Something to watch out for when shopping: many 5x7 Elwoods are missing the tapered diffusion glass needed to even out the illumination.Originally Posted by John Kasaian
Something to watch out for when shopping: many 5x7 Elwoods are missing the tapered diffusion glass needed to even out the illumination.
I made one. Just built a light box to sit on top of my B&J Watson 5x7. Works fine (if a bit clunky), on the rare occasions I have wanted to enlarge 5x7. https://www.largeformatphotography.i...e-5x7-enlarger
From a long-term maintenance and refurbishing perspective, I prefer the classic L184 system. The simpler the better. But the real top of the line would have been their dedicated horizontal enlarger - around $90,000 at the time, and perhaps the worst to own in terms of dedicated carriers etc not interchangeable with their other enlargers.
I was aware of the two-stage mixing box. Makes things tall. I figured out how to do it more efficiently in a rather unique manner. But my L184 is in a different room with a very high ceiling anyway - so no need in its case.
The much older 2000W CLS 300 color mural head wouldn't evenly cover anything bigger than 5X7, although numerous people tried to make it work for 8x10. It was hotter than hell and needed a ridiculously energy-demanding cooling system consisting of four pure silicone duct hoses. But it did have the sheer muscle to print big Cibachromes fast, and got me on the map with exhibition work. I used it in horizontal mode.
Good effort ! (Tim)
i spent years thinking about doing that with my Gandolfi, but eventually I just weakened and bought the Durst ( and I was older and had more spare change ) .
Last edited by Mark J; 4-Mar-2024 at 16:19.
From a practicality point of view, 4x5 is the way to go. One can easily find an enlarger, film is less expensive, accessories are available, etc.
But if you especially like the 2x3 aspect ratio, you might consider 5x7. One can find 5x7 enlargers, and as you've observed, one gets a larger contact print. Plus, there's considerably greater area in a 5x7 negative versus a 4x5, and this can result in a more pleasing enlargement. I'm not sure about the availability of 5x7 film. At the least, one can cut 5x7 film down from 8x10. A lot of photographers are getting out of 5x7, so now might be the time to buy.
For myself, I prefer the aspect ratio and the convenience of 4x5.
Either way, enjoy.
Good idea I will look , I did not know they had one.
KHB will be your best bet local to you (they even have a list of all the variants/ accessories De Vere did/ do for the 507) - unlike the bigger Durst condensers, all the De Vere condenser heads use a standard PH212 type lamp.
I debated whether to go for 5x7 or 4x5 about 20 years ago, I'd used 4x5 briefly, but then moved to 6x9cm with a Horseman and was very happy with that. I concluded then, that some fine-grain films in 120 meant that 4x5 wasn't quite enough of a step up ; so for another sheet-film camera I opted for 5x7". However things have changed recently as films like APX25 have disappeared. I think 4x5 makes a bit more sense now, as 5x7 has pretty limited film options - however, I'm sticking with it.
Interneg - I'm totally sold on the condenser illumination I opted for with the 138 S. There's a sort of 'bite' and 3-dimensional look on the prints that I could never get with a diffuser head no matter what grade and dodging/burning. I can see a lot of re-printing from the 6x9cm archive coming up this year. I had also started to lose faith about HP5+ as being right for my style, but having re-printed a 6x9cm neg this evening on G 1.5 with loads of punch, I'm thinking of getting a new pack of HP5+ .
I am having KHB repair my existing transformers and timers and buying a spare for each, I will also look into the condenser system, I am going to try our Ian Leakes darkroom timers first as apparently they are adaptable to devere system.
For evenly distributed light on the baseboard, I used ground glass with the center darkened with a pencil.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks