Magnify=linear amplification.
Enlargement=Area amplification
As you can see from Bob's post Rodenstock and most other manufacturers use linear magnification for best "enlargement" but this is misleading
Magnify=linear amplification.
Enlargement=Area amplification
As you can see from Bob's post Rodenstock and most other manufacturers use linear magnification for best "enlargement" but this is misleading
interesting. this is the first time i have heard those terms are dimension specific. most definitions i know say the terms are basically interchangeable. or is that just for common usage and your distinction more scientific? is then the term "magnifying glass" also misleading? should it be more properly called an "enlarging glass"?
bob, have the manufacturers been (unwittingly) misleading us or is this just a case of poor usage?
Adam, I always thought of it as what are we enlarging? a grain is not a line, it has an area. If we are going to be truly nitpicking the grain has volume, but when we enlarge we are only seeing two dimensions, not 3(volume) or 1 (linear), as the term linear magnification implies. Maybe I am wrong or maybe I am being too specific.
Thanks again everyone for the helpful information. I believe, like those who have commented, that there is either a problem with the printing, or my transparency isn't as sharp as I thought. I wish sometimes this forum could be "virtual", i.e. I could somehow show you both items since I'm sure all of your valuable experiences would tell me exactly what it is that I'm dealing with. Unfortunately, I'm on my own, like many I'm sure, to deal with trouble shooting, except for all your written help.
I will take the transparency AND the print to Photobition in the next week or so (again, I'm not close by), find an "expert" hopefully, and discuss the issue. I'll post the results........even if it means admitting that I'm blind as a bat.
Cedric
hi cedric yes there is a substantial difference in prints made from negatives and those from transparencies. as transparencies are viewd with light from behind and prints are viewed by reflective light it is often near impossible to get a print to get a print from a chrome to look just like the chrome,with the full scale of color and density in the chrome. in additionif what you primarily desire is a print to show then a color neg to final exhibition quality print will probably give a better result. in addition you can with digital technology or otherwise create a film positive from the negative. unfortunately there are often color shifts(crossovers) in positive to positive prints that are difficult to correct and in general i find i am always disappointed in prints from chromes unless they are 1) dye-transfer print 2)well done cibachromes with masking 3)tri-color carbon prints i addition it is of course hard to say without looking at original prints but often what a lab produces is not what one can gey from either doing it oneself or establishing a close working relationship with the actual printer. unfortunately in large labs that is rarely possible. in the end however sharpness is only one criteria for an image,and if it is a wonderful image it will hold even if it is not tack sharp. as others have stated if you view many of the images by ansel, minor white, and others they are sharp but not always "tack " sharp-they are still
You really ought to forget about conventional enlarging and switch to digital printing based on a Tango drum scan. Contact West Coast Imaging, Calypso Imaging (both in California) or similar outfit and compare. You won't go back--and you won't have to worry about silly issues like whether the original was flat in the enlarger, or focused properly.
it must have been very hot in the room when i typed my second post. enlargements, even cropped panoramics, are always by the same factor for both dimensions. i guess an anamorphic lens would give different enlargement factors, though.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks