Re: calling all Durst 184 Laborators
The chart goes to a dotted line right around 8x10, which I'd interpret as "getting dicey", and again, at what f/stop? But like I said, I have a 180 regular R., and wouldn't even consider using it for 8x10. There's more to the question than just coverage. But I have my own standards, and don't give a damn what certain labs might once have done. How many of you would choose a 90mm lens for 4x5? - same mag ratio. Let's just say that I'm in the camp of those who would consider a WA enlr lens to be only a last act of desperation for lack of a better option.
Re: calling all Durst 184 Laborators
You do it your way and I’ll do it mine
Re: calling all Durst 184 Laborators
You weren't the one asking the question in the first place. Maybe they'd like to weigh the pros and cons for themselves before undertaking a big project.
Re: calling all Durst 184 Laborators
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Luis-F-S
No, if you would read it you'd see that it covers the Rodagon in addition to the Apo-Rodagons. 50-360 Rodagons and 240-360 Apo-Rodagons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
The chart goes to a dotted line right around 8x10, which I'd interpret as "getting dicey", and again, at what f/stop? But like I said, I have a 180 regular R., and wouldn't even consider using it for 8x10. There's more to the question than just coverage. But I have my own standards, and don't give a damn what certain labs might once have done. How many of you would choose a 90mm lens for 4x5? - same mag ratio. Let's just say that I'm in the camp of those who would consider a WA enlr lens to be only a last act of desperation for lack of a better option.
The 180 isn’t a WA. And it’s best performance is 2 stops down. Or, he could use the 210mm.
The WA series of Rodagon outperforms, within its optimization range, the Rodagons.
Re: calling all Durst 184 Laborators
Good to hear your input again, Bob. I just took a brief break and did my own test. The 10x10 diffusion chamber in the colorhead atop my own L184 provides almost perfect illumination with just a flat diffusion sheet. I don't own any Apo Rodagons longer than the 150N, and my own set of process lenses are all Apo Nikkors. But this still allows me some kind of apples to apples comparison at the same magnification ratio from 8x10 film. The 360/9 Apo Nikkor gives me virtually perfectly even illumination even wide open; the 305 is close, and extremly good just a stop down at f/11 with respect to both completely even illumination and very crisp apo-corrected details right out to the corners. My 240 Apo Nikkor has to be stopped down to f/16 to get similar (but not identical) performance. I already had carefully-done test notes abound those on hand. I don't own any samples of WA Rodagons, so will just take your word for it. I'll assume they're pricey and uncommon in a suitable focal length. With the regular 180 Rodagon enlarging lens per se, I could not obtain perfectly even center to edge illumination at any f/stop; but by the time it's stopped down two stops to f/11, it's within striking range: with smaller prints, you could burn in the corner and edge density a bit. The problem with really big prints is that simple burning-in might be inconvenient; so, in that case, I'd recommend a custom ground diffuser with about half a stop of density reduction center to edge, PROVIDED the diffusion chamber is perfectly even to begin with. If it's not, you'd need something more aggressively ground. Corner sharpness is acceptable two stops down for general print enlarging, but not as well corrected as I'd want for enlarged dupes or internegs, or as good as any of my own Apo lenses. It would make a very nice 5x7 lens on this machine, and better than I thought for 8x10 film, but not ideal in my opinion. Hue saturation and microtonal contrast are, of course, a tad less than with true apo lenses. If I hypothetically need brighter focus with a "normal" focal length lens for 8x10 film, I have a 360/5.6 El Nikkor on hand; but it's a huge, heavy thing that I normally keep on an enlarger much bigger than the L184, and even it needs to be stopped down to f/11 for ideal performance.
Re: calling all Durst 184 Laborators
Sorta typical, I suppose. A guy asks a question about the mechanics of an enlarger, and the conversation becomes a pissing match about lens coverage by the third post.
Can we dial that tendency back a bit?
Rick “pitying the OP” Denney
Re: calling all Durst 184 Laborators
Are you implying wearing boxing gloves, Rick? I thought people paid to see bare knuckles fights. Yeah, I know....
Re: calling all Durst 184 Laborators
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
Are you implying wearing boxing gloves, Rick? I thought people paid to see bare knuckles fights. Yeah, I know....
I’m implying a tone that would preclude the need for boxing gloves or bare knuckles, but you knew that.
But more I’m hoping that when people of experience ask a specific question, we seek to provide a specific answer, if we know it. And if we don’t, we pass up the opportunity to say something anyway.
Rick “just sayin’” Denney
Re: calling all Durst 184 Laborators
Any word on this? Did you get it to focus? Any reason to not project horizontally for the project?
Re: calling all Durst 184 Laborators
Thanks for asking ic-racer. Horizontal is not desirable -- too much conversion for right now. Laborator is replacing another enlarger, mid-project. It was a matter of quickly completing a project.
By pushing the enlarger's table all the way to the floor and using a 240mm, the projection was accomplished, but I don't have final word. As the expression goes: No news is good news.
I'd still like to know if the head can be removed at the 'shoulders', as is possible with my Beselers, and re-mount at a higher position with simple modifications. There is still room at the ceiling level, but the table is bottomed out.