Reductions anyone...

[ic-racer]

Ok if contacts are so nice (and they are; I can compare my own contacts vs 1:1 projection prints) how about reductions.

I wanted to try some 8x10s reduced to 4x5 and see how they compare to 4x5 contacts.

I already know the math; the paper resolution is the limiting factor, but sometimes the numbers don't capture the 'feel' of a print.

I also did not want to spend any $$$ to satisfy my curiosoty, so I had to wait for enough of the right parts to come my way to do the test.

[ic-racer]

Thanks to the generosity of some folks here and at APUG I wound up with a lensboard for the 8x10 Durst that can accept the smaller Durst lens disks.

I was given a rescessed disk with the small 25mm hole.

Then, this weekend, I found a nice black-bodied Schneider Componon 80mm with the small 25mm threads for $5

The 80mm would be the perfect lens for a 6x6cm reduction, but I thought I'd push the envelope and see if it would go to 4x5in.

The 25mm screw mount allowed the lens to mount on the underside of the lens board. Thus letting the lens point up in its favored direction (ie toward the 8x10 negative).
I was getting some noticable barrel distortion with the lens mounted the other way.

[ic-racer]

The logistics of the experiment involved propping the paper easel up with boxes to a point about 150mm below the rear of the lens.

[ic-racer]

No room for a grain focuser, so focusing was a little difficult.

In the end, the mechanics of it worked out OK, but I can't say the prints were any different than 4x5 contacts. But then I figured this was going to be the case.

I do think I will continue to do reductions, now that I have a system in place. The reason is to not use a whole 8x10 sheet of paper to do rough prints or proof prints of my 8x10 negatives.

[mcfactor]

Thanks for doing this. I have been wondering about this in a very theoretical sense for a while. How is the tonality compared to either the 8x10 conact or a 4x5 contact?