A Serious question on enlarging 120 (6x6) negs. Diff enlargers and diff results!

Jos. Burke wrote:
OK- Here goes!! Using the same image/neg. taken on my Hasselblad and Kodak
Tech Pan . On my old D2 VC enlarger I can print a super sharp image at
16x20--Very impressive for MF film. Using the same negative and enlarging
lens (100 mm Componon -S) on my Durst L184 (with color head) 10x10 enlarger
I can no where near get a similar result print! I have a makeshift neg
carrier on the durst for under 8x10 format negatives.. Is there an ideal
distance the negative should be from the light source on the Durst and since
not being a correct carrier might this be the problem? Should I invest in
the proper Durst inserts for my Nega 205 carrier or will I be throwing my
money away!
I realize the Durst Color head is a diffused light source but there is
too much print quality difference. I can print from an 8x10 negative and get
a terrific print but I have the proper Nega 205 carrier with the negative
placed at the correct location---When I print 4x5 0r 6x6 my negative is a
little closer to the light source than it likely would be if using the high
dollar Durst products.
Any advice here as to how to solve this problem!! It makes little sense to
use the D2 when the Durst SHOULD be a superior enlarger but??????????? I
also like the color head for B&W VC paper--easier!
J Burke

I routinely use a Durst G139 with a CLS1000 color head and the 13x18 mixing
box to enlarge 24x36mm negatives. The sharpness and tone of the results
is identical to the results with a Leitz V35 enlarger. My 6x6 and
6x7 results are spectacular.

If your negs are flat in the negative carrier, it shouldn't matter
if you use a 10x10" head or much smaller one. The light of the head
is completely diffuse anyway and it doesn't matter how large the
light source is.

However, if your big enlarger isn't correctly aligned (all planes,
that is easel, the lens and the negative carrier must be exactly
parallel!), this is your problem. You only have a small line
of sharpness somewhere in the enlargement and everything else
is unsharp. Using small f-stops at the lens doesn't solve this
problem.

It should be possible to place the 6x6 strip in the large 205 holder.
I'm using the TRINEG for this, and this seems big enough compared
to the small 35mm strips. You'll have to adjust the negs so they
are exactly in the middle of the holder, it can't work if you use
only the edge of the useable circle of the enlarger lens.

Martin

Jos. Burke wrote:
OK- Here goes!! Using the same image/neg. taken on my Hasselblad and Kodak
Tech Pan . On my old D2 VC enlarger I can print a super sharp image at
16x20--Very impressive for MF film. Using the same negative and enlarging
lens (100 mm Componon -S) on my Durst L184 (with color head) 10x10 enlarger
I can no where near get a similar result print! I have a makeshift neg
carrier on the durst for under 8x10 format negatives.. Is there an ideal
distance the negative should be from the light source on the Durst and since
not being a correct carrier might this be the problem? Should I invest in
the proper Durst inserts for my Nega 205 carrier or will I be throwing my
money away!
I realize the Durst Color head is a diffused light source but there is
too much print quality difference. I can print from an 8x10 negative and get
a terrific print but I have the proper Nega 205 carrier with the negative
placed at the correct location---When I print 4x5 0r 6x6 my negative is a
little closer to the light source than it likely would be if using the high
dollar Durst products.
Any advice here as to how to solve this problem!! It makes little sense to
use the D2 when the Durst SHOULD be a superior enlarger but??????????? I
also like the color head for B&W VC paper--easier!
J Burke

I routinely use a Durst G139 with a CLS1000 color head and the 13x18 mixing
box to enlarge 24x36mm negatives. The sharpness and tone of the results
is identical to the results with a Leitz V35 enlarger. My 6x6 and
6x7 results are spectacular.

If your negs are flat in the negative carrier, it shouldn't matter
if you use a 10x10" head or much smaller one. The light of the head
is completely diffuse anyway and it doesn't matter how large the
light source is.

However, if your big enlarger isn't correctly aligned (all planes,
that is easel, the lens and the negative carrier must be exactly
parallel!), this is your problem. You only have a small line
of sharpness somewhere in the enlargement and everything else
is unsharp. Using small f-stops at the lens doesn't solve this
problem.

It should be possible to place the 6x6 strip in the large 205 holder.
I'm using the TRINEG for this, and this seems big enough compared
to the small 35mm strips. You'll have to adjust the negs so they
are exactly in the middle of the holder, it can't work if you use
only the edge of the useable circle of the enlarger lens.

Martin

OK- Here goes!! Using the same image/neg. taken on my Hasselblad and Kodak
Tech Pan . On my old D2 VC enlarger I can print a super sharp image at
16x20--Very impressive for MF film. Using the same negative and enlarging
lens (100 mm Componon -S) on my Durst L184 (with color head) 10x10 enlarger
I can no where near get a similar result print! I have a makeshift neg
carrier on the durst for under 8x10 format negatives.. Is there an ideal
distance the negative should be from the light source on the Durst and since
not being a correct carrier might this be the problem? Should I invest in
the proper Durst inserts for my Nega 205 carrier or will I be throwing my
money away!
I realize the Durst Color head is a diffused light source but there is
too much print quality difference. I can print from an 8x10 negative and get
a terrific print but I have the proper Nega 205 carrier with the negative
placed at the correct location---When I print 4x5 0r 6x6 my negative is a
little closer to the light source than it likely would be if using the high
dollar Durst products.
Any advice here as to how to solve this problem!! It makes little sense to
use the D2 when the Durst SHOULD be a superior enlarger but??????????? I
also like the color head for B&W VC paper--easier!
J Burke

BTW--The Durst enlarger is properly aligned or VERY close. I guess the only
real variable /questionable here is that by having the negative approx 1/2
or more closer to the light source than it would be if in the proper carrier
would this fact cause my differences in print quality. Yes the lens moves
toward and away from the negative for focus (below the negative) BUT would
the difference in spacing toward the light source (above the negative)
matter? I originally suspected not BUT!!!!!
I will try the posters suggestion and place the 6x6 negative on the 10x10
glass and try that route-- I never tried that route before as I really
prefer to use a glass-less carrier except in the case of an 8x10
negative.I'll rig a mask from construction paper or similar for the glass!
J Burke
"Martin Jangowski" wrote in message
...
Jos. Burke wrote:
OK- Here goes!! Using the same image/neg. taken on my Hasselblad and
Kodak
Tech Pan . On my old D2 VC enlarger I can print a super sharp image at
16x20--Very impressive for MF film. Using the same negative and
enlarging
lens (100 mm Componon -S) on my Durst L184 (with color head) 10x10
enlarger
I can no where near get a similar result print! I have a makeshift neg
carrier on the durst for under 8x10 format negatives.. Is there an ideal
distance the negative should be from the light source on the Durst and
since
not being a correct carrier might this be the problem? Should I invest
in
the proper Durst inserts for my Nega 205 carrier or will I be throwing
my
money away!
I realize the Durst Color head is a diffused light source but there
is
too much print quality difference. I can print from an 8x10 negative and
get
a terrific print but I have the proper Nega 205 carrier with the
negative
placed at the correct location---When I print 4x5 0r 6x6 my negative is
a
little closer to the light source than it likely would be if using the
high
dollar Durst products.
Any advice here as to how to solve this problem!! It makes little sense
to
use the D2 when the Durst SHOULD be a superior enlarger but??????????? I
also like the color head for B&W VC paper--easier!
J Burke

I routinely use a Durst G139 with a CLS1000 color head and the 13x18
mixing
box to enlarge 24x36mm negatives. The sharpness and tone of the results
is identical to the results with a Leitz V35 enlarger. My 6x6 and
6x7 results are spectacular.

If your negs are flat in the negative carrier, it shouldn't matter
if you use a 10x10" head or much smaller one. The light of the head
is completely diffuse anyway and it doesn't matter how large the
light source is.

However, if your big enlarger isn't correctly aligned (all planes,
that is easel, the lens and the negative carrier must be exactly
parallel!), this is your problem. You only have a small line
of sharpness somewhere in the enlargement and everything else
is unsharp. Using small f-stops at the lens doesn't solve this
problem.

It should be possible to place the 6x6 strip in the large 205 holder.
I'm using the TRINEG for this, and this seems big enough compared
to the small 35mm strips. You'll have to adjust the negs so they
are exactly in the middle of the holder, it can't work if you use
only the edge of the useable circle of the enlarger lens.

Martin

"Jos. Burke" wrote

[I can't get a Durst 10x10 to give same sharpness as Omega D2,
same everything...]

Vibration
Fan
Floor stiffness
Loose mounting
Mechanical resonance
Negative pops
Difficulty focusing
Alignment
Focus drifts/springs back/doesn't hold
Different actinic Vs visual light balance
Psychological prejudice
....
Just because

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

lack of the sharpness I can pull from the D2--Just can't get that same tack
sharp image!! It is an overall/full print fault!!
Why!!
Same lens, same paper, developer, etc..

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
"Jos. Burke" wrote in message
. ..

The nature of your dissatisfaction is unclear. How is the print inferior?

OK- Here goes!! Using the same image/neg. taken on my Hasselblad and
Kodak
Tech Pan . On my old D2 VC enlarger I can print a super sharp image at
16x20--Very impressive for MF film. Using the same negative and
enlarging
lens (100 mm Componon -S) on my Durst L184 (with color head) 10x10
enlarger
I can no where near get a similar result print! I have a makeshift neg
carrier on the durst for under 8x10 format negatives.. Is there an ideal
distance the negative should be from the light source on the Durst and
since
not being a correct carrier might this be the problem? Should I invest
in
the proper Durst inserts for my Nega 205 carrier or will I be throwing
my
money away!
I realize the Durst Color head is a diffused light source but there
is
too much print quality difference. I can print from an 8x10 negative and
get
a terrific print but I have the proper Nega 205 carrier with the
negative
placed at the correct location---When I print 4x5 0r 6x6 my negative is
a
little closer to the light source than it likely would be if using the
high
dollar Durst products.
Any advice here as to how to solve this problem!! It makes little sense
to
use the D2 when the Durst SHOULD be a superior enlarger but??????????? I
also like the color head for B&W VC paper--easier!
J Burke

lack of the sharpness I can pull from the D2--Just can't get that same tack
sharp image!! It is an overall/full print fault!!
Why!!
Same lens, same paper, developer, etc..

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
"Jos. Burke" wrote in message
. ..

The nature of your dissatisfaction is unclear. How is the print inferior?

OK- Here goes!! Using the same image/neg. taken on my Hasselblad and
Kodak
Tech Pan . On my old D2 VC enlarger I can print a super sharp image at
16x20--Very impressive for MF film. Using the same negative and
enlarging
lens (100 mm Componon -S) on my Durst L184 (with color head) 10x10
enlarger
I can no where near get a similar result print! I have a makeshift neg
carrier on the durst for under 8x10 format negatives.. Is there an ideal
distance the negative should be from the light source on the Durst and
since
not being a correct carrier might this be the problem? Should I invest
in
the proper Durst inserts for my Nega 205 carrier or will I be throwing
my
money away!
I realize the Durst Color head is a diffused light source but there
is
too much print quality difference. I can print from an 8x10 negative and
get
a terrific print but I have the proper Nega 205 carrier with the
negative
placed at the correct location---When I print 4x5 0r 6x6 my negative is
a
little closer to the light source than it likely would be if using the
high
dollar Durst products.
Any advice here as to how to solve this problem!! It makes little sense
to
use the D2 when the Durst SHOULD be a superior enlarger but??????????? I
also like the color head for B&W VC paper--easier!
J Burke

In article et,
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Just because

Evil spirits! Don't forget evil spirits!

Seriously, take a magnifieer and look closely at the prints from the
two enlargers - see how clearly you can see the grain pattern. if it's
the same, you having contrast/perceptual issues.

If one has blurrier grain, yoy may eve be able to tell if it's a focus
or movement issue.

In article et,
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Just because

Evil spirits! Don't forget evil spirits!

Seriously, take a magnifieer and look closely at the prints from the
two enlargers - see how clearly you can see the grain pattern. if it's
the same, you having contrast/perceptual issues.

If one has blurrier grain, yoy may eve be able to tell if it's a focus
or movement issue.

"Scott Schuckert" wrote in message
...
In article
et,
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Just because

Evil spirits! Don't forget evil spirits!

Seriously, take a magnifieer and look closely at the
prints from the
two enlargers - see how clearly you can see the grain
pattern. if it's
the same, you having contrast/perceptual issues.

If one has blurrier grain, yoy may eve be able to tell if
it's a focus
or movement issue.

These are good suggestions. There should not be a
difference in sharpness between a partially diffuse source
like the Omega D2 and a fully diffuse source like the Durst
color head. Nor should the distance from the negative to the
source make a diffence in sharpness although it might in
uniformity. I sounds more like there is some vibration or
other movment going on here. Negative popping can cause
considrable blur. Sometimes this can be cured by allowing
the negative to heat up for a few seconds and making the
exposure by using a card as a shutter. Of course a glass
type holder eliminates this. Vibration is tougher. Sometimes
you can see it as a directional blur of small objects or
grain using a loupe.
Do you use a grain focuser? If so can you see any
difference between the two enlargers when looking through
it.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA