What size pint do you usually make ?

[John]

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

[John]

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

[BCampbell]

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

[Argon3]

16 ounces......

[Jean-David Beyer]

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

[brook]

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

[James Meckley]

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

[Ken Smith]

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

[Stacey]

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

[John]

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

[BCampbell]

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 ?


Of course I wouldn't buy a macro lens if I didn't do macro work. but we
weren't talking about using specialized camera lenses dedicated to one
purpose for an entirely different purpose, we were talking about optimum
enlargement factors for enlarger lens and their influence on selection of
print sizes.

One should purchase the equipment to
> provide the desired end result.

That's certainly true as a general proposition. But not too many of us make
only a single size print, most of us make prints of varying sizes. I didn't
think it was common to buy multiple enlarger lenses of the same focal length
in order to insure that each different print size we might make could be
made at an optimum magnification factor. Is that what you do?

My question was whether anyone worries about the optimum mag factor for an
enlarger lens when deciding on a print size for a particular negative. I
asked because you seemed to be concerned that your small prints from a 5x7
negative weren't being made at the optimum mag factor of your enlarger lens.
As I said in my previous message, I was taught that selection of print size
is an aesthetic decision, I don't remember hearing that the optimum
enlargement factor of the enlarger lens should be a consideration in
deciding on a print size. So I asked whether I was perhaps missing something
and should be paying more attention to the optimum mag factor of my three
enlarger lenses when deciding on a print size. Sorry if that bothered you, I
wasn't being critical of your question, it just prompted me to ask another
question.


"John" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[Scott Norwood]

In article >,
Stacey > wrote:
>
>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.

I, too, make contact prints and 8x10" enlargements from 4x5. I've
had a couple of 16x20s made, too, but I live in a smallish apartment
and don't really have space for the larger sizes.

Even at 8x10, a print from a 4x5 negative completely blows away
35mm and medium format.

[John]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:48:23 GMT, "BCampbell"
> wrote:

>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 ?
>
>Of course I wouldn't buy a macro lens if I didn't do macro work. but we
>weren't talking about using specialized camera lenses dedicated to one
>purpose for an entirely different purpose, we were talking about optimum
>enlargement factors for enlarger lens and their influence on selection of
>print sizes.

Exactly. And my point is and has been that the vast majority
of the better known lenses seem to be optimized for higher
magnifications than the average photographer would use.

>One should purchase the equipment to
>> provide the desired end result.
>
>That's certainly true as a general proposition. But not too many of us make
>only a single size print, most of us make prints of varying sizes. I didn't
>think it was common to buy multiple enlarger lenses of the same focal length
>in order to insure that each different print size we might make could be
>made at an optimum magnification factor. Is that what you do?

Certainly not but what I seem to not be able to explain is
that none of the lenses currently available are optimized for a 3X
magnification. Of course the lens would be used for 2X and 4X and
there is no doubt that the quality of the enlargement would be
excellent. Instead what few lenses we have available all seem to be
optimized for 6X with a recommended working range of 3X~9X. So how
often does anyone print a 6X from a 5X7 ? A 30X42. 3X on occasion.
Maybe. But not a 6X !

Regards,

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

[John]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:41:19 +0000 (UTC),
(Scott Norwood) wrote:

>In article >,
>Stacey > wrote:
>>
>>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.
>
>I, too, make contact prints and 8x10" enlargements from 4x5. I've
>had a couple of 16x20s made, too, but I live in a smallish apartment
>and don't really have space for the larger sizes.
>
>Even at 8x10, a print from a 4x5 negative completely blows away
>35mm and medium format.

I've often wondered how a contact print to a positive would
look. Medium format can be excellent but still doesn't have the
richness that LF does.


Regards,

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

[John]

On 30 Jan 2004 09:43:32 -0800, (brook) wrote:

>
>Gotta say, I love 11x14 prints from 5x7 negs, for some negs even
>better than contact prints.

This is exactly why I got into the 5X7 format. 10X14 at 2X.
Sweet !

>That said, I have to go through a lot of
>hassle to print bigger from my elwood, 11x14 is the max for
>convienence.

Y'all aintagonna believe this but I just took a 135 El Nikkor
off my Durst and put it into the Elwood. It covered the 5X7 with the
amount of bellows extension needed for a 4X - 20X28 !

Now I will say that the enlarger was a little less than rigid
but ....


Regards,

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

[BCampbell]

John said in part:

> Exactly. And my point is and has been that the vast majority
> of the better known lenses seem to be optimized for higher
> magnifications than the average photographer would use.

Then Brian replied:

Exactly. And my point (or question actually) is and has been, who cares and
why do they care?

Then John said in part:

> Certainly not but what I seem to not be able to explain is
> that none of the lenses currently available are optimized for a 3X
> magnification.

And Brian replied:

You are explaining it just fine. What isn't being explained is why anyone
cares. In other words, what's the reason for paying any attention to the
optimum range of an enlarger lens?

And John said

Of course the lens would be used for 2X and 4X and
> there is no doubt that the quality of the enlargement would be
> excellent.

And Brian replied:

I agree. But that being the case, who cares?

What I've been asking is whether it really matters that enlarger lenses are
optimized for any distance or working range. As you point out, the prints
seem to be excellent regardless of the range. And I don't think we typically
buy multiple enlarger lenses of the same focal length but optimized for
different ranges to cover the various size prints we make. So why do the
manufacturers even bother telling us stuff and why should we pay any
attention to it, especially (as you also point out) the lenses seem to be
optimized for magnification ratios greater than most of us often make from
4x5 negatives.

Surely 24x30 prints from 4x5 negatives aren't so common that the
manufacturers should strive to optimize their 135 or 150mm lenses for a 6x
range for economic reasons. Optimizing for a 2x-4x range would seem to make
much more sense since there surely are many more 8x10 to 16x20 prints made
from 4x5 negatives than there are 24x30 prints.
>

[John]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:05:16 GMT, "BCampbell"
> wrote:

>John said in part:
>
>> Exactly. And my point is and has been that the vast majority
>> of the better known lenses seem to be optimized for higher
>> magnifications than the average photographer would use.
>
>Then Brian replied:
>
>Exactly. And my point (or question actually) is and has been, who cares and
>why do they care?

Well given the number of people who make low magnification
prints from LF negatives, one would think that someone would care. As
to "why", the right tool for the job.

>Then John said in part:
>
>> Certainly not but what I seem to not be able to explain is
>> that none of the lenses currently available are optimized for a 3X
>> magnification.
>
>And Brian replied:
>
>You are explaining it just fine. What isn't being explained is why anyone
>cares. In other words, what's the reason for paying any attention to the
>optimum range of an enlarger lens?

If one wants to invest in the best tool for ones needs, one
needs to know what makes that tool the better than other tools.Of
course it would benefit a company to know that there is a market for
such items as well.

>And John said
>
>Of course the lens would be used for 2X and 4X and
>> there is no doubt that the quality of the enlargement would be
>> excellent.
>
>And Brian replied:
>
>I agree. But that being the case, who cares?
>
>What I've been asking is whether it really matters that enlarger lenses are
>optimized for any distance or working range.

I think it matters to those who want the best possible result.

> As you point out, the prints
>seem to be excellent regardless of the range.

They are quite good but my question is really would they be
better subjectively if I had used a lens that was specifically
optimized for a 2X~4X range of magnification ?

>And I don't think we typically
>buy multiple enlarger lenses of the same focal length but optimized for
>different ranges to cover the various size prints we make. So why do the
>manufacturers even bother telling us stuff and why should we pay any
>attention to it, especially (as you also point out) the lenses seem to be
>optimized for magnification ratios greater than most of us often make from
>4x5 negatives.

Actually had I known that the Componon-S was optimized for
such a high degree of magnification I probably would not have bought
it.

>Surely 24x30 prints from 4x5 negatives aren't so common that the
>manufacturers should strive to optimize their 135 or 150mm lenses for a 6x
>range for economic reasons. Optimizing for a 2x-4x range would seem to make
>much more sense since there surely are many more 8x10 to 16x20 prints made
>from 4x5 negatives than there are 24x30 prints.

One would think but that doesn't seem to be the case.


Regards,

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

[Stacey]

John wrote:

>
> Medium format can be excellent but still doesn't have the
> richness that LF does.
>

That's a good way of describing it. It's not that there is anything wrong
with an 8X10 from medium format, but the LF one just looks better.
--

Stacey

[khoi]

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

Hi John,

I really don't think differences in modern lenses will show up in a 2x
print. That's pretty small magnification. Per my experience, i could
not tell the difference between an 8x10 enlarged (not contacted) 1:1
and a 4x5 enlarged to 2x. But i'm not very keen.

I guess i like to print big. Subject matter sometimes requires it.
Half of my prints are 48x60 and the other half is 60x75 inches. All
are from 8x10 and in color.

I would like it even bigger but i don't have access to a mounting
device that big.

Kyle

[konabear]

Actually I cut mat my 16x20s out to 22z26. That's a little over three
inches of mat all the way around. Yes 22x28 is a "standard" size but 22x26
is better for me for a couple of reasons.

1- It's easier to production cut mat board that need the same width border
all the way around.
2- Here's an important one. A standard mat board is 32x40. If my 16x20s
mat onto 22x26, I cut a ten inch strip off one side that gives my 5 8x10
mats for matting 5x7s, and then cut 14 inches from the other dimension to
give me two 11x14s for matting 8x10s. 11x14 is a little tight for 8x10s,
but in that size being able to say Bed, Bath and Beyond will have a frame
and glass is a plus.
3- If someone asks if the frame size is standard, for this largest size I
can say "no" and sell frame and glass too.

What size do I usually have printed? 5x7 :( What size do I love having
printed? Anything 16x20 to 33x45. Digital enlargements...

Todd
"Jean-David Beyer" > wrote in message ...
> 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
>