Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

  1. #41
    http://www.spiritsofsilver.com tgtaylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,729

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    I use a glass carrier for all negatives - it's a PIA but it insures the negative is perfectly flat during printing. I use a laser to check the enlarger alignment for each negative once the correct printing height is determined and I begin ("pre-trip") each printing session by checking the alignment of the table and easel with a torpedo level, and the enlarger (front/back, right/left, negative stage) and the lens with a laser (you want the laser beam to bounce back from the lens into the target). I use Bess-Align lens-boards that allow lens tweaking.

    Thomas

  2. #42
    Eric Woodbury
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,637

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    I like the ground the glass idea (out of registration with plane of film holder). My 5x7 Deardorff was so far off when I bought it (new) that it was ridiculous. I re-machined the back to fix.

    Compare equal focal lengths, same subject, same everything between the two. Eliminate the enlarger problem with contact printing. Contact printing has better local contrast and removes other issues of projection.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    6

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    + both enlargers wall-mounted, on the same wall and next to each other
    + class carrier in both enlargers (does not matter in this test since USAF target is on glass substrate)
    0 No paper under grain focuser, when using neither of the enlargers, so we are consistent between tests.
    + Both enlargers should be properly aligned, but I dont think that matters here since I was only interested in a tiny spot of the projected image corresponding to the fine details/groups of the USAF target (I focused by using my grain focused on this spot).
    + I checked my stereo-loupe and it is good for at least 180 lp/mm, which should be sufficient for my needs.

    I think I have ruled out most factors and that I am consistent in my testing. I suspect that tiny vibrations in my Durst cause small vibrations that distort the very fine details of the USAF-target when printed. I suspect this does not have a practical significance to print quality, but just out of curiosity I will try to compare prints from my Durst with and without the fan disconnected. I will report back in due course....

  4. #44
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,413

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    henpe, do you use a foot switch or some switch on the bench?

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,901

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    If the enlarger (s) are wall mounted, do they have any support for the base board? If not, they will effectively be a pendulum mounted on a drum head. Wall vibrations will be transmitted to the enlargers easily. Weight of the enlargers, rigidity of the mounting, wall rigidity and more all have an effect on the self resonate frequency and "Q". This will alter vibration behavior of each specific enlarger. Touch the enlarger, the entire set up can vibrate and remain vibrating for some duration of time.

    Do apply a sheet of paper under the easel to compensate for thickness when focusing. It does make a difference.

    Looking at a specific spot-area of enlarged interest is OK but to achieve overall print definition, the entire system must be precisely aligned and stable.

    As for inspection-evaluation tools, a high quality microscope is the proper solution for both film and print.



    Bernice



    Quote Originally Posted by henpe View Post
    + both enlargers wall-mounted, on the same wall and next to each other

    0 No paper under grain focuser, when using neither of the enlargers, so we are consistent between tests.
    + Both enlargers should be properly aligned, but I dont think that matters here since I was only interested in a tiny spot of the projected image corresponding to the fine details/groups of the USAF target (I focused by using my grain focused on this spot).


    I think I have ruled out most factors and that I am consistent in my testing. I suspect that tiny vibrations in my Durst cause small vibrations that distort the very fine details of the USAF-target when printed. I suspect this does not have a practical significance to print quality, but just out of curiosity I will try to compare prints from my Durst with and without the fan disconnected. I will report back in due course....

  6. #46
    Cor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Leiden, The Netherlands
    Posts
    764

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    I took have a Durst L1200, and a CLS450 head, but I never got used to the CLS450, partly because it is me..I have been printing for ages with the condensors and MG flilters in the drawer between the light and the condensors, partly because of the noice of the head, partly because of the vibration of the fan (felt thevibration when puting my hand on the head)..I never realy looked into the vibration issue, just switched back to the head I am comofortable with, and live with swapping MG filtes (which If I work carefully is not needed that many times anyway)

    Best,

    Cor

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Newbury, Vermont
    Posts
    2,262

    Re: My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

    Hmmm...what hasn't yet been suggested...

    OP...can you tell us what aperture settings you typically use for enlarging...for both MF and LF? (keeping in mind that the same potential for levels of unsharpness caused by diffraction exist for enlarging as for photographing)

    Would it be possible for you to test another 150mm (LF) enlarging lens of known good quality?

Similar Threads

  1. Why are my pictures not crisp
    By Raffay in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 25-Apr-2013, 12:10
  2. Best scanner for crisp, high magnification..
    By walkerbl in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 15-Jan-2010, 17:40
  3. DD-X compared to XTOL?
    By Ron Marshall in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 16-Feb-2007, 07:44
  4. FP4 compared to Plus-X?
    By Erik Asgeirsson in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 9-May-2001, 02:25

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •