What size pint do you usually make ?

Hello !

Well I'm on a roll !

Yes now that life is settling down a little, I'm finally
getting to spend some quality time darkroom.

Soze I go and purchase this Linhof Tech III 57 last year in
preparation of adding the second child to the family and kissing my
budget for the next 25 years farewell. I won't get to technical at
this point. Instead I'll just ask what I put in the subject "What size
pint do you usually make ?" from your LF negs ?

Personally I've always loved 11X14 and this is why I wanted to
go with the 5X7 format. It's simply a 2X enlargement and pretty close
to contact print quality. Unfortunately what I found is that most of
the lenses today are optimized for 6~12X though I wonder if even a bad
lens would degrade a 2X enlargement.

So am I the only one making such small enlargements ?

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:01:29 -0600, John
wrote:

Well I'm on a roll !

Indeed I am. Gimme an "r" !

"Ardy there matee !"

No that's an RB not an RD


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

I confess that the notion of an enlarging lens being optimized for a
particular magnification factor is new to me, as I've demonstrated elsewhere
already. But who enlarges a negative to a paricualr size just because that's
the optimum for the enlarger lens? Does anyone really say "hmmm, I'd like to
make an 8x10 print from this 4x5 negative but that would only be a 2x
enlargement and my enlarger lens is optimized for 6x so I better make a
24x30 print." Who cares what the optimum factor of the enlarger lens is? I
was taught that the size of a print is an aesthetic decision, some prints
call out to be small, others large, others in between. And of course print
size has also come to be an economic decision for those who make their
living at this. But I don't ever remember seeing a suggestion that the
optimum enlargement factor for a lens should be considered when deciding on
a print size.

Is there some situation or circumstance where that's a real important
consideration that I'm overlooking or am I just alone in thinking that the
optimum enlargement factor of the lens is irrelevant to anything I should
care about?

"John" wrote in message
...
Hello !

Well I'm on a roll !

Yes now that life is settling down a little, I'm finally
getting to spend some quality time darkroom.

Soze I go and purchase this Linhof Tech III 57 last year in
preparation of adding the second child to the family and kissing my
budget for the next 25 years farewell. I won't get to technical at
this point. Instead I'll just ask what I put in the subject "What size
pint do you usually make ?" from your LF negs ?

Personally I've always loved 11X14 and this is why I wanted to
go with the 5X7 format. It's simply a 2X enlargement and pretty close
to contact print quality. Unfortunately what I found is that most of
the lenses today are optimized for 6~12X though I wonder if even a bad
lens would degrade a 2X enlargement.

So am I the only one making such small enlargements ?

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

16 ounces......

John wrote:
Hello !

Well I'm on a roll !

Yes now that life is settling down a little, I'm finally getting to
spend some quality time darkroom.

Soze I go and purchase this Linhof Tech III 57 last year in
preparation of adding the second child to the family and kissing my
budget for the next 25 years farewell. I won't get to technical at
this point. Instead I'll just ask what I put in the subject "What
size pint do you usually make ?" from your LF negs ?

Personally I've always loved 11X14 and this is why I wanted to go
with the 5X7 format. It's simply a 2X enlargement and pretty close to
contact print quality. Unfortunately what I found is that most of
the lenses today are optimized for 6~12X though I wonder if even a
bad lens would degrade a 2X enlargement.

So am I the only one making such small enlargements ?

You are not the only one.

My living room wall will not really tolerate
16x20" prints in a suitable size frame.

I was told that 16x20" prints on 22x28" mats sell better, and maybe
they do, but selling is not a big issue for me. I do have a 150mm
enlarging lens, 3 16x20" (i.d.) trays, and a 16x20 easel. But I have not
yet made a negative that I surely want to make a print that size.
Besides, were I to want to sell any that size, I would have to make a
variety of negatives worth printing that size.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 8:05am up 23 days, 19:30, 2 users, load average: 2.25, 2.23, 2.17

John wrote in message . ..
Hello !

Well I'm on a roll !

Yes now that life is settling down a little, I'm finally
getting to spend some quality time darkroom.

Soze I go and purchase this Linhof Tech III 57 last year in
preparation of adding the second child to the family and kissing my
budget for the next 25 years farewell. I won't get to technical at
this point. Instead I'll just ask what I put in the subject "What size
pint do you usually make ?" from your LF negs ?

Personally I've always loved 11X14 and this is why I wanted to
go with the 5X7 format. It's simply a 2X enlargement and pretty close
to contact print quality. Unfortunately what I found is that most of
the lenses today are optimized for 6~12X though I wonder if even a bad
lens would degrade a 2X enlargement.

So am I the only one making such small enlargements ?

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

Gotta say, I love 11x14 prints from 5x7 negs, for some negs even
better than contact prints. That said, I have to go through a lot of
hassle to print bigger from my elwood, 11x14 is the max for
convienence.
Brook

John wrote:

Personally I've always loved 11X14 and this is why I wanted to
go with the 5X7 format. It's simply a 2X enlargement and pretty close
to contact print quality. Unfortunately what I found is that most of
the lenses today are optimized for 6~12X though I wonder if even a bad
lens would degrade a 2X enlargement.

So am I the only one making such small enlargements ?


John,

Schneider's Componon-S enlarging lenses from 100mm on up are optimized
for 4-6X, which makes a 2X enlargement not too far out of range. Also,
the older Schneider Comparons (*not* Componars) were optimized for 2-4X.

I typically make 11x14s from 4x5 negatives with a Schneider Componon-S
150mm and am very pleased with the results.

James Meckley

James Meckley wrote in message ...
John wrote:

Personally I've always loved 11X14 and this is why I wanted to
go with the 5X7 format. It's simply a 2X enlargement and pretty close
to contact print quality. Unfortunately what I found is that most of
the lenses today are optimized for 6~12X though I wonder if even a bad
lens would degrade a 2X enlargement.

So am I the only one making such small enlargements ?


John,

Schneider's Componon-S enlarging lenses from 100mm on up are optimized
for 4-6X, which makes a 2X enlargement not too far out of range. Also,
the older Schneider Comparons (*not* Componars) were optimized for 2-4X.

I typically make 11x14s from 4x5 negatives with a Schneider Componon-S
150mm and am very pleased with the results.

James Meckley

I gutted the top of a 5x7 Elwood. The neg carrier, glassless, sits
right below a sheet of glass which is supported by a ledge 1/4" above.
Contrast filters and Rosco N.D., then another thin sheet of glass.
The cold lite and diffusor rest on that. It doesn't touch the filters,
and I'm able to slide it around so I can place it exactly above the
5x7 neg, with no falloff.
Otherwise a larger cold-lite would be necessary. Then a 210mm Nikkor
for 11x14.

I started with a 180mm Wollensack, and it was not living up to the neg
by a wide margin. A terrible lens.

When I first started the 5x7, I thought contacts would do me, but they
ended up frustrating the viewing experience . A bold image would work,
but nothing with complications. Even a 35mm contact can be pleasurable
if the image is absolutly distinct. Otherwise I need at least 8x10.

Ken Smith

John wrote:


So am I the only one making such small enlargements ?



Nope, I normally make 8X10's from my 4X5 negs and shoot 8X10 to make
contacts. People say you can't see the difference in formats at this small
a print size, I can.
--

Stacey

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:10:53 GMT, "BCampbell"
wrote:

But I don't ever remember seeing a suggestion that the
optimum enlargement factor for a lens should be considered when deciding on
a print size.


You have it backwards. One should purchase the equipment to
provide the desired end result. Why would you purchase a lens designed
for macro photography if you normally shoot portrait knowing that the
macro lens is optimized for 1:1 ?

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email