Extra lenses with enlarger - why?

In article ,
Bogdan Karasek wrote:

Hi,

I certainly would very much appreciate that kind of information as it
would help me to optimize my lens selection for the size of the print,
8x10, 11x14, 16x20 and formats ranging from 35mm, 6x6, 6x9, 3x4in, 4x5
and 5x7. What's best for the desired result and do I have the lens for it?

Cheers,
Bogdan

John wrote:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:25:06 -0500, Bob Salomon
wrote:


To expand on this just a little, another rule (rule of pinky?) is that
while you shouldn't use a lens with a shorter focal length than what is
"normal" for the format

Unless you are going to use a wide angle enlarging lens to allow you to
make very high quality prints 30% larger then a normal focal length
enlarging lens at the same negative to baseboard distance.


Bob,

Would you take the time to share with the group the optimizations for
the different focal length lenses ? As I remember from our
conversation a couple of years ago, most enlarging lenses are
optimized for 6~10X.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

See:
http://www.linos.com/en/prod/obj_vergroesserung.html

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

The 35mm Leica Autofocus enlarger (V35) uses a 40mm.

--
darkroommike

"Bogdan Karasek" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

The diagonal of a 35mm neg (24mmx36mm) gives you 43mm whereas the usual
enlarging lens for 35mm negs is a 50mm. Is this significant in terms of
results? I have a 25mm for half-frame but I seem to remember that
someone, somewhere, made a 45mm enlarging lens for 35mm negs? (I'm not
talking about the the wide-angle enlarger lenses). Maybe it's my
imagination?

Cheers,
Bogdan

Joe Makowiec wrote:

On 19 Mar 2006 in rec.photo.darkroom, Gabriel wrote:


ahhhh..... of course. Told you it was a dumb question. :-]


Rule of thumb is that 'normal' enlarger lens for a given negative size
is
roughly the same as 'normal' taking lens, or roughly the diagonal of the
negative.


--
__________________________________________________ ________________
Bogdan Karasek
Montr‚al, Qu‚bec e-mail:
Canada

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"
Ludwig Wittgenstein
__________________________________________________ ______________

Got it just backwards.

--
darkroommike

"Dennis" wrote in message
...
This is my guess ... (correct me if I am wrong):

The 75mm has the correct focal length to magnify the 35mm film size to a
usable projector height and the coverage (field of view to cover the size
of the negative).

The 55mm lens has a wider coverage to take into account the larger size of
the negative and also magnify the film to the similar projector heitht of
the enlarger.



Gabriel wrote:


Okay - this might sound like a dumb question - the "new" enlarger I just
picked up (1960s vintage Opemus III) has two lenses, with the numbers
4.5/55 and 4.5/75 on them. 4.5 is the maximum aperture, of course, and I
presume the 55 and 75 refer to focal lengths. Why would I want this
choice
of lenses, and under what circumstances might I prefer one over the
other?


Thanks,

Gabriel

--

Living on Earth may be expensive,
but it includes an annual free trip around the sun.
www.oyamaphotography.com

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:10:51 -0500, Bogdan Karasek
wrote:

As a former teacher, I must object There are no "dumb" questions

You've obviously never worked in tech support ;)

Rule # 1 - Never overestimate the intelligence of the customer.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:27:39 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Bogdan Karasek spake thus:

As a former teacher, I must object There are no "dumb" questions,

[...]

I thought you were supposed to say "the only dumb questions are the ones
you don't ask".

Don't ever, I mean EVER (!) say this to a 2 year old !

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
Father of Sean (4) and Erin (2)

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:33:09 -0500, Bogdan Karasek
wrote:

Hi all,

Is this a 5x7 Elwood? You need a 218mm lens, no?

No. The thought grabbed me when I saw someone put a 100 enlarging lens
onto a view camera for use as a macro lens. The angle of projection is
only half the equation. The distance of the lens from the negative is
the other part and since I'm only enlarging 2X 5X7 to 10X14, there's
simply no need for me to use a long lens as far as I can tell.

I have one and am
putting an APO Nikkor 210/9.0. That should do it but 135??? Have to
try it it with my 135 Componon-S

I'd love to hear your comparison and opinions on that APO Nikkor. I
hear they're really good lenses.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:40:33 -0500, Bogdan Karasek
wrote:

I certainly would very much appreciate that kind of information as it
would help me to optimize my lens selection for the size of the print,
8x10, 11x14, 16x20 and formats ranging from 35mm, 6x6, 6x9, 3x4in, 4x5
and 5x7. What's best for the desired result and do I have the lens for it?

Holy smokes ! I would suggest sticking to a few basics ! I have all of
those formats but I print specific format prints from each. Generally
:

35 mm - 6 X 9
6 X 7 - 10 X 12.5
4 X 5 - 10 X 12.5
5 X 7 - 10 X 14

Very rarely would I bother with anything larger.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

John spake thus:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:27:39 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Bogdan Karasek spake thus:

As a former teacher, I must object There are no "dumb" questions,

[...]

I thought you were supposed to say "the only dumb questions are the
ones you don't ask".

Don't ever, I mean EVER (!) say this to a 2 year old !

Why?


--
Second, Scientologists are like computers trying to run an emulation
of another computer. It can be done, but the performance is awful.
Scientologists are trying to run a bad copy of LRH.

- Keith Henson, from alt.religion.scientology

John spake thus:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:10:51 -0500, Bogdan Karasek
wrote:

As a former teacher, I must object There are no "dumb" questions

You've obviously never worked in tech support ;)

Rule # 1 - Never overestimate the intelligence of the customer.

Can you help me with my computer's coffee cup holder? It broke again.


--
Second, Scientologists are like computers trying to run an emulation
of another computer. It can be done, but the performance is awful.
Scientologists are trying to run a bad copy of LRH.

- Keith Henson, from alt.religion.scientology

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:22:41 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Rule # 1 - Never overestimate the intelligence of the customer.

Can you help me with my computer's coffee cup holder? It broke again.

I can't wait for the day they get rid ofa few things :

#1) AOL

#2) Idiots who don't know how to use a CDROM.

#3) Managers who don't know anything about the products or
services their company provides.

#4) Stockholders

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net