Welcome to the club.
Gene
peter davidoff wrote:
>
> >
> >There is clearly a lot about enlargers I don't understand. Wouldn't
> >anything on the plane of the negative, (i.e. dirt, image) be EXPECTED to
> >be in sharp focus on the print? I'm trying to understand how you could
> >have the IMAGE from the neg in sharp focus, but not scratches, dust
> >etc. How does that work?
>
> ok... talkin' to a guy here who prints his negs on very rough water color
> paper. still,
>
> how the light is collated alters the appearance (or not) of scratches, and
> the size of the dust. i'm not, i'm sorry, an expert on enlargers, so i bow
> to those who know more.
>
> however, i do know that apparent sharpness can be brought about by
> developing technique too. beutler's formula (did i spell that right) or pyro
> gallic acid will alter the boundaries of light and dark on a negative, and
> produce an apparent sharpness by taking the bromies from the lighter
> side of the image (darker on negative) and piling them up near the boundary,
> while moving some of the bromies from the darker side of the image (lighter
> on the neg) away from the boundary. when creating the sharpness algorithm
> for scanners (i worked for hp in the scanner group, wrote the programmer's
> toolkit for the hp scanners - a past life) we used a similar technique, just
> moved the bits around instead of bromide molecules.
>
> remember too that the negative has a plane within which it is in/out of focus.
> depending where the image/dust lies, it may be above the negative and thus
> thrown slightly out of focus. again, enlarger optics isn't my bag. just
> throwing
> some thoughts out.
>
> i've gone back, just now, and read the beginning of this thread... just as an
> fyi, i've used my 150 schneider lens for 4x5 enlargement since i started making
> 4x5 enlargements. it's real life is as a normal lens, just never used it
> for that.
> heck, still has the shutter within it. but i'm a practicing contrarian
> ;-) i buy puts
> when people buy calls, i was a hippy when people had crew cuts (i say
> this to ensure
> you know my bias about doing things). even the new beer we are about to
> release
> breaks all the rules of microbreweries! just my way of doing things.
>
> i've thought about making an 8x10 enlarger. i'd either use an old 8x10
> i've got lying
> around, or possibly build one. either way i'd build mine horizontal
> (gravity and a large
> negs don't mix well). i'd build a light box behind the neg holder. i'd
> make the light
> box interchangeable so i could play with different light sources. when i
> did print silver
> i swore by the cold light. just made things real easy for me. making the
> unit rigid and
> all critical parts parallel (Ron Baker's note of 5/14) is critical to
> sharpness. the two tough
> parts for the enlarger are (imho), the raising and lowering of the unit,
> and the film holder.
>
> before i build an enlarger i need to complete two 7 foot high
> full-range-horn speakers. i
> figure that before i get married again i'd get the speakers built, moved
> into the living
> room; kinda make them a permanent feature. those of you who have had
> spousal-audio
> disagreements know from where i come. i'm sure there is a flaw in this
> logic, i'd probably
> be safer building an 8x10 enlarger and hiding it in the basement. i did
> say i'm a bit of a
> contrarian, no?
>
> peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cameramakers mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
_______________________________________________
Cameramakers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
