Am I crazy or mis-informed!!

[tonyowen]

I’ve got a 6x9cm enlarger with a 100mm lens; and I wanted to see if I can use it as a light source to project a 4x5 inch negative onto the baseboard. The existing (6x9) condenser set is positioned above and very close to the existing negative holder.

My idea was to make a ‘box’; the top of which would hold the 4x5in negative and the bottom would hold the 100mm lens. By using various shims I need not have bellows – since it would be a constant negative size and lens.

I assumed I could fasten the box under the existing bellows - any bellows extension merely extending the light path but having no effect on focus.
Using the ‘proper’ negative holder in the enlarger I estimated when on the lens was the focal plane – ie 100mm measured from the negative – so I could compute the thickness of the box above the lens flange.

However when I mocked up the box (in cardboard) I could not project anywhere near the full 4x5 image, nor could get the projected image into focus.

Am I attempting the impossible????

Regards
Tony

[Bob Salomon]

A constant negative size and lens focal length means that you will only make one size print from that combination. Is that what you want to do?

[ic-racer]

You should not need any shims or extra bellows draw to focus a 100mm lens on a 6x9 enlarger. If you want a circular image (with that 100mm lens) it may not work because you don't say if your condensers are rectangle or round. Usually the light source is the limiting factor, so you image will likely be outlined by the shape of the light source.

To convert your 6x9 enlarger to 4x5" you need a 4x5" light source, 135mm lens, a 4x5" negative carrier, some way to mount the negative carrier under the light source and likely some bellows extension. Unless you want to project on the wall with big images, in that case the bellows will likely be fine.

[Doremus Scudder]

To elaborate a bit:

A 100mm lens will not cover (i.e., project) all of a 4x5 negative. If you just want a smaller (6x9cm) portion of the negative, no problem.

The light source on your enlarger will not cover a 4x5 negative. If you can cobble together a negative carrier, you will have significant lack of coverage outside the 6x9cm area...

The object of a focusing bellows is to be able to adjust focus for different size prints. If your bellows is too short, a cone or other type of extension will help, but being able to adjust the distance between lens and film is pretty much indispensable.

FWIW, finding a used 4x5 enlarger and lens is likely easier (and probably cheaper as well) than modifying a smaller enlarger to take 4x5, if what you're looking to do is enlarge full-frame 4x5 negatives.

If you're only wanting to enlarge a smaller portion of of a 4x5 negative, you can use your 100mm lens. Heck, you could just cut out a 6x9cm portion of the 4x5 neg and use a carrier you already have :)

Best,

Doremus

[tonyowen]

you don't say if your condensers are rectangle or round. To convert your 6x9 enlarger to 4x5" you need a 4x5" light source, 135mm lens, a 4x5" negative carrier, .

Bob, surely if my box is attached to the enlarger head then the movement of that head relative to the baseboard gives me various magnifications - or am I fundamentally wrong??
ic-racer - square condensers, the size of glass 5" x 3 7/8" having rounded corners.
I cannot structurally convert from 6x9 to 4x5 - the enlarger is all castings, and there are dimensional constraints close to the condenser fixture.
Basically I'm trying to see if I can use the post-condenser light source to illuminate a 4x5 negative and thence via the lens, project a resulting (focussed) image onto the baseboard. [The 6x9 negative holder can be removed as can the filter tray.]
I'm aware that 135-150mm is the recommended lens for 4x5 enlarging; BUT given that 4x5 cameras use lenses wider than 100m (ie 75 or 90) why cannot the 100mm enlarger lens be used for 4x5 negatives - I admit to very limited knowledge of optics.
Please be patient if I'm asking stupid questions.
regards
Tony

[tonyowen]

If you just want a smaller (6x9cm) portion of the negative, no problem. FWIW, finding a used 4x5 enlarger and lens is likely easier (and probably cheaper as well) than modifying a smaller enlarger to take 4x5, If you're only wanting to enlarge a smaller portion of of a 4x5 negative, you can use your 100mm lens. Heck, you could just cut out a 6x9cm portion of the 4x5 neg and use a carrier you already have Doremus

Hi Doremus
I agree, I agree, I agree, BUT 4x5 enlargers are very expensive in the UK. Although I could afford one I cannot justify that expense; especially as selling my 6x9 enlarger for a 'reasonable price' if nigh impossible.
My posting was to ensure that I was not missing anything to the obvious reaction to the thought of using a 6x9 enlarger for 4x5 negatives.
I'm very much if favour of the "If I don't ask then I don't get philosophy".
regards
Tony

[Liquid Artist]

My advise is download a manual for a Beseler 45 series enlarger.
You will see that it has a bellows between the condenser and film holder. This allows you to adjust for the film size. You may be able to use a box or tin can or anything hollow in here since it remains in a constant location until you change film size. Then another bellows between the film and lens. This space changes as you change paper size or crop, so I would keep a bellows in that location. However there is a chance your present bellows will still work, and if not you may be able to make your own.

As for the lens. I can't imagine iyour present lens covering 4x5, however you never know until you try it.

Oh, several people have converted their Beseler 45 series enlargers into 8x10 enlargers by basically doing the same thing. So it may be possible with yours.

One real advantage of your present enlarger is it sure is more compact than my LF enlargers.

[Doremus Scudder]

... surely if my box is attached to the enlarger head then the movement of that head relative to the baseboard gives me various magnifications - or am I fundamentally wrong??

Tony,

Yes, you're fundamentally wrong. As the distance from negative to baseboard changes, so does the distance from lens to negative. A fixed box won't do that... that's why there are focusing bellows there in the first place.




... given that 4x5 cameras use lenses wider than 100m (ie 75 or 90) why cannot the 100mm enlarger lens be used for 4x5 negatives - I admit to very limited knowledge of optics.
Please be patient if I'm asking stupid questions.
regards
Tony

It is theoretically possible to design a shorter-than-normal focal-length enlarging lens (e.g., 100mm) that would cover a 4x5 negative. The problem is, they don't exist for practical reasons. In fact, a 135mm lens for 4x5 is "tweaked" a bit to get the coverage for that size negative. Taking lenses shorter than "normal" have a wider angle of coverage that is accomplished by adding lens elements, etc. etc. It's more expensive and performance is never as good as the normal designs. There's just not much demand for enlarger lenses with wide angles of coverage, so they don't get made. So, you're stuck with a 100mm enlarging lens that won't project a full-frame 4x5 negative. Sorry...


Hi Doremus
I agree, I agree, I agree, BUT 4x5 enlargers are very expensive in the UK. Although I could afford one I cannot justify that expense; especially as selling my 6x9 enlarger for a 'reasonable price' if nigh impossible.
My posting was to ensure that I was not missing anything to the obvious reaction to the thought of using a 6x9 enlarger for 4x5 negatives.
I'm very much if favour of the "If I don't ask then I don't get philosophy".
regards
Tony

So, it seems you have a couple of options if what you're looking to do is enlarge 4x5 negs: 1: bite the bullet and get a 4x5 enlarger. If you plan to do a lot of 4x5 shooting, this is really the only solution. Maybe you can find one cheaper than you think. 2: modify a smaller enlarger. This requires a lot more knowledge than you presently seem to have (no deprecation intended, just that you'll have to invest the time studying and learning...). You'll need a) a light source that covers the negative size. Often you can adapt a color head from a 4x5 enlarger to a smaller one. b) Then you'll need an enlarging lens that covers the format (135mm or 150mm), and c) a way to mount it so that you have enough bellows adjustment to focus. You may be able to get by with simply mounting the longer lens on an extension of some kind attached to the existing bellows. Finally, d) you may need to modify the negative stage of your enlarger so that a 4x5 negative is not blocked mechanically by framework, etc.

FWIW, I still think it's better just to get a 4x5 enlarger. Be patient, scour the want ads, eBay, estate sales, forums, etc. and you just might get lucky.

Best,

Doremus

[Bob Salomon]

It is theoretically possible to design a shorter-than-normal focal-length enlarging lens (e.g., 100mm) that would cover a 4x5 negative. The problem is, they don't exist for practical reasons. In fact, a 135mm lens for 4x5 is "tweaked" a bit to get the coverage for that size negative. Taking lenses shorter than "normal" have a wider angle of coverage that is accomplished by adding lens elements, etc. etc. It's more expensive and performance is never as good as the normal designs. There's just not much demand for enlarger lenses with wide angles of coverage, so they don't get made.

Sorry but that is totally incorrect. Wide angle enlarging lenses for 54 and smaller have been made for decades and most, if not all of them, are equal to-or, in some cases, even better then standard high end enlarging lenses for the same magnification range.

The 120mm Rodagon-WA easily fully covers 45 and provides 30% more magnification on the baseboard, at the same column height, as a normal 45 enlarging lens.
Schneider also had an excellent WA Componon for 45.

[Bob Salomon]

"It is theoretically possible to design a shorter-than-normal focal-length enlarging lens (e.g., 100mm) that would cover a 4x5 negative. The problem is, they don't exist for practical reasons. In fact, a 135mm lens for 4x5 is "tweaked" a bit to get the coverage for that size negative. Taking lenses shorter than "normal" have a wider angle of coverage that is accomplished by adding lens elements, etc. etc. It's more expensive and performance is never as good as the normal designs. There's just not much demand for enlarger lenses with wide angles of coverage, so they don't get made."

Sorry but that is totally incorrect. Wide angle enlarging lenses for 54 and smaller have been made for decades and most, if not all of them, are equal to-or, in some cases, even better then standard high end enlarging lenses for the same magnification range.

The 120mm Rodagon-WA easily fully covers 45 and provides 30% more magnification on the baseboard, at the same column height, as a normal 45 enlarging lens.
Schneider also had an excellent WA Componon for 45.

[Liquid Artist]

Just so you know Tony, I picked up my Beseler 45M - 5x4 enlarger for $125 Canadian including every mask imaginable, several accessories some of which I sold and got most of my money back from. Plus even a nice 400mm lens, and a Kodak Master View 4x5 that I gave to a friend looking at getting into LF.
So deals are out there.

I actually got it from an Arts Center closing their darkroom.

My first LF camera and Enlarger both came from a community college when they switched to digital.

Others may have different ideas of where to look.

[BetterSense]

You can also use a short taking lens, which you might already have.

[Doremus Scudder]

"It is theoretically possible to design a shorter-than-normal focal-length enlarging lens (e.g., 100mm) that would cover a 4x5 negative. The problem is, they don't exist for practical reasons. In fact, a 135mm lens for 4x5 is "tweaked" a bit to get the coverage for that size negative. Taking lenses shorter than "normal" have a wider angle of coverage that is accomplished by adding lens elements, etc. etc. It's more expensive and performance is never as good as the normal designs. There's just not much demand for enlarger lenses with wide angles of coverage, so they don't get made."

Sorry but that is totally incorrect. Wide angle enlarging lenses for 54 and smaller have been made for decades and most, if not all of them, are equal to-or, in some cases, even better then standard high end enlarging lenses for the same magnification range.

The 120mm Rodagon-WA easily fully covers 45 and provides 30% more magnification on the baseboard, at the same column height, as a normal 45 enlarging lens.
Schneider also had an excellent WA Componon for 45.

Bob,

You're quoting me here... Yes there are a couple of WA lenses for enlarging out there, but the OP is trying to use a conventional "normal" 100mm lens and hoping it will work for 4x5 ... no chance. Maybe he could spring for one of the 120mm Rodagons or the Componon, but he would still be saddled with a 6x9cm enlarger... We should be trying to educate and help him.

And, when I need a huge enlargement on the baseboard from a 4x5 neg, I'll maybe look for a 120mm lens that will do the trick. Otherwise, the 135mm and the 150mm lenses are really the only (economical) alternatives.

My assessment of the situation may be a little inaccurate, but the gist remains. If you want to enlarge 4x5, then you need a lens that will do the trick (be it 120mm, 135mm or 150mm), a light source that will cover, an enlarger that allows the negative to be fully illuminated and a bellows that will allow you to focus the lens of your choice on the baseboard.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for innovation and "MacGyvering", but the OP seems to be unaware of the problems and intricacies involved; I'm just trying to educate him.

Best,

Doremus

[Bob Salomon]

Bob,

You're quoting me here... Yes there are a couple of WA lenses for enlarging out there, but the OP is trying to use a conventional "normal" 100mm lens and hoping it will work for 4x5 ... no chance. Maybe he could spring for one of the 120mm Rodagons or the Componon, but he would still be saddled with a 6x9cm enlarger... We should be trying to educate and help him.

And, when I need a huge enlargement on the baseboard from a 4x5 neg, I'll maybe look for a 120mm lens that will do the trick. Otherwise, the 135mm and the 150mm lenses are really the only (economical) alternatives.

My assessment of the situation may be a little inaccurate, but the gist remains. If you want to enlarge 4x5, then you need a lens that will do the trick (be it 120mm, 135mm or 150mm), a light source that will cover, an enlarger that allows the negative to be fully illuminated and a bellows that will allow you to focus the lens of your choice on the baseboard.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for innovation and "MacGyvering", but the OP seems to be unaware of the problems and intricacies involved; I'm just trying to educate him.

Best,

Doremus

Doremus,

The problem was with your phrasing. There are WA enlarging lenses.

If you had qualified your statement and specifically mentioned the 100 in your statement you would have been correct. But you made a shotgun type statement and that was incorrect.

As to how much or how little someone can afford, I learned a very long time ago to never judge someone else's' sport ok. It usually is incorrect. Let the buyer decide for themselves. I would not be too surprised, given the current used enlarging lens market, to find that there were not good deals on most lenses.

[tonyowen]

Whoa you guys
Please do not argue about my query - life is too short and the query is just that [a query and nothing earth shattering].
I acknowledge my limited knowledge in this particular area and I'm grateful for all of the info.
North America seems to have far more LF opportunities that the UK and it (NA) is relatively much less expensive (ie price versus 'average salary' [whatever that means]).
Regarding the word 'afford' yes I can afford a huge amount but I cannot justify more than a notional price, especially as the UK market for sub 4x5 enlargers is swamped and virtually stagnant.
What on earth is an OP!!!! yes I'm retired so hopefully it does not mean 'Older Person or worse'.
Regards and thanks to all
Tony

[Jim Jones]

A few people have made adaptors to permit view cameras to function as enlargers. Graflex even marketed such a device for some of their cameras. However, some mechanical skills and a thorough understanding of the design requirements of enlargers would save much frustration and wasted time.

[Bob Salomon]

Whoa you guys
Please do not argue about my query - life is too short and the query is just that [a query and nothing earth shattering].
I acknowledge my limited knowledge in this particular area and I'm grateful for all of the info.
North America seems to have far more LF opportunities that the UK and it (NA) is relatively much less expensive (ie price versus 'average salary' [whatever that means]).
Regarding the word 'afford' yes I can afford a huge amount but I cannot justify more than a notional price, especially as the UK market for sub 4x5 enlargers is swamped and virtually stagnant.
What on earth is an OP!!!! yes I'm retired so hopefully it does not mean 'Older Person or worse'.
Regards and thanks to all
Tony

Tony, I am also retired.

OP is original poster.

[ic-racer]

[
ic-racer - square condensers, the size of glass 5" x 3 7/8" having rounded corners.
I cannot structurally convert from 6x9 to 4x5 - the enlarger is all castings, and there are dimensional constraints close to the condenser fixture.

You can't use your existing condenser system with 4x5, all that would need to be removed from above then negative stage. Surely it comes off, yes?


Basically I'm trying to see if I can use the post-condenser light source to illuminate a 4x5 negative and thence via the lens, project a resulting (focussed) image onto the baseboard. [The 6x9 negative holder can be removed as can the filter tray

The post-condenser light source is what illuminates the negative in any enlarger. If the condensers are too small to cover the negative you see the outline of the condensers.

[cowanw]

Dashiell Hammett wrote about Op's: they were private detectives or operatives. Think Sam Spade.
But around here OP is the much more prosaic "Original Poster"

[Harold_4074]

If you have the space and can fabricate a negative carrier that will work vertically, you can use a 4x5 camera with a light behind it as a horizontal enlarger---simple diffusion light sources make superb prints if speed is not an issue, although constructing one that is light-tight and

The next cheapest and (and probably simplest) solution would seem to be putting a 4x5 camera on some sort of vertical stand, and adapting an LED panel (http://www.artograph.com/lightboxes/lightpad-920/ or similar) as a diffusion light source. If you can take the back off of the camera, you don't even need to make an enlarger stage--just something to support a piece of glass, the negative, another piece of glass, and the LED panel. The LED panel should produce relatively little heat, so light proofing (a dark cloth and some clothespins?) should be simple. Just replacing the groundglass with plain glass will let you enlarge most of the negative area, without needing a removable back.

A poor man's stand would be a piece of pipe screwed into a floor flange which is in turn attached to a piece of plywood. A decent column clamp can be made by using a hole saw slightly larger than the pipe, splitting the wood with a saw, and shimming (I have used pieces of polycarbonate bottle) so a clamping screw can lock the thing onto the column. If you don't use a pulley, cable and counterweight, make a second "safety block" that you preset to keep the head from dropping too far in case of a slip.The principal disadvantage of this kind of setup is that the camera needs to be far enough out for the largest print; 8x10 is pretty simple, 20x24 not so much (but still doable with simple woodworking tools).

140827

The tubing is actually chain link fence top rail instead of pipe, but the principle is the same. If I couldn't cut, drill and tap the part the bolt goes through, I would have put a tee nut in a piece of plywood, screwed that on, and run the bolt through the tee nut.

[Doremus Scudder]

Doremus,

The problem was with your phrasing. There are WA enlarging lenses.

If you had qualified your statement and specifically mentioned the 100 in your statement you would have been correct. But you made a shotgun type statement and that was incorrect.

As to how much or how little someone can afford, I learned a very long time ago to never judge someone else's' sport ok. It usually is incorrect. Let the buyer decide for themselves. I would not be too surprised, given the current used enlarging lens market, to find that there were not good deals on most lenses.

Bob,

Guilty as charged! I was over-generalizing for the sake of simplicity (and, honestly, wasn't considering the lenses you mentioned). I'll be more discriminating in the future.

@Tony:

Bob was for years the Rodenstock rep and is an expert on lenses. There's never hard feelings or arguments with him from my side! He's a valuable authority and resource here on the forum.

Back on topic: Once you wade through all the information here about how enlargers and enlarger lenses work, you'll be in a better position to decide what to do. The option of using a camera on a stand with a light source like an LED panel for an enlarger is an old one (well, not the LEDs, but the general idea) and will work well provided you have a rigid set-up that you can easily align and a quality lens. The next thing would then be to fabricate a filter holder for filtration for VC papers if you plan to use them. That's doable too.

However, if you plan on doing a lot of enlarging from 4x5, I'll go back to my original suggestion: be patient and see if you can't find a 4x5 enlarger in good shape for cheap. It'll make your life a lot easier.

Best

Doremus

[Liquid Artist]

About the filter system that Doremus mentioned.
There are some systems that actually fit just past the lens.
These would be the easiest to use.

I believe that Kodak, Ilford and even Paterson all had their own but similar systems, but I may be wrong.