Nick Zentena wrote:

The problem is you've got at least a third variable. That is the distance
the bulb is from the paper. 100 watts is likely going to be way too
powerfull unless the bulb is quite distant from the paper. My 4x5 enlarger
uses a 150 watt bulb but the lens can easily be stopped down to F/11. Which
would cut the light by a factor of 128(I think). Use a smaller bulb. BTW I
mean the lens would be F/11 or smaller in use. The lens will stop down
further.

Fourth variable. The paper. Different papers will have different
speeds. I'm assuming you're using an enlarging paper.

Nick



Hi Nick and Guillermo,

Thank you for the replies. They are EXACTLY what I needed.

Nick, I don't really know what "enlarging" paper is. I am using Ilford
MGIV RC 5x7 in a satin finish. I have never really liked a glossy print,
but I may try glossy paper on my next purchase, and reprint some
negatives just to compare between satin and glossy.

Nick & Guillermo, If I understand what you're saying, the bulb size can
be quite small then I guess, and I gather that up to a certain point
(that point to be determined by experiment) the diminishing amount of
light produced by a smaller bulb can be made up for by increased
exposure times. I guess also that the higher (up to a point) that the
bulb is above the exposure plane, the more even the light is, and will
appear to be perpendicular to the paper/negative combination rather than
be at a slight angle which is what would be seen when the bulb is closer
to the plane of the paper? I would think that there would be some loss
of crispness as you get closer to the paper with the bulb?

Last question : Has any one seen any difference between a coated (soft
white) bulb and a clear glass bulb in the print quality?

cheers

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)