Print Time too long ?

Do you have any filtration dialed in? If not there won't be any filters to
retract when switching from high(filtered) to white(no filters).

Mike

"Steven Woody" wrote in message
ups.com...

John wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 04:28:00 -0700, "Steven Woody"
wrote:

do you know why D-5 enlarger need so much exposure time longer than a
normal
darkroom text recommended? i knew for some enlarger, if using 250w
lamp,
10 seconds exposure is enough. and, would you please suggest me a
start
point of exposure time to use for my case?

For 35mm I would use a 62mm Nikkor at f/5.6 for about 8~12 seconds.

i've visited your web page, clearly you're a D-5 expert, nice to 'meet'
you :-)

Greg ( www.gregblankphoto.com) and a few others on this forum are
actually more knowledgeable about the D-5 than I am. I just use it
when I need to print RA-4 color materials. It's an excellent enlarger
and I will certainly recommend it to anyone needing a 4X5 or smaller
enlarger. Unfortunately since migrating to 5X7, I don't use it much.
There was a time when it was cranking out 100 8X10's a day with ease.
That's its forte actually. It's consistent.

my D-5 enlarger was got from used market and no manual comes
with it, i was always being confused by a function of D-5 enlarger and
think you can tell me: the lamp-house has three lighting mode: low,
high, and white, i've already known that the low mode used to retracts
some light from the lamp, but i've not managed to figure out what's the
difference between high mode and white mode.

There is about a 1 stop difference between high and low output. It's a
neutral density filter that cuts the light being transmitted to the
print. This allows several capabilities such as :

1) Enlarging to high speed materials such as film.
2) Extended exposure times for image manipulation.
3) The use of APO lenses at very wide apertures.
4) Adjustment of light for different formats of films.

The color filter retraction mechanism is handy when printing color and
you don't want to tamper with the color settings.

i noticed there is not
light changing when i switched the between the two modes.

Are you saying that the light output doesn't vary ? If so then I'd
imagine the neutral density filter is missing.

thanks for the answer.

light does change when switch from 'low' to 'high' mode, but the light
does not change when switch between 'high' and 'white'. opened the
lamphouse, i saw a multi-hole filter just in front of the lamp, which
makes light change between 'low' and 'high'. what i don't understand
is why there is no change between 'high' and 'white'.


last, the enlarger comes with a negative carrier which has an opening
sized of 6.8x5.5cm, what kind of film it is for?

6X7 cm 120 format such as that produced by an RB/RZ67 (my favorite
medium format camera) or a Pentax 67 which is a favorite of many
hobbyists.

good news! thank you John. i also wanna know, can i use the 6x7 carrier
for 6x6 negatives? thanks.


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

Even a high qualtiy lens (not a $2000 APO) will have a "sweet spot" where it
produces the best resolution, contrast will not vary in a modern lens of
high quality. Whether you can see the difference is questionalble unless
you are into really big enlargements or use a microdensitomer.

Mike

"Greg "_"" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"Steven Woody" wrote:


Try opening up to f'8 then the print time will be 15 seconds, or
around
20-25 for a more dense print.

thanks for the sugestion. do you get any idea of how much difference
on exposure time will be produced for one stop difference on len
apperture? and, because people say that f'11 produces better image
quality than f'8, so should i use f'11 to get the quality but sacrifice
exposure time? is ther any other drawbacks other than time wasting?

sorry for such many questions.

-
woody

Despite what some people say, there should be NO quality difference at
any F stop,...if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in
alignment.

Each stop approximately halves or increases the exposure by 2x of the
stop above or below it.
--
The sometimes insomniac.

www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
"Greg \"_\"" writes:

In article ,
(Rod Smith) wrote:

In article ,
"Greg \"_\"" writes:

Despite what some people say, there should be NO quality difference at
any F stop,...if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in
alignment.

Those are two big "ifs.

Maybe for you.

What's important (in this thread) is whether they're important for the OP.
The fact of the matter is that you don't know the condition of his
equipment or what his lens is. (Well, we now know what his lens is, as he
posted that information elsewhere, but at the time I made my post he
hadn't clearly identified it.) These may not be important factors for you,
but they MIGHT be important factors for the OP, so casually dismissing
them is inappropriate, IMHO.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

Mike wrote:
Do you have any filtration dialed in? If not there won't be any filters to
retract when switching from high(filtered) to white(no filters).


i begin to understand :-) this night i will go home and check it.
when i use variable contrast papers i will need thoese filters as well
as the white level, right?

thank you for you help.

Mike

"Steven Woody" wrote in message
ups.com...

John wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 04:28:00 -0700, "Steven Woody"
wrote:

do you know why D-5 enlarger need so much exposure time longer than a
normal
darkroom text recommended? i knew for some enlarger, if using 250w
lamp,
10 seconds exposure is enough. and, would you please suggest me a
start
point of exposure time to use for my case?

For 35mm I would use a 62mm Nikkor at f/5.6 for about 8~12 seconds.

i've visited your web page, clearly you're a D-5 expert, nice to 'meet'
you :-)

Greg ( www.gregblankphoto.com) and a few others on this forum are
actually more knowledgeable about the D-5 than I am. I just use it
when I need to print RA-4 color materials. It's an excellent enlarger
and I will certainly recommend it to anyone needing a 4X5 or smaller
enlarger. Unfortunately since migrating to 5X7, I don't use it much.
There was a time when it was cranking out 100 8X10's a day with ease.
That's its forte actually. It's consistent.

my D-5 enlarger was got from used market and no manual comes
with it, i was always being confused by a function of D-5 enlarger and
think you can tell me: the lamp-house has three lighting mode: low,
high, and white, i've already known that the low mode used to retracts
some light from the lamp, but i've not managed to figure out what's the
difference between high mode and white mode.

There is about a 1 stop difference between high and low output. It's a
neutral density filter that cuts the light being transmitted to the
print. This allows several capabilities such as :

1) Enlarging to high speed materials such as film.
2) Extended exposure times for image manipulation.
3) The use of APO lenses at very wide apertures.
4) Adjustment of light for different formats of films.

The color filter retraction mechanism is handy when printing color and
you don't want to tamper with the color settings.

i noticed there is not
light changing when i switched the between the two modes.

Are you saying that the light output doesn't vary ? If so then I'd
imagine the neutral density filter is missing.

thanks for the answer.

light does change when switch from 'low' to 'high' mode, but the light
does not change when switch between 'high' and 'white'. opened the
lamphouse, i saw a multi-hole filter just in front of the lamp, which
makes light change between 'low' and 'high'. what i don't understand
is why there is no change between 'high' and 'white'.


last, the enlarger comes with a negative carrier which has an opening
sized of 6.8x5.5cm, what kind of film it is for?

6X7 cm 120 format such as that produced by an RB/RZ67 (my favorite
medium format camera) or a Pentax 67 which is a favorite of many
hobbyists.

good news! thank you John. i also wanna know, can i use the 6x7 carrier
for 6x6 negatives? thanks.


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

In article ,
(Rod Smith) wrote:

In article ,
"Greg \"_\"" writes:

In article ,
(Rod Smith) wrote:

In article ,
"Greg \"_\"" writes:

Despite what some people say, there should be NO quality difference at
any F stop,...if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in
alignment.

Those are two big "ifs.

Maybe for you.

What's important (in this thread) is whether they're important for the OP.
The fact of the matter is that you don't know the condition of his
equipment or what his lens is. (Well, we now know what his lens is, as he
posted that information elsewhere, but at the time I made my post he
hadn't clearly identified it.) These may not be important factors for you,
but they MIGHT be important factors for the OP, so casually dismissing
them is inappropriate, IMHO.

Note by actually rereading my response you will see that I stated "IF
The Enlarger Lens is a GOOD One".
--
The sometimes insomniac.

www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
"Mike" wrote:

Whether you can see the difference is questionalble unless
you are into really big enlargements or use a microdensitomer.

Mike

Exactly, most fairly good to excellent lenses won't be hugely apparent.
--
The sometimes insomniac.

www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
"Greg \"_\"" writes:

In article ,
(Rod Smith) wrote:

In article ,
"Greg \"_\"" writes:

In article ,
(Rod Smith) wrote:

In article ,
"Greg \"_\"" writes:

Despite what some people say, there should be NO quality difference at
any F stop,...if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in
alignment.

Those are two big "ifs.

Maybe for you.

What's important (in this thread) is whether they're important for the OP.
The fact of the matter is that you don't know the condition of his
equipment or what his lens is. (Well, we now know what his lens is, as he
posted that information elsewhere, but at the time I made my post he
hadn't clearly identified it.) These may not be important factors for you,
but they MIGHT be important factors for the OP, so casually dismissing
them is inappropriate, IMHO.

Note by actually rereading my response you will see that I stated "IF
The Enlarger Lens is a GOOD One".

Note by actually rereading *MY* response you will see that I stated "those
are two big 'ifs.'" I certainly saw your conditions and my post was an
attempt to emphasize the importance of those very conditions -- an attempt
that you dismissed with "maybe for you." I stand by my original comment:
The conditions you tossed out in a way that could be (mis?)-interpreted as
an afterthought are very important ones.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

In article ,
(Rod Smith) wrote:


Note by actually rereading *MY* response you will see that I stated "those
are two big 'ifs.'" I certainly saw your conditions and my post was an
attempt to emphasize the importance of those very conditions -- an attempt
that you dismissed with "maybe for you." I stand by my original comment:
The conditions you tossed out in a way that could be (mis?)-interpreted as
an afterthought are very important ones.

I question why they are big IF's, spend the money buy good or decent
glass, invest some time and align the enlarger. Seems to me, that leaves
little to chance.
--
The sometimes insomniac.

www.gregblankphoto.com

Greg "_" spake thus:

In article ,
(Rod Smith) wrote:

Note by actually rereading *MY* response you will see that I stated "those
are two big 'ifs.'" I certainly saw your conditions and my post was an
attempt to emphasize the importance of those very conditions -- an attempt
that you dismissed with "maybe for you." I stand by my original comment:
The conditions you tossed out in a way that could be (mis?)-interpreted as
an afterthought are very important ones.

I question why they are big IF's, spend the money buy good or decent
glass, invest some time and align the enlarger. Seems to me, that leaves
little to chance.

Your language (and perhaps comprehension) skills could use some
attending to.


--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "****" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.

- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

In article ,
"Greg \"_\"" writes:

In article ,
(Rod Smith) wrote:

Note by actually rereading *MY* response you will see that I stated "those
are two big 'ifs.'" I certainly saw your conditions and my post was an
attempt to emphasize the importance of those very conditions -- an attempt
that you dismissed with "maybe for you." I stand by my original comment:
The conditions you tossed out in a way that could be (mis?)-interpreted as
an afterthought are very important ones.

I question why they are big IF's, spend the money buy good or decent
glass, invest some time and align the enlarger. Seems to me, that leaves
little to chance.

I think I see where you're coming from now: I believe we're basically in
agreement on the real issues; you've just been using the conditionals ("if
the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in alignment") as if
they were questions of whether or not one should use good equipment,
whereas I've been treating them as simple logic conditionals, which is the
more common use of such phrases in this sort of context.

IF the OP has a sub-par lens or an out-of-alignment enlarger, I agree that
this issue should be corrected; however, that's an IMPLICATION of your
original conditional statement (in full context), not its literal meaning.
It was the literal meaning I was intending to emphasize in my post ("those
are two big 'ifs'") to which you objected. I believe you misinterpreted my
objection as being to the implication of your earlier post, rather than to
what it said explicitly.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking