Which enlarging lenses should I keep?

[campy]

I have a bunch of enlarging lenses and would like to know which I should keep and which I should sell. I have a 45MX enlarger and 6x6 and 4x5 cameras.
Componon 135mm f5.6
Componon-S 150mm f5.6
Componon 150mm f5.6
Fujinon-ES 135mm f4.5
Componon-S 150mm f5.6 small version
Apo-Gerogon 150mm f9
Apo-Ronar 12in. f9 not sure if this is an enlarging lens.

[Bob Salomon]

I have a bunch of enlarging lenses and would like to know which I should keep and which I should sell. I have a 45MX enlarger and 6x6 and 4x5 cameras.
Componon 135mm f5.6
Componon-S 150mm f5.6
Componon 150mm f5.6
Fujinon-ES 135mm f4.5
Componon-S 150mm f5.6 small version
Apo-Gerogon 150mm f9
Apo-Ronar 12in. f9 not sure if this is an enlarging lens.

Neither of the Apo lenses are enlarging lenses. They are both process lenses. The Apo Ronar was used on horizontal process cameras. The Apo Gerogon was a wide field process lens for vertical process cameras. So those should be the first to go.

Assuming that your enlarger is properly aligned and you are using a glass carrier, which of the others gives you the best results? That is what you keep.

None of them are best for 6x6. They are all for 45.

[Drew Wiley]

The Fuji 135 would be the pick of the litter for MF if you have a tall enough enlarger, but a bit shy of ideal for 4x5, though certainly usable. You might want to keep the Componon S 150 too.

[jp]

I'm a big fan of the Componon-S for their temporary-open-aperture lever and lighted aperture readout. Optically does the job well too.
Have not tried Fuji.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd suspect the Fuji to be a bit better corrected. Componon S improved upon the Componon, and once held a high reputation. But just like prize fighters, somebody younger and tougher came along. Schneider marketed its own premium HM lenses,
with a higher price point, of course. In my case, I really prefer longer than "normal" enlarging lenses because they have little or no falloff in comparison to normal ones. For quite awhile I used a 180 Rodagon for printing from 4x5 chromes. And the reason I now mainly use a 150 is simply because the Apo Rodagon N series doesn't come longer than 150, and its exquisite tonal rendering in my current black and white work makes it an exceptional choice. For my 8x10 negs I use Apo Nikkors, better still, but not available in shorter focal lengths. However, I wouldn't make too much of a fuss over these kinds of things unless there is a specific application which warrants it. There are plenty of decent choices around.

[Pere Casals]

I'd keep the componon-s 150, and one of the 135mm.

The 135mm can be useful for 4x5 if you are to enlarge a crop, or if wanting small prints from 6x6.

The 135 can also be useful for 4x5 if wanting to compensate fall off from the taking lens, a negative shot with a 65mm (without center filter) has thinner than expected corners, so the higher fall off of the 135 may help compensate that.

...but to enlarge 6x6 you may want a lens around 80mm.

[Bob Salomon]

I'd keep the componon-s 150, and one of the 135mm.

The 135mm can be useful for 4x5 if you are to enlarge a crop, or if wanting small prints from 6x6.

The 135 can also be useful for 4x5 if wanting to compensate fall off from the taking lens, a negative shot with a 65mm (without center filter) has thinner than expected corners, so the higher fall off of the 135 may help compensate that.

...but to enlarge 6x6 you may want a lens around 80mm.

Pere,

The fall off with a wide angle camera lens can not be compensated with an enlarging lens. The wa lens fall off means the film has less density at the edges of the film. Fall off with an enlarging lens means less density at the edges of the print. Only a center filter or dodging will compensate for the fall off.

[ic-racer]

You can't try them to see? Otherwise my guess is to keep the 80mm Componon-S and the 150mm Componon-S. Those are the the two I use.
I have two of those 80mm f4 new style Componon-S lenses, one has clearer glass than the other (after cleaning both). So you really do need to test them to see.

[ic-racer]

181554

[Bob Salomon]

Yes, I saw that when I rechecked his post!

[consummate_fritterer]

You can't try them to see? Otherwise my guess is to keep the 80mm Componon-S and the 150mm Componon-S. Those are the the two I use.
I have two of those 80mm f4 new style Componon-S lenses, one has clearer glass than the other (after cleaning both). So you really do need to test them to see.

+1

[campy]

The 80mm is staying, I didn't realize I put in the group. I don't have a light tight darkroom as of yet so testing them is not an option.

[David Lobato]

I'd sell the Fujinon ES lens. Though it's uncertain if it's better than the only other 135mm lens, a Componon. The Fujinon ES lenses are not considered as good as the Fujinon EX series. The ES lenses were also cheaper than the EX lenses.

[Pere Casals]

Pere,

The fall off with a wide angle camera lens can not be compensated with an enlarging lens. The wa lens fall off means the film has less density at the edges of the film. Fall off with an enlarging lens means less density at the edges of the print. Only a center filter or dodging will compensate for the fall off.


Bob, consider that the fall off from the enlarging lens illuminates less the edges that have less density, so it compensates the lower opacity of the film (in the edges) by throwing less light there.

It isn't a perfect compensation, but it helps.

Also we can adjust the amount of fall off by adjusting aperture, wide open the enlarging lens has higher fall off, and it decreases as we stop the lens. The graph shows fall off at 5.6, 8 and 11.

https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/componon-s/componon-s_56_135_1.pdf

181574

The graph shows that we can even throw two stops less light in the corners by taking advantage of the enlarging lens fall off, so we can correct perhaps 3 stops fall off in the taking, but this may impose an aperture we dont' want...



Of course the center filter makes sense because having the corners underexposed (or the center overexposed) provocates other problems, but if having a negative that has fall off then using a shorter than usual enlarging lens should help...

Also I found that in the 138S we can adjust the bulb position with different condensers, so there we have another way to illuminate more or less the corners compared to the center.

[Luis-F-S]

Try them, I doubt you'll much if any difference between them! L

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, consider that the fall off from the enlarging lens illuminates less the edges that have less density, so it compensates the lower opacity of the film (in the edges) by throwing less light there.

It isn't a perfect compensation, but it helps.

Also we can adjust the amount of fall off by adjusting aperture, wide open the enlarging lens has higher fall off, and it decreases as we stop the lens. The graph shows fall off at 5.6, 8 and 11.

https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/componon-s/componon-s_56_135_1.pdf

181574

The graph shows that we can even throw two stops less light in the corners by taking advantage of the enlarging lens fall off, so we can correct perhaps 3 stops fall off in the taking, but this may impose an aperture we dont' want...



Of course the center filter makes sense because having the corners underexposed (or the center overexposed) provocates other problems, but if having a negative that has fall off then using a shorter than usual enlarging lens should help...

Also I found that in the 138S we can adjust the bulb position with different condensers, so there we have another way to illuminate more or less the corners compared to the center.

Pere, if one wants optimal results from an enlarging lens to obtain the best possible print quality there are certain things that you must have:
1 a properly exposed and processed film.
2 a properly aligned enlarger
3 a glass negative carrier
4 a high quality enlarging lens
5 optimal aperture of the enlarging lens
6 optimal magnification range of the enlarging lens

THE OPTIMAL APERTURE OF AN ENLARGING LENS IS 2 TO 3 STOPS DOWN FROM WIDE OPEN!

A high quality enlarging lens at optimal aperture and within its magnification range should have no more then ⅓ rd stop fall off center to edge.
In no way can that properly compensate for the fall off from a wide angle taking lens shot without the center filter.

[Luis-F-S]

.......if one wants optimal results from an enlarging lens to obtain the best possible print quality there are certain things that you must have:
1 a properly exposed and processed film.
2 a properly aligned enlarger
3 a glass negative carrier
4 a high quality enlarging lens
5 optimal aperture of the enlarging lens
6 optimal magnification range of the enlarging lens


That's asking a lot from someone who is asking which lens to keep!

[Bob Salomon]

That's asking a lot from someone who is asking which lens to keep!

That was directed at Pere, not the op

[Peter De Smidt]

Bob's list is excellent. None of this is rocket science, and these things aren't that hard to arrange.

Regarding a glass carrier, I saw an example of it's importance recently. I'm scanning a bunch of 120 film. I lay a plastic mask sheet on a light box, one of the standard fluorescent studio ones from about 2000. When it's been on for awhile, it gets warm to the touch but not hot. My masking sheets hold three strips of negatives. My process was to lay each strip over the appropriate opening, I then position each one carefully and tape it in place. That may take about 10-30 seconds. As I was taping the first negative, the other two strips would curl dramatically from the heat. Now imagine what happens with a hot light source like most enlargers. Not only does the film possibly move out of the ideal plane of focus during enlarging, but it can be moving during the exposure, and we all know what subject movement does to sharpness during a long exposure.

Another confirmation of this: I built an aluminum holder for my Screen Cezanne. It was a 1/4" thick sheet of flat aluminum, with various holes machines out to match film sizes. Like many people in both traditional darkrooms and scanning light room, I hate dust. I just spent most of the morning, for instance, spotting a high res scan. So printers try to go with glassless holders, which was the motivation behind my aluminum scanning tray. The only problem? The scans weren't as sharp as they were with clam shell holders. I suspect film movement during the scanning process, either from the heat of the light source or from the movement of the scanning tray, or, likely, both. It was a dramatic difference.

[Pere Casals]

1 a properly exposed and processed film.
2 a properly aligned enlarger
3 a glass negative carrier
4 a high quality enlarging lens
5 optimal aperture of the enlarging lens
6 optimal magnification range of the enlarging lens


Bob, I agree. This is a recipe that doesn't fail. It's always good to enforce this checklist.

Anyway optimal aperture of the enlarging lens "IS 2 TO 3 STOPS DOWN FROM WIDE OPEN!", but it also can be 1 to 2 stops, and some lenses like Rodagon N also performs quite well fully open if aligment is perfect...

But that 1 to 3 stops down still allows for adjusting fall off of a relatively short enlarging lens.




A high quality enlarging lens at optimal aperture and within its magnification range should have no more then ⅓ rd stop fall off center to edge.
In no way can that properly compensate for the fall off from a wide angle taking lens shot without the center filter.


In this point I disagree a bit, I agree that in regular conditions we should have no more than 1/3 fall off, and because that (in general) a 135mm enlarging lens is not desired for regular 4x5 work, so we may prefer 150mm or 180mm...

but... what happens if we have a 45 negative that was exposed with fall off and then we have thinner edges ? the fall off from a 135mm enlarging lens is to help us !!! doesn't it ? don't we want less light in the corners?

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I agree. This is a recipe that doesn't fail.

Anyway optimal aperture of the enlarging lens "IS 2 TO 3 STOPS DOWN FROM WIDE OPEN!", but it also can be 1 to 2 stops, and some lenses like Rodagon N also performs quite well fully open if aligment is perfect...

But that 1 to 3 stops down still allows for adjusting fall off of a relatively short enlarging lens.




In this point I disagree a bit, I agree that in regular conditions we should have no more than 1/3 fall off, and because that a 135mm enlarging lens is not desired for regular 4x5 work, so we may prefer 150mm or 180mm...

but... what happens if we have a 45 negative that was exposed with fall off and then we have thinner edges ? the fall off from a 135mm enlarging lens is to help us !!! doesn't it ? don't we want less light in the corners?

Pere, first, only lenses like a Rodagon G mural printing lens is going to perform optimally close to or at wide open. All others require 2 to 3 stops down.
Next, when you use a lens longer then recommended by the lens manufacturer you can not obtain optimal results. A modern, high performance, enlarging lens recommended for a particular format will always outperform a similar quality lens for prints within the optimal enlargement range. In fact, the 120 Rodagon WA will out perform any other focal length within its optimal magnification range save for extremely high end lenses like an Apo Rodagon N.

You are simply spreading old wive’s tales based on much older lens technology and, possibly, not maintaining proper enlarging requirements!

[Leszek Vogt]

Bob, and without disagreeing with you, the essential ingredient/s is the operator/printer who understands how all of these details intertwine-dovetail. Sure, good equipment helps the cause.

Les

[Drew Wiley]

Ideally, one grinds the diffuser below the mixing chamber (and above the neg carrier) to match the falloff of a specific lens. But since falloff can differs at different f-stops with the same lens, and the fact that multiple lenses might be used, is a good argument for having a set of interchangeable diffusers. Edge and corner burning is sufficient for lots of ordinary black and white purposes, but not so good for certain serial exposure applications. But in the real world, I think Bob's advice of never using a longer than brochure-normal enlarging lens is sheer nonsense. I do it all the time for the most demanding applications. For example, my 240 Apo Nikkor will outperform any 150 enlarging lens, including my superb 150 Apo Rodagon. Yes, there's an f-stop penalty or speed penalty, so I use both, as well as a more conventional 180 Rodagon. And everyone knows the 210 Apo EL Nikkor is the gold standard, though very costly and too heavy for many enlargers.

[Bob Salomon]

Ideally, one grinds the diffuser below the mixing chamber (and above the neg carrier) to match the falloff of a specific lens. But since falloff can differs at different f-stops with the same lens, and the fact that multiple lenses might be used, is a good argument for having a set of interchangeable diffusers. Edge and corner burning is sufficient for lots of ordinary black and white purposes, but not so good for certain serial exposure applications. But in the real world,
I think Bob's advice of never using a longer than brochure-normal enlarging lens is sheer nonsense. I do it all the time for the most demanding applications.

Drew, to each his own, but it is still an old wive’s tale with modern, high end lenses.

I have been involved with numerous high end labs and studios and have seen the critical tests between focal lengths at center edge and corners, longer then recommended focal lengths result in less then the optimal results!

[Drew Wiley]

The proof is in the pudding. And my personal standards are higher than any "high-end lab" I've ever encountered. Home cookin' gives one that luxury. I'm not on the clock. But some of the differences between lenses are not worth arguing about.
Nobody will notice in the final print. Distinctions can be seen under a Peak Critical magnifier, esp at the corners of the field.
And for highly nitpicky applications like precision dupes or internegs, the qualitative differences can be significant, esp given
the fact that this often adds up due to multiple steps being involved, including masking registration. Don't panic, Bob, I've been using Apo-Rodagon N's most of the summer, and strongly endorse them.

[Bob Salomon]

The proof is in the pudding. And my personal standards are higher than any "high-end lab" I've ever encountered. Home cookin' gives one that luxury. I'm not on the clock. But some of the differences between lenses are not worth arguing about.
Nobody will notice in the final print. Distinctions can be seen under a Peak Critical magnifier, esp at the corners of the field.
And for highly nitpicky applications like precision dupes or internegs, the qualitative differences can be significant, esp given
the fact that this often adds up due to multiple steps being involved, including masking registration. Don't panic, Bob, I've been using Apo-Rodagon N's most of the summer, and strongly endorse them.

Drew, glad to hear that but I can guarantee you that I have been involved with labs with standards beyond yours!

[faberryman]

Drew, glad to hear that but I can guarantee you that I have been involved with labs with standards beyond yours!
Grab the popcorn as the duel develops over whose standards are the highest.

[interneg]

Grab the popcorn as the duel develops over whose standards are the highest.

I wonder how much of it would survive double blind testing...

[Bob Salomon]

I wonder how much of it would survive double blind testing...

It’s been done many times by many labs, studios and government and industrial entities.

[Drew Wiley]

Popcorn time. No fake butter please. Name one lab on the West Coast. I probably knew the owner as well as his equipment and methods. And like I said, what commercial lab ever had the time and budget to do go to that kind of fuss? Even the biggest dye transfer lab in NYC cut corners. And I'm 100% certain you've never even heard of the best equipped lab in this hi-tech area because they were never open to the general public. But their minimum charge of $40,000 pretty much ruled that out. They could certainly many do things alt-wise that I cannot, but it had little to do with optical enlarging. The second best equipped lab you probably never heard of either because the clients were mainly overseas corporations, and it had stunning optical equipment, but not quite like mine. Nor did even they go to extra steps of control dupes etc. Just retired. And frankly, you've never seen my own work, so whether it's great or simply horrible, you'd can't honestly state. And double blind? Does that mean only Rodenstock enlarging-marketed lenses against only similarly marketed lenses, with all the
graphics application ones left out? Even the big labs staked their income on having more options than that. Think I'll grab some popcorn myself and see what follows ...

[Bob Salomon]

Popcorn time. No fake butter please. Name one lab on the West Coast. I probably knew the owner as well as his equipment and methods. And like I said, what commercial lab ever had the time and budget to do go to that kind of fuss? Even the biggest dye transfer lab in NYC cut corners. And I'm 100% certain you've never even heard of the best equipped lab in this hi-tech area because they were never open to the general public. But their minimum charge of $40,000 pretty much ruled that out. They could certainly many do things alt-wise that I cannot, but it had little to do with optical enlarging. The second best equipped lab you probably never heard of either because the clients were mainly overseas corporations, and it had stunning optical equipment, but not quite like mine. Nor did even they go to extra steps of control dupes etc. Just retired. And frankly, you've never seen my own work, so whether it's great or simply horrible, you'd can't honestly state. And double blind? Does that mean only Rodenstock enlarging-marketed lenses against only similarly marketed lenses, with all the
graphics application ones left out? Even the big labs staked their income on having more options than that. Think I'll grab some popcorn myself and see what follows ...

Drew,

We worked very closely with what was the highest quality lab in the country, they printed mostly for museums, here and overseas, Color Lab that was just outside Boston.
We also sold the plastic slide mounts to almost every lab that did E6 since our parent company, Gepe, owned the patent that Pako manufactured under. We worked directly with a Jack Boucher and Jet Lowe at Habs/Haer in DC. We also worked closely with both the official WH photographers and their DC labs.

So enjoy your popcorn, you were not the only high end game in this country, or other.

[interneg]

It’s been done many times by many labs, studios and government and industrial entities.

I don't disagree - at big sizes the difference a Rodagon-G makes is startling, but when making 2-4x enlargements off smaller formats, a longer focal length makes a huge difference in working clearance!

[Drew Wiley]

I seeee... Not impressed. I do still have some of those of Gepe AN glass mounts for 6x7. What on earth do those have to do with anything besides slide shows? A fellow who once offered me a partnership had been official white house photographer. He still does some of those multimillion dollar TV product ads. The last one fell through because the rap star wearing the stupid tennis shoe label got preempted on a weapons charge and had to go to prison first. I met with one of his clients for breakfast once - the CEO of Mobile in his weekend bluejeans, then we went out and helped some Senator stack firewood in an old truck. It's amazing what kind of clients you can get if you buy a 20K per annum golf membership and routinely let them win the round. I don't golf, so it didn't interest me. But I could sure as heck print better, even way back then. I don't do big mural or alt, just lots of Ciba in the past, and not some b&w mostly. Some major lab owner from the heyday of DT, who made some of its best known public displays for Kodak (ironically, with dyes other than theirs) got into a web brawl with me about DT vs Ciba. So I met with him in person carrying a few prints. That settled that; but what he didn't even recognize were the white borders - they were actually Fuji Supergloss chromogenic prints! Given his background, he would have never imagined that Ciba, let alone color neg hues could be rendered that clean optically. Labs simply can't stay in business taking that kind of fuss. A few hired-gun personal printers can. And that first operation I referenced takes the extra step of outright inventing entirely new photographic reproduction processes on demand. When a single commission can involve millions of dollars, why not. Invent the equipment too if necessary. They simply have to make a profit more often than a loss; but they mainly do it for the challenge. And as far as govt side-by-side testing; c'mon. Every govt agency I noted any optical request about certainly wasn't looking for anything on a shelf somewhere. It was made on demand too, often right near here. Those custom optical folks were my clients in terms of certain materials. Saw the owner several times a week. Hey, an NSA or DEA or NASA card with no credit limit can fetch one hecka lens! Even the Hubbell "reading glasses" correction lenses were made by them. Not like the GSA with their gofer-typed requisition lists of generic commodities.

[Bob Salomon]

Drew, I said we supplied the mounts to labs and Gepe owned the patent for all those plastic slide mounts. The company that invented that mount was Geimuplast in Germany and that was the name that we sold them under. It was a Gepe subsidiary. Gepe was our parent company so we were also responsible for all their mounts from the 70s on, except for 2 years when they were sold by Braun Photo in the very early 80s. So we dealt with almost every USA lab. And we also dealt with them for darkroom accessories, copy stands as well as enlarging lenses.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I still recommend those mount to beginners who can't afford a serious glass negative carrier, cause it worked for me when I first started out. But only a few months later I abandoned both MF photography and that sold that small enlarger, and went to 4x5, but still had to develop film in the furnace closet! But no, you probably did not deal with all the big labs here. You've probably walked right past one of them and didn't even know it was a lab - too big to be suspected. But you probably did know Howard at Custom Process. Nice guy; but he preferred Apo Rodagons for mural work, so I hope you wont make a little doll of him and stick pins in it. He did a huge volume of business, but eventually got screwed by both a Kodak equip warranty default and the property owner around the same time, so retired. They handled some of my generic company printing, but none of my personal work. What other Bay Area labs do you remember? Sounds like you had a fun but hectic job like mine. Where I worked was never bought out, thank goodness, but generational transitions amounted to the same kind of uncertainty. In family-owned corporations, some of the heirs are themselves hard workers and relatively competent, and some are not. Always a roll of the dice.

[Bob Salomon]

Well, I still recommend those mount to beginners who can't afford a serious glass negative carrier, cause it worked for me when I first started out. But only a few months later I abandoned both MF photography and that sold that small enlarger, and went to 4x5, but still had to develop film in the furnace closet! But no, you probably did not deal with all the big labs here. You've probably walked right past one of them and didn't even know it was a lab - too big to be suspected. But you probably did know Howard at Custom Process. Nice guy; but he preferred Apo Rodagons for mural work, so I hope you wont make a little doll of him and stick pins in it. He did a huge volume of business, but eventually got screwed by both a Kodak equip warranty default and the property owner around the same time, so retired. They handled some of my generic company printing, but none of my personal work. What other Bay Area labs do you remember? Sounds like you had a fun but hectic job like mine. Where I worked was never bought out, thank goodness, but generational transitions amounted to the same kind of uncertainty. In family-owned corporations, some of the heirs are themselves hard workers and relatively competent, and some are not. Always a roll of the dice.
This is a big country and there were lots of labs, not counting industry, government, museums, libraries, etc..
I was the national sales manager for all of our products, product manager for the pro products and also did all of the PR and was the contact between the ad agency. We had 20 sales reps for most of the photo products dealing with the camera stores. In addition we were the distributor for Rimowa luggage up till they built their NA factory in Canada. I was had the same responsibilities for Rimowa until we added someone to handle the luggage dealers and the Geimuplast business for labs.

As I was based out of NJ and spent close to 40% of my time visiting camera stores nationally I did not spend that much time on labs in the West. My sales reps and our dealers were better placed to handle them as well as our Geimuplast rep.

So with labs on the left coast most of my contact with them were on the phone.

I did deal directly with NASA since I sold and trained them on their Linhof Aero Technika 45 EL and Rollei 6008 cameras for the Space Shuttle and their Rollei 6008 photogrammetric cameras for documenting Space Shuttle landings and with folks like Boeing for many of their needs or with Hanford.

[Drew Wiley]

Is the left coast still left if you turn around and face south?

[Pere Casals]

Pere, first, only lenses like a Rodagon G mural printing lens is going to perform optimally close to or at wide open. All others require 2 to 3 stops down.

Bob, just for my learning process, I checked the technical information.

It is true that the G performs a bit better than N (in the graphs) when both are wide open.

But in part this is because the N is one stop faster, graphs show the N at f/4 and f/8 while the G charts are at f/5.6 and f/11

Of course charts are for each lens at suitable ratio, x6 and x20.


Probably the N would perform close to the G if the N was stopped to same f/5.6, guessing from the improvement we see for the N when stopped from f/4 to f/8...

181593

https://onedrive.live.com/?id=8D71BC33C77D1008%21324&cid=8D71BC33C77D1008


I find those graphs interesting to learn what happens when using an enlarger if a demanding job is course. I find it's not easy to interpret how performance in the graphs does impact in the print quality, but that information should be useful when trying to improve print quality, that's what I feel...


Probably G or N lenses had another contributing factor... people purchasing that kind of gear probably weren't rookie printers, and probably they knew how to make a sound print.

[campy]

Sorry I asked.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, just for my learning process, I checked the technical information.

It is true that the G performs a bit better than N (in the graphs) when both are wide open.

But in part this is because the N is one stop faster, graphs show the N at f/4 and f/8 while the G charts are at f/5.6 and f/11

Of course charts are for each lens at suitable ratio, x6 and x20.


Probably the N would perform close to the G if the N was stopped to same f/5.6, guessing from the improvement we see for the N when stopped from f/4 to f/8...

181593

https://onedrive.live.com/?id=8D71BC33C77D1008%21324&cid=8D71BC33C77D1008


I find those graphs interesting to learn what happens when using an enlarger if a demanding job is course. I find it's not easy to interpret how performance in the graphs does impact in the print quality, but that information should be useful when trying to improve print quality, that's what I feel...


Probably G or N lenses had another contributing factor... people purchasing that kind of gear probably weren't rookie printers, and probably they knew how to make a sound print.

Pere, don’t guess, within the optimization range the G was far superior. But it made a lousy print outside its range. Same for the N and the Rodagon and the W/A!

[Luis-F-S]

Sorry I asked.
Why, you had your answer by post #4 or so. The rest is gratuitous BS from people who would rather quote obscure theory rather than photograph.

[Peter De Smidt]

Luis, you've summed up the forum well! Helpful but pedantic.

[Pere Casals]

Why, you had your answer by post #4 or so. The rest is gratuitous BS from people who would rather quote obscure theory rather than photograph.

Photography has 2 sides, one side is technique and the other side is art and communication. A photographer may like one side, another one may like the other side, and also some people like both sides.

Reading posts that focus on technical matter is not mandatory.

I'd also add that BS wording normally comes from unpolited people, that suffered a substandard education, or grew in a dysfunctional family, or other... at least in my country. :)

[Luis-F-S]

I have 3 college degrees and have taught photography at the college level in this country. Sorry about your experiences in your country!

[Luis-F-S]

I had to be a BS college :)

were the professors saying BS all day long ? :)

Actually, BA, BS MS, PE.

[Pere Casals]

I answer you by PM.

[Luis-F-S]

I thought I would share your PM and let the forum decide for themselves:


Luis, it had to be a Bull Shit (BS) of MS, because people I know sporting master degrees are more polite, americains included

I don't if you like having the taste of bull shit in the mouth, but it has to be something like this.

No problem, it's up to you to behave as an educated person or if you prefer the gang band style.

Shit is related to a defecation, in biology this is not a problem, but a PE should know when to speak about defecations or not.

[Pere Casals]

I thought I would share your PM and let the forum decide for themselves:

You first qualifiyed what others posted as bull shit (by posting "The rest is gratuitous BS from people who would rather quote obscure theory rather than photograph." http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?147578-Which-enlarging-lenses-should-I-keep&p=1457281&viewfull=1#post1457281), so beyond your rude wording you have a remarkable lack of respect, someone had to tell you.

If you want to be respected, then start respecting other people.

This is not BS: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?147578-Which-enlarging-lenses-should-I-keep&p=1457255&viewfull=1#post1457255

And by qualifying that as BS you are qualifiying yourself as not deserving your degrees.

[Drew Wiley]

Yikes! I don't mind jousting with Bob, even if he knocks me off my horse, because he really knows his stuff and has a properly sharpened lance; but I could
do without spiked balls and chain-shot being allowed at a sporting event.

[consummate_fritterer]

I think some folks brought a shotgun to a nerf gun fight. :)

[Pere Casals]

Yikes! I don't mind jousting with Bob, even if he knocks me off my horse, because he really knows his stuff and has a properly sharpened lance; but I could
do without spiked balls and chain-shot being allowed at a sporting event.

Drew, your joustings with this Bob and with the other Bob are always memorable :)

hmmm, sometimes it takes a while, but it always happens that, at least in my case, I learn something really interesting !!

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, I admit I start some food fights, but I bet if we all had the opportunity to sit down over a cup of coffee somewhere and compare prints, we'd come away with a lot more respect for one another, although not just any kind coffee might work...

[consummate_fritterer]

Hmmm......

If me gets me one each of da following den me gots da bestest of everything.....

150mm Apo Rodagon-N
150mm Apo Componon HM
150mm Rodagon-G
150mm G-Componon

If me gets da bestest, den me brags da mostest. If me had all those den me would win dis food fight. :)

[Pere Casals]

Hmmm......

If me gets me one each of da following den me gots da bestest of everything.....

150mm Apo Rodagon-N
150mm Apo Componon HM
150mm Rodagon-G
150mm G-Componon



yes... but to take advantage of those glasses we need big papers and a really skilled printer.

I tried to understand the complexity of making optical mural prints, by printing crops of the mural, and I found that people doing that professionally had to be masters if the print had any complexity.

Beyond the usual complexity of making good optical prints, a printer requires a hard learning before he deserves on of those glasses ! Purchasing the glass it's the easy chapter :)



Yeah, I admit I start some food fights, but I bet if we all had the opportunity to sit down over a cup of coffee somewhere and compare prints, we'd come away with a lot more respect for one another, although not just any kind coffee might work...

You are right. I've been rude so I apologize.

[Nodda Duma]

A very intelligent, insightful person — the type of person who, if she had suddenly died, would have removed most of the knowledge in her field from the world — told me long ago that once you consider yourself an expert, then you have stopped learning and no longer contribute to the advancement of humanity. She knew enough to realize how little we know.

Don’t stop learning, fellas. That includes from other’s perspectives.