Enlarger: Neg to Lens to Print cheat sheet: 8X10, 5X7, 4X5

[Tin Can]

I had one, but I moved. I think it was DeVere and it gave guidelines for different size negs, enlarger lens combos, and final print size.

It listed distances from neg to lens to the baseboard.

Steve, you may have supplied it to me last time.

Thanks

[Len Middleton]

Randy,

Send me a PM with your e-mail address, and I can send you an Excel spreadsheet with the calculations for different lenses, negative size / diagonal measurement, negative stage to baseboard distance, etc.

Len

[Tin Can]

Done

Thanks Len

[Luis-F-S]

You know in printing for some 40 years I've never had a need for one. If I need a larger print I raise the head or use a shorter lens. But to each his own.

[Len Middleton]

Luis,

Certainly your comments make sense in your context.

In my case, I am constrained by the ceiling height where the enlarger is located, and purchased a 360mm lens, and found it greatly restricted the size of prints I could make, then purchased a 300mm lens to allow me to make up to 16x20 on a vertical projection.

174868

So had I done the calculations prior, could have saved my purchase of a lens I did not use.

Hope the context helps in understanding the requirements,

Len

[John Layton]

Well, I've been printing for about 50 years...and would still really appreciate such a list! Thanks!

[ic-racer]

174893

Here is a table.

I record the baseboard and head height (my scale is in millimeters!) for each print size. I don't like to keep the $250 lamp on more than needed when framing the print.

[Tin Can]

and I did want horizontal #s for my Elwood!

Thanks, I think that is the one you gave me some years ago!

[Luis-F-S]

Luis,

Certainly your comments make sense in your context.

In my case, I am constrained by the ceiling height where the enlarger is located, and purchased a 360mm lens, and found it greatly restricted the size of prints I could make, then purchased a 300mm lens to allow me to make up to 16x20 on a vertical projection.

174868

So had I done the calculations prior, could have saved my purchase of a lens I did not use.

Hope the context helps in understanding the requirements,

Len

So Len, now when you get a 240 Rodagon and you'll be able to make somewhat larger enlargements. Never figured out why people need a 300 for vertical projection when they can't get the magnification ratio out of their enlarger. From the Rodenstock literature below, you can use a 240 for 8x10 negative enlargements from around 4x down to about a 1.5x enlargement. From IC's chart, you can see what size print a 240 and a 300 lens will make.

I too am height constrained in my darkroom, so on my DeVere 5108, I can get roughly 67" from the negative plane to the baseboard with both at their maximum extensions. Since the ceiling is 92", I cannot raise the head the final 7-9" on the column. If I could, I'd get approximately 76" for my "B" distance with the head at its full 96" extension. This would allow a 40 x 50 print with a 240, or a 30 x 40 with a 300 mm lens. A 4x enlargement is within the recommended range for a 240 Rodagon. So a 300 mm lens at least in my situation is sort of useless because it gives me no more magnification than a 240 even if I could raise the head all the way to the top. I don't have my L-184 set up, so I can't check actual measurements that one, but the Durst literature shows the highest position of the negative carrier at 82" with the head all the way up at 108". Take off say 12" for the distance of the baseboard to the floor and you're back around 70", or a little less than the DeVere. So you might get a 4x enlargement out of the L-184 with the 240, but not the 300 since that requires 85".

Durst Literature for the L-1840 lists a maximum magnification with a 300 mm lens as 3.5 and 5x with a 240 lens. So there you have it. IC can verify the L-1840 dimensions on this enlarger if needed. L

174901

[Len Middleton]

So Len, now when you get a 240 Rodagon and you'll be able to make somewhat larger enlargements. Never figured out why people need a 300 for vertical projection when they can't get the magnification ratio out of their enlarger. From the Rodenstock literature below, you can use a 240 for 8x10 negative enlargements from around 4x down to about a 1.5x enlargement. From IC's chart, you can see what size print a 240 and a 300 lens will make.

Durst Literature for the L-1840 lists a maximum magnification with a 300 mm lens as 3.5 and 5x with a 240 lens. So there you have it. IC can verify the L-1840 dimensions on this enlarger if needed. L

174901

Luis,

Can you please confirm the type of enlarger head you are using with the 240mm on the DeVere is a diffusion head, just to ensure my understanding is correct.

My Durst 184 uses a condenser head, and to use a 240mm lens on it for magnifications greater than 1.3x, the manual calls for a 250 condenser (i.e. 250mm in diameter) in the bottom position, and thus will not cover the 8x10 diagonal.

As I do not yet feel limited by being constrained to a maximum 16x20 print size, it has not been a problem I personally have yet needed to solve, but you solution does make sense for a diffusion head...

Thanks for the explanation,

Len

[Luis-F-S]

Yes, it is a diffusion dichroic enlarger. I would try the 240 with different condenser combinations (380/380, 382/380, 382/382) to see if any of those work, I suspect, one of them could. If the 300 satisfies your needs, then use it! L

174980

[ic-racer]

My Durst 184 uses a condenser head, and to use a 240mm lens on it for magnifications greater than 1.3x, the manual calls for a 250 condenser (i.e. 250mm in diameter) in the bottom position, and thus will not cover the 8x10 diagonal.

That is too bad about using the 240mm lens with condensers.
Due to my ceiling, I only lose about 3 inches of height, but that is enough to limit the maximum projected width to 30" rather than the full 35" (3.5x) with the 300mm lens. I do have a 240mm which will increase the maximum projection width back out to 35", but I don't have trays that big at this time.

Looking back at my first decade with the enlarger, I have only routinely printed up to 16x20 (other than some experimental pieced-together murals). There is something nice about the 2X enlargements. They still have a 'contact print' quality of detail, but they are plenty big.

[Tin Can]

Enlarging is way more fun than printing inkjet, notice I left out scanning. I scan everything, as it's fun too. When done...

I print up to 14X36" wide in one piece and simply rock through a 16x20 tray. See-saw with clips.

I made a large print on X-Ray. it's 4 pieces of 14X17" X-Ray with 6" pieces added at the bottom. Not perfect, but fun. I wanted to use the whole baseboard of my Fotar 10X10.

I taped this print in my window for a year to see if it degraded. Not that I could see. And when I had a backlight on, it was visible at night to many.The new owners were mystified. I left it for them. Infidels!

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4607/40370080871_1fdb8db9eb_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/24vndz6)28X40X-Ra7 5-24-2016 2-43-51 PM 2448x3264 (https://flic.kr/p/24vndz6) by moe.randy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Erik Larsen]

That's pretty cool Randy, better than stained glass!

[Luis-F-S]

That is too bad about using the 240mm lens with condensers.
Due to my ceiling, I only lose about 3 inches of height, but that is enough to limit the maximum projected width to 30" rather than the full 35" (3.5x) with the 300mm lens. I do have a 240mm which will increase the maximum projection width back out to 35", but I don't have trays that big at this time.

IC, any idea if the 240 will cover 8x10 with some condenser combination? L

[Tin Can]

That's pretty cool Randy, better than stained glass!

Thanks, Eric!

[ic-racer]

IC, any idea if the 240 will cover 8x10 with some condenser combination? L
For B&W printing, I suspect there is some condenser combination that will be close-enough that it could be corrected by dodging or burning the center or edges.