Enlarger lamps light; aren`t they too much powered?

[BetterSense]

Distortion is one of those academic parameters that can be measured in the lab, but not seen by the average observer looking at a photograph.

I assume you meant "diffraction", and I largely agree when it comes to field camera use, but disagree when it comes to enlarging. When printing grainy 35mm film full-frame at 5x7, I can see a differerence in the grain when setting my lens at 5.6 vs 16. Does this ruin the photograph? No, if you don't like grain you might even consider it an improvement. I can clearly see diffraction effects in my 50x magnifier starting at f/8.

[Leigh]

Yes, I meant "diffraction", not "distortion".

I can clearly see diffraction effects in my 50x magnifier starting at f/8.

Of course you can. So???

If the OP is printing 200" x 250" prints from 4x5, and expecting people to view them with their noses pressed
to the emulsion, then this would be a significant comment.

He's not, and it's not.

The interesting thing about diffraction is that it's basically indistinguishable from an out-of-focus condition.
An image that's suffering from severe diffraction will have no sharply focused detail.

But in less severe instances, as would be the norm with average photos, it's indistinguishable.

- Leigh

[Drew Wiley]

If he were printing 16x20 from a 4x5 serious diffraction would probably be apparent. If it's too small a stop with a taking lens, then it's too small for that same film
size in an enlarger. But ya do gotta be quite a ways down there.... And it is an insignificant worry in this instance. A problem would probably transpire if he took that
same "f/22 seems OK" formula and tried it with a 35mm neg.

[Leigh]

If diffraction is such a demon..

Why do the highest quality process lenses have calibrated apertures down to f/128 and smaller?

- Leigh

[Drew Wiley]

I use process lenses for enlarging all the time. The rules are not different there, nor can they be. Often process lenses were rated at f/22 with respect to dot
pattern for halftone color separation work. It had to do with optimum apochromaticity, at least with respect to industry custom. The aperture markings were simply related to what the mass-produced apertures of the time came in. There weren't unlimited choices. I doubt those very small apertures were typically ever used. But the same lens could be put on an ULF view camera and a very small aperture might be used by a contact printer, for example. Same with many of our ordinary view camera lenses. I almost never use the smallest stops, even though they're there. Don't think I've ever used f/90 or f/128, even with 8x10 film. Nor do many of us ever work with the fastest shutter speeds on our view lenses, even though they're there (most of the fastest speeds aren't accurate anyway, so why are they
there to begin with? I don't know - rote custom, perhaps).

[jp]

Nor do many of us ever work with the fastest shutter speeds on our view lenses, even though they're there (most of the fastest speeds aren't accurate anyway, so why are they
there to begin with? I don't know - rote custom, perhaps).

I almost only use the fast shutter speeds on LF cameras... The 1/50 on a ilex5 is way inconvenient; I wish it went to 1/250 for outdoor use. I'm shooting soft focus lenses close to wide open, like a kodak 305 at f5.6. Car shows in the summer sun mean 1/1000 on the speed graphic and verito at f4.5.

In a process camera, there would be little need for the depth of field created by f128. e.g. making a plate from something flat.

[ic-racer]

The Beseler CIII is not your typical large format enlarger with its maximum negative size of 2x3". The wattage required to expose 'large format' 8x10 negatives on multigrade paper can be considerable. For example, with a 2000w head, 2x enlargement on multigrade paper with filtration produces an adequate exposure around 20 to 30 seconds at f22.

[Bill Burk]

I don't know why the idea of overexposing your film wasn't brought up. Two stops more exposure would likely give you double the printing times. No, not for color work because color balance would be impacted. But for black and white you could select your EI to make printing times more convenient.

It's also an argument for being "more" precise in your metering technique than necessary for negative quality reasons... You might state that a "perfect negative" is one which requires 32 seconds printing time... And then choose the EI that gives you that result.

Would I do it? No, I like playing with generous exposures that do not need to be precisely calculated. But when I have varying printing times between two otherwise good negatives, sometimes I'm tempted to calibrate to print times.

[Robert Langham]

I've never had a cold light that was too bright. Just ordered a 5X7 head from Modern Enlarger Lamps to go on an old Omega E4. Since I print with filters that cuts the light a little more. Always have plenty of F-stop left above F 11 and F 16. I do tend to print large.

[Doremus Scudder]

I don't know why the idea of overexposing your film wasn't brought up. Two stops more exposure would likely give you double the printing times. No, not for color work because color balance would be impacted. But for black and white you could select your EI to make printing times more convenient. ... .

Well, for smaller film formats (I think the OP is working with 2x3"), overexposing is going to make a significant difference in grain. If you like grain, fine, but an overexposed neg is not optimum (although I've made good prints with a number of quite overexposed LF negs), an not really a great way to get longer exposure times.

However, Bill, you might be on to something; many who complain of too-short enlarging times are working with underexposed/underdeveloped negs. I would advise the OP to make sure his negatives are adequately exposed and developed first before trying other solutions, which, in order of my preference would be: installing piece of diffusion material, installing a lower-wattage bulb, or using a sheet of neutral density material.

Best,

Doremus