I do recommend a Schneider 150mm Componon-S one. You could get one pretty cheap these days used... I got mine off eBay couple of years ago. Try to look for a modern one not the older type one.

Also, my current favorite paper is Forte "Polygrade V" fiber based. It is a variable contrast paper (VC) so you will also need a set of VC filter when you print to change contrast.

And my favorite paper developer is the good old Dektol

Sadly these are getting more expensive now a day.

Get ready to spend hours for just one 8x10!

It is time consuming compared to digital but you will be well rewarded. You will be amazed to see how nice an 8x10 print from a 4x5 neg can be.

Patience my friend, patience.

Now I wish I have more time to use my Beseler 4x5 enlarger that have been collecting dust since the last time I've used it... Oh! I think the last time I've use it was in November 2005

Take care,
Buddy

nathanm · « **Reply #3 on:** 8 Sep 2007, 07:23 am »

So far I've bought all Ilford chemicals and paper and just went by the instructions. It's worked great for the negs, they've all turned out good. I've got 8x10 trays for paper, but I would have to come up with something else if I want to do bigger prints. I did buy a set of Ilford variable contrast fiters. I learned I needed those by making some really bad half-assed contact prints with a piece of scratchy plastic and the room light! Ha! Whoops...

I guess the Jobo might make sense since it takes up less space. Hmmm... Is it more work to get one of those contraptions running compared to trays? I don't know anything about them. I like the trays in that there's nothing mechanical to break, no electronics or anything, just dump in the chemicals and go. But I don't know if I've got room for big trays, I'd have to rig something up in the bathtub perhaps.

AdamM · « **Reply #4 on:** 8 Sep 2007, 08:22 am »

Wow Nathan!!!

Omega enlarger!

I hope the smell of fixer brings back good memories

SET Man · « **Reply #5 on:** 8 Sep 2007, 03:46 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 8 Sep 2007, 07:23 am

So far I've bought all Ilford chemicals and paper and just went by the instructions. It's worked great for the negs, they've all turned out good. I've got 8x10 trays for paper, but I would have to come up with something else if I want to do bigger prints. I did buy a set of Ilford variable contrast fiters. I learned I needed those by making some really bad half-assed contact prints with a piece of scratchy plastic and the room light! Ha! Whoops...

I guess the Jobo might make sense since it takes up less space. Hmmm... Is it more work to get one of those contraptions running compared to trays? I don't know anything about them. I like the trays in that there's nothing mechanical to break, no electronics or anything, just dump in the chemicals and go. But I don't know if I've got room for big trays, I'd have to rig something up in the bathtub perhaps.

Hey!

I see.... I used to print all my stuff on Ilford paper until the Forte came along.

Anyway, since you are just starting you should stick with the Resin Coated (RC) paper, and Ilford have a very good RC paper. Once you could get a good print from RC paper than you could try Fiber Based (FB) paper.

As for trays vs processor. I still prefer the old fashion way with trays.

Now I hope you have room for bigger prints... I don't so I'm pretty much strictly limited to 8x10

Also, if you do a lot of printing I do recommend a good used multi-slots print washer, this will make life a lot easier especially with FB paper.

Man! Reading and writing about this sure make me miss smelling fixer on my hands and holding a nice 8x10 in my hands

Anyway, have fun!

Take care,
Buddy

nathanm · « **Reply #6 on:** 10 Sep 2007, 03:09 pm »

So...is there like a universal thread for these enlarger lenses or do I need some kind of plate or mounting doodad specific to the enlarger? Also does anyone happen to know what the little sliding bit is on the lens? There's this knurled slider thing but as far as I can tell it doesn't actually do anything?

I noticed some other lens also have it. At first I thought it might be a lock for the aperture but the rings still moves regardless.

SET Man · « **Reply #7 on:** 11 Sep 2007, 01:29 am »

Quote from: nathanm on 10 Sep 2007, 03:09 pm

So...is there like a universal thread for these enlarger lenses or do I need some kind of plate or mounting doodad specific to the enlarger? Also does anyone happen to know what the little sliding bit is on the lens? There's this knurled slider thing but as far as I can tell it doesn't actually do anything? I noticed some other lens also have it. At first I thought it might be a lock for the aperture but the rings still moves regardless.

Hey!

Well, it is likely that you will need another lens board with larger hole for the 150mm. And yes you do need one that fit your D6 of which I believe use a round lensboard. I'm pretty you could find one on eBay.

As for the knurled slider on your enlarging lens? Hmm... interesting.

It is the thing that stick out like the Schneider above? I have 50mm above and that little thing sticking out is a feature where you could quickly open up the aperture to it widest and close it back to the one that you've set at first. So you don't have to turn the aperture ring back an forth.

You could try it by set the aperture in the middle of the range like f8 than slide that thing back to see if it open the lens up and it should return to let's say f8 when you slide it back.

BTW... to make life easier when you buy used enlarging lens see if it come with jam nut.

Take care,
Buddy

JohnR · « **Reply #8 on:** 11 Sep 2007, 08:45 am »

Very cool. I don't think this is for me but I'm looking forward to hearing how you go with it!

nathanm · « **Reply #9 on:** 12 Sep 2007, 09:13 pm »

It would've made a lot more sense to just scan the negs since I already know Photoshop and all. But I figure if I'm going to shoot large format film at all I might as well carry through with the complete analog process.

The enlarging timer has already flaked out on me so I got this doohickey which does measurements. I already ate up like a dozen sheets of 8x10 just trying to get a good base exposure. It will be nice to start off with something more in the ballpark.

TONEPUB · « **Reply #10 on:** 12 Sep 2007, 09:48 pm »

Wow, that's really ambitious!

I do miss the darkroom a bit, not to mention
a couple of really cute photo assistants that
used to work for me....

Something about that red/yellow light.

Hmmmm

nathanm · « **Reply #11 on:** 12 Sep 2007, 11:35 pm »

THAT'S what I forgot to get! Really cute photo assistants! I knew I was forgetting something...

nathanm · « **Reply #12 on:** 27 Sep 2007, 05:12 pm »

Allright, here's the very first print made with the RH Designs "Analyzer Pro" meter unit\timer. Not bad considering it is as of yet a tool in the hand of the ignorant. Probably helped that I made sure to use the default paper the unit is calibrated for. But the process is fairly simple and it beats flying blind like I was doing before.

For a full-size whopper so you can see the unretouched dust and grunge

:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1084/1448035991_14e8dfa26a_o.jpg

It is very nice to have a smooth, continuous tone silver image though. It does not look like an inkjet in person. Online unfotunately you can't tell so much.

AdamM · « **Reply #13 on:** 27 Sep 2007, 09:52 pm »

Beautiful shot Nathan!
Great choice - the tonal range and contrast. I bet it looks (even more) fantastic in person

Freo-1 · « **Reply #14 on:** 27 Sep 2007, 09:55 pm »

Excellent shot!

Ansel Adams would be pleased.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #15 on:** 27 Sep 2007, 10:42 pm »

Quote from: Freo-1 on 27 Sep 2007, 09:55 pm

Excellent shot!

Ansel Adams would be pleased.

For sure!

That could be in a portfolio of Ansel Adams' photos and I don't think I would notice any particular difference, except that I might like it more than some others!

SMc Audio · « **Reply #16 on:** 28 Sep 2007, 05:56 am »

Hi Nathan -

Congratulations on getting your enlarger up and running! That is a lovely shot and a very nice print - I'm sure it looks great "in person." I was moved to write because once-upon-a-time I dabbled with developing my own film and doing my own prints, but it was ages ago. I was doing a bit of house cleaning recently and I came across a bunch of Ilford B&W paper in assorted sizes, and I didn't have the heart to throw it out. I was trying to figure out 1) if it was still good (it must be 12 or 15 years old) and 2) who I could give it to. Maybe you would have some idea if it is still usable, and I would be happy to send it to you if you would like to try it. Please contact me if you have even the slightest interest, and I'll wrap it up and send it. I'll feel better knowing it went to someone who may get some use out of it.

Best regards,

Steve McCormack, designer
SMc Audio
SMcAudio@pacbell.net

nathanm · « **Reply #17 on:** 28 Sep 2007, 06:21 am »

Hi Steve,

Very nice of you, thanks! I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try it; although 15 years is quite a long time! I am not sure about the longevity of unexposed paper. Let's see...*search search* Well, I found this bit on a photo board which doesn't sound too promising:

Quote

I can't speak for the aging of Kodak papers, but I imagine that it is similar to ILFORD papers in that respect. ILFORD papers are considered to have a 3 year shelf life from the date of manufacture. As the paper ages, it will tend to show several effects; at first, there will be a loss of contrast. Secondly (usually coinciding with the contrast loss) there will be a speed loss. Last, there will be a buildup of fog. Once the paper starts showing some fog, it is IMO useless (some people would advocate anti-fogging agents, but for me, my time in the darkroom is too precious to waste with anything other than good quality). The contrast and speed issues are of little concern with a VC paper, since you can make adjustments as needed. However, I would be hesitant to give such product to a beginner, just in case there is any problem that they might not notice (where an experienced printer would).

David Carper

ILFORD Technical Service

nathanm · « **Reply #18 on:** 3 Oct 2007, 05:00 pm »

Large format is slow indeed. First time I went in to this cemetary with the digital camera I filled up two and a half 2GB cards with photos in about an hour or so. With the 4x5 I probably spent two hours, and took six exposures of five scenes. (six is a good number too, that's how many holders fit in my developing tanks!) But they are all pretty good shots. Here's one of them. This isn't a print, it's a scan. There were some things which I wanted to correct, such as water drops on the lens. I learn something new about shooting every time, though. (such as don't forget the darkcloth on this session

)

nathanm · « **Reply #19 on:** 3 Oct 2007, 05:48 pm »

Here's another. A little more severe water drops. I really should've wiped them off I guess... Oh well.