Largest print possible

[swmcl]

Hi,

Can I ask if there might be a helpful member who might find me my answer through practical experience ...

Using a 210mm lens what would be the longest dimension possible on a Durst L138 condenser enlarger please ? Re-building a baseboard and want to project 6x17 images. So taking a 5"x7" negative would be the long dimension taken care of.

The same information is sought from a Durst L184 condenser enlarger with a 300mm lens. If you use an 8"x10" negative please advise.

Both are floorstanders.

I will supply more information if you need it. I am thinking the width of the L138 baseboard should not exceed 26" and the baseboard of the L184 would not exceed 30" but these estimates do not make any difference here. I guess the information most relevant would be the distance from lens to baseboard actually.

Thanks in advance.

Steve

[ic-racer]

With a 300mm lens and the head all the way up and the table all the way down, my L1840 projects an 8x10 negative just about to the edges of the baseboard, which is 40". I'm pretty sure the L184 is nearly identical to this (see table below). The L138 baseboard is 24 x 32in and the maximum 5x7 negative enlargement with a 210 is about 35". The way it works out with these enlarger is the baseboard width just about matches the maximum enlargement available with a 'standard' lens.

Scan from the L184 manual:
112702

Scan from the L138 manual:
112703

[swmcl]

Thanks,

I am hoping someone out there has made a baseboard and it is larger (or wider) than any 'standard' baseboard. The question is independent of baseboard size.

I wonder if it is possible to estimate the largest size mathematically ?

Steve

[ROL]

The question is independent of baseboard size.

Are you sure you need a larger baseboard? What about a larger easel?

[Bernice Loui]

On the Durst 138 using a 240mm lens with 5x7 film in glass carrier, the largest print based on my experience is 20"x24" with the table most all the way down and head near the top limit. Focusing becomes a significant problem as I cannot reach the focus lever ball in this position and had to be "creative" to work the focus lever ball.

Why not simply rotate the 138 head 90 degrees and use it as a horizontal enlarger? It has wheels for tracks and is designed to be used this way. It would be easier to project on the wall for larger prints when dodge/burning and etc.. If space in the dark room allows this configuration, it is well worth considering.

The sizes can be calculated, but there are SO many variables and etc that many, many calculations complied in a table will result and it actual real world print making conditions, it might not be that useful.


Bernice



Thanks,

I am hoping someone out there has made a baseboard and it is larger (or wider) than any 'standard' baseboard. The question is independent of baseboard size.

I wonder if it is possible to estimate the largest size mathematically ?

Steve

[ic-racer]

I wonder if it is possible to estimate the largest size mathematically ?

Steve

I posted a mathematical example here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?110867-base-board-to-negative-distance&p=1107088#post1107088

In terms of making baseboards for these enlargers I'd use the original sizes, unless you plan on enlarging with a wide-angle lens; Durst already did the math for you :)

[ROL]

Why not simply rotate the 138 head 90 degrees and use it as a horizontal enlarger? It has wheels for tracks and is designed to be used this way. It would be easier to project on the wall for larger prints when dodge/burning and etc.. If space in the dark room allows this configuration, it is well worth considering.

Bernice, I wonder whether anyone has actually done this with their Durst. I am aware the rotating head is one of its selling points, but the difficulties of large magnification without a permanently oriented and tested setup seem legion to me (I know we've all seen AA do this in his Carmel DR). How does one align the head to the printing surface – which is presumably a wall? How are you securing paper vertically? Is it comfortable to dodge and burn in this orientation? Etc.?

[matthew klos]

If baseboard is an issue. I use a very large piece of mdf. i have used this to make 50x60 mural before. works great.

[ic-racer]

Bernice, I wonder whether anyone has actually done this with their Durst. I am aware the rotating head is one of its selling points, but the difficulties of large magnification without a permanently oriented and tested setup seem legion to me (I know we've all seen AA do this in his Carmel DR). How does one align the head to the printing surface – which is presumably a wall? How are you securing paper vertically? Is it comfortable to dodge and burn in this orientation? Etc.?

Both my CLS Color Head and L1840 enlarger came from different darkrooms in which the enlargers were permanently set up to project on the wall.

The higher the magnification ratio the less important alignment of the head to the paper (and the more important lens to negative alignment). You can align the tracks to the wall with a carpenter's right angle but you may need a PROLA fine-adjustable lensboard.

112845

[bob carnie]

My Durst 2000 is for this exact purpose and I will put mine on angle iron, sheet metal will be applied to the wall , with laser aligners and adjusting screws on the metal on the wall alignment is obtained easily by a trained tech.

Making horizontal murals is something I have done a lot and does take a bit of mechanics to set up the space properly , as well learn how to dodge and burn from the side rather than the top. Once this is all figured out they are quite easy to make and for me preferable than doing murals vertically.


Bernice, I wonder whether anyone has actually done this with their Durst. I am aware the rotating head is one of its selling points, but the difficulties of large magnification without a permanently oriented and tested setup seem legion to me (I know we've all seen AA do this in his Carmel DR). How does one align the head to the printing surface – which is presumably a wall? How are you securing paper vertically? Is it comfortable to dodge and burn in this orientation? Etc.?

[bob carnie]

I have the exact same enlarger setup.

Both my CLS Color Head and L1840 enlarger came from different darkrooms in which the enlargers were permanently set up to project on the wall.

The higher the magnification ratio the less important alignment of the head to the paper (and the more important lens to negative alignment). You can align the tracks to the wall with a carpenter's right angle but you may need a PROLA fine-adjustable lensboard.

112845

[Bernice Loui]

Not used this Durst 138 horizontal, only vertical as directed by dark room space available. Have used horizontal enlargers before and they are appealing. Very much like using a horizontal process camera. Projection to a wall, with the enlarger on tracks which keeps it in proper alignment. Set up and alignment is pretty much the same as a vertical set up as there is a horizontal dentent on the Drust 138 head that can be used as a starting point.

Paper can be secured by using an extrusion or channel frame to fit the paper size (one of those "speed-eazel" modified to accept magnets or even velcro will do) with a step mounted on the wall with magnets to allow positioning for different paper sizes and position the image as required.

Dodge/burn tools are a bit different, but not that different only long enough to allow reaching areas from one side of the print.


Bernice



Bernice, I wonder whether anyone has actually done this with their Durst. I am aware the rotating head is one of its selling points, but the difficulties of large magnification without a permanently oriented and tested setup seem legion to me (I know we've all seen AA do this in his Carmel DR). How does one align the head to the printing surface – which is presumably a wall? How are you securing paper vertically? Is it comfortable to dodge and burn in this orientation? Etc.?

[ROL]

ic, Bob, Bernice. – thanks for the replies. Of course, point taken about the increased lens DOF at greater distance – my savior in big enlargements. It does seem that planning and permanence of setup is the key, not the kind of casual approach to large prints by simply turning the head and pointing to a wall. Wish I had a Durst.

[Bernice Loui]

Sad state of so many Durst or Devere enlargers.. Many of them have been scrapped or tossed out as photo labs closed and no one wanted them free. IMO, these are great enlargers in many ways.

Many think or believe that a floor standing Durst or Devere is too big for the typical dark room and will choose a Besler or similar with the belief that it is more space efficient. Once the table space and working space is consider and installed, the floor standing Durst or Devere is not that much larger.. Yet these enlargers are so much nicer to use and stable in ever way.

Don't give up those nice Durst or Devere enlargers are still out there and can be had for not too much funds. If possible get the entire set up as purchasing individual bits will be expensive and not so easy to find or get. Specially the film carriers.



Bernice


ic, Bob, Bernice. – thanks for the replies. Of course, point taken about the increased lens DOF at greater distance – my savior in big enlargements. It does seem that planning and permanence of setup is the key, not the kind of casual approach to large prints by simply turning the head and pointing to a wall. Wish I had a Durst.

[bob carnie]

Yes - getting this setup is not for the faint of heart, and you are correct a more permanent set up is required.

ic, Bob, Bernice. – thanks for the replies. Of course, point taken about the increased lens DOF at greater distance – my savior in big enlargements. It does seem that planning and permanence of setup is the key, not the kind of casual approach to large prints by simply turning the head and pointing to a wall. Wish I had a Durst.

[swmcl]

Guys,

Essentially, I'm trying to figure out the theoretical size constraints for vertical enlargement of a 6x17 neg to be honest. Being a neg with a different aspect ratio means I was thinking of making a baseboard that was wider than the norm.

I picked on either 5x7 or 8x10 as formats which had a dimension larger than the 6x17 to get an idea of size.

I have been a calculatin' and I reckon that I will in no way exceed around 52 inches as the long dimension with any lens combination (perhaps excluding the WA lenses). That is with the baseboard on the ground and the lens at max height (around 60 inches between them).

If I make the board 48 inches (chipboard comes at 1200mm wide here) by say 32 inches I should be good to go. Now I just need to find a demolition store. Around here the chippies (cabinetmakers) want $330 for a 48 by 32 board !! (33mm thick)

I'll get a black laminate yes ?

Steve