Go to the hardware store and get a hand file. If you don't know what kind, ask the people there to get the proper kind for the metal you are using. Make an outline of the exact opening you will need and and start filing. Hold the 35mm. film holders together so that you hve the holes in the upper and lower parts of the film holder perfectly aligned. I have made lens boards and various sheet metal parts of all kinds with this technique. Take your time and measure often. You can glue pieces of wood or strips of metal to the lens board with epoxy if you need light baffles or extra thickness somewhere. R > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 12:07:04 -0600 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #101 - 8 msgs > > Send Cameramakers mailing list submissions to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Cameramakers digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Help with Negative carrier (M) > 2. Re: Help with Negative carrier (Don Feinberg) > 3. Re: Help with Negative carrier (Ron Baker) > 4. enlarger lenses (Gene Johnson) > 5. Re: enlarger lenses (kelvin) > 6. Re: enlarger lenses (Ron Baker) > 7. Scanner mods for enlarger (Beau Schwarz) > 8. Re: enlarger lenses ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 19:37:44 -0800 > From: M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Cameramakers] Help with Negative carrier > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hello! > > I have a 35mm negative holder for my Beseler 67 enlarger. I'd like to > have the opening enlarged so I can use it for 6x6 negatives. The holder > is made of thin aluminum sheet metal. > > If anyoneone with metal cutting ability on the list could help me out i'd > really appreciate it. I can probably even make a photocopy of the actual > opening of a Beseler 6x6 holder as a template. > > Please e-mail me off list if you can help me out. > > Thanks > > Marc > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > From: "Don Feinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Help with Negative carrier > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 08:00:56 -0400 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> I have a 35mm negative holder for my Beseler 67 enlarger. I'd like to >> have the opening enlarged so I can use it for 6x6 negatives. The holder >> is made of thin aluminum sheet metal. > > This could be done. It would be expensive. Getting a used 6x6 Beseler > carrier will cost you something about USD$25 (and will have locating pins > installed for the 6x6 film...). > > Don Feinberg > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > From: "Ron Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Help with Negative carrier > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 07:18:54 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi Marc > I have made my own negative carries for the beseler 4x5. I cut the openings > using a scroll saw with a blade that can be used for none ferrous metals,you > can get them at Sears, and for the locating pins I drill holes for pop > rivets on one side and larger holes on the other side to allow the pop > rivets clearance to fit thru and allow the neg carrier to close. I hope this > makes some sense. > Ron > www.ronbakerphotography.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 10:37 PM > Subject: [Cameramakers] Help with Negative carrier > > >> Hello! >> >> I have a 35mm negative holder for my Beseler 67 enlarger. I'd like to >> have the opening enlarged so I can use it for 6x6 negatives. The holder >> is made of thin aluminum sheet metal. >> >> If anyoneone with metal cutting ability on the list could help me out i'd >> really appreciate it. I can probably even make a photocopy of the actual >> opening of a Beseler 6x6 holder as a template. >> >> Please e-mail me off list if you can help me out. >> >> Thanks >> >> Marc >> _______________________________________________ >> Cameramakers mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 07:29:04 -0700 > From: Gene Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: @Home Network > To: Richard Knoppow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > cameramakers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Cameramakers] enlarger lenses > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Richard and Cameramakers, > > I'm thinking of making an enlarger. What are the optical implications > of using a camera lens as an enlarging lens? My suspicion is that the > typical lens has had it's optical properties optimised for objects far > away, and that projecting an image from a negative might be less than > ideal. I have several good quality lenses in various focal lengths so > the idea is tempting. I want to build an enlarger to handle everything > up to 4x5. > > Gene Johnson > > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:32:16 +0800 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: kelvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] enlarger lenses > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > This is my guess. > > Regular lenses are not flat-field lenses, and at close-focus ... would > probably produce distortion , or edge softness. > > You could probably, however, use macro lenses , or bellows lenses by > the various manufacturers (plenty in M42) , but at that cost, you're > better off with an enlarger lens. > > Off ebay, I got an isco-gottingen enlarger lens for US$5. > > > At 07:29 5/14/01 -0700, you wrote: >> Richard and Cameramakers, >> >> I'm thinking of making an enlarger. What are the optical implications >> of using a camera lens as an enlarging lens? My suspicion is that the >> typical lens has had it's optical properties optimised for objects far >> away, and that projecting an image from a negative might be less than >> ideal. I have several good quality lenses in various focal lengths so >> the idea is tempting. I want to build an enlarger to handle everything >> up to 4x5. >> >> Gene Johnson >> _______________________________________________ >> Cameramakers mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers >> > > --__--__-- > > Message: 6 > From: "Ron Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] enlarger lenses > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:06:40 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi Gene > My opinion is that you need a good even light source whether defused or > condenser next it is very important to keep everything parallel, lens, film > plane, and paper. Third but not least is the enlarging lens which is the > most important. Without a good lens you don't get good sharp prints.The > shorter the focal length the more critical the quality lens is. There are a > lot of good quality enlarging lens on ebay at a very reasonable price. > Ron > www.ronbakerphotography.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kelvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 9:32 AM > Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] enlarger lenses > > >> >> >> This is my guess. >> >> Regular lenses are not flat-field lenses, and at close-focus ... would >> probably produce distortion , or edge softness. >> >> You could probably, however, use macro lenses , or bellows lenses by >> the various manufacturers (plenty in M42) , but at that cost, you're >> better off with an enlarger lens. >> >> Off ebay, I got an isco-gottingen enlarger lens for US$5. >> >> >> At 07:29 5/14/01 -0700, you wrote: >>> Richard and Cameramakers, >>> >>> I'm thinking of making an enlarger. What are the optical implications >>> of using a camera lens as an enlarging lens? My suspicion is that the >>> typical lens has had it's optical properties optimised for objects far >>> away, and that projecting an image from a negative might be less than >>> ideal. I have several good quality lenses in various focal lengths so >>> the idea is tempting. I want to build an enlarger to handle everything >>> up to 4x5. >>> >>> Gene Johnson >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cameramakers mailing list >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cameramakers mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 7 > From: "Beau Schwarz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:16:06 -0500 > Subject: [Cameramakers] Scanner mods for enlarger > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I have an old Elwood 5x7 enlarger, a Besler 23 enlarger and a Umax astra > 1200s scanner. Before moving a few years ago I processed my roll and sheet > film (B&W)in daylight tanks. The hassle was and is reserving the bathroom > for handling the wet side portion of printing the negs. I also have a 35mm > scanner and Adobe 5.5, but I like to crop (and I guess 'explore' potential > compositions in the darkroom). Pixilation and or loss of detail is often a > problem. Using a 8.5x11 scanner would seem like a simple solution. > > 1)Has any tried to use a scanner to pick up the projected image instead of > using photographic paper? Potential problems? > > 2) Any suggestions on how to turn off the light source inside the scanner, > and also then turning it back on for regular scanning? > > 3) Any suggestions on a used scanner that would better suit this project? > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 8 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:02 EDT > Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] enlarger lenses > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --part1_47.b6418d5.28315706_boundary > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > While I have not tried this to be sure if it is true, I have read that the > main difference between using an enlarging lens VS camera lens has to do with > flat field. That is, the enlarging lens is optimumized to project upon a flat > field, whereas the camera lens is optimumized for the real world, IE: Not > flat. I don't remember all the details now, but I bet someone on the list > will. > Junkman > > --part1_47.b6418d5.28315706_boundary > Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>While I have not tried this to > be sure if it is true, I have read that the > <BR>main difference between using an enlarging lens VS camera lens has to do > with > <BR>flat field. That is, the enlarging lens is optimumized to project upon a > flat > <BR>field, whereas the camera lens is optimumized for the real world, IE: Not > <BR>flat. I don't remember all the details now, but I bet someone on the list > <BR>will. > <BR>Junkman</FONT></HTML> > > --part1_47.b6418d5.28315706_boundary-- > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > Cameramakers mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers > > > End of Cameramakers Digest _______________________________________________ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
