yes bob, I know, but D, R is perfect for 2x, just pointing specialized glass from 1x to 20x+
I purchased a R for enlarging Velvia 45 to 810 CDU II, but what arrived was a plain Rodagon
yes bob, I know, but D, R is perfect for 2x, just pointing specialized glass from 1x to 20x+
I purchased a R for enlarging Velvia 45 to 810 CDU II, but what arrived was a plain Rodagon
2x is one range from one lens. There are 3 lenses in the range. 2 are 75mm each optimized for different ratios.
I hope you returned the lens if you paid for a D. If you didn’t you can approximate the D by reverse mounting your lens and taping off the illuminated aperture port on the base of the lens. Still won’t equal the D though.
I purchased a 210 and a 240, these two:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180318...53.m2749.l2648
https://web.archive.org/web/20180318...53.m2749.l2649
Well scratched lenses, with removed fungus, one with slight separation, but 32€ and 35€. A Pro would say it's crashed gear, but because the low cost and as it's the plain Rodagon it will be perfect to test my DIY 1010 enlarger in construction... so I saw the oportunity to learn with it and to build a criterion for my future acquisitions,
... then it came the surprise !!! the incredible bad shape of the gear was not inline with capability, and first informal tests I made show a really shinning preformance I could not predict, so at least it will be very useful while I learn about LF enlarging lenses.
Last edited by Pere Casals; 17-Mar-2018 at 17:21. Reason: using archive.org
You spend a lot of time spewing obfuscation, clickbait and barely comprehended articles when challenged by people who are far more familiar with the equipment in question.
If your quality standards for analogue prints are at the level that accepts Epson scans, then it is not surprising that you seem unwilling to spend the time understanding why large format enlargers are not modified monorail cameras (look for a process camera if you want to convert a camera to an enlarger), that there is far more to the craft & art of printmaking than positing what the resolution of various papers are & that spending 200 hours on a single negative could have been better spent making 50 8x10 negatives & learning to print them without making a song & dance about needing to use extended techniques. Getting into 8x10 & then complaining about the cost of film is ridiculous. It goes with the territory.
On the other hand, the edge performance of enlarging lenses is important to those of us who do make 1M+ prints on a not irregular basis, and there too, it's about more than just raw resolution. Optical aberrations are a far bigger headache.
First, I'm really happy with the Epsons, I know very well when I have to send a negative to drum service and when it won't make a difference from the V850 scan, and belive me, this is quite easy. I completely agree that Petapixel test, and I've a criterion because I compared dozens of scans of same negative from V850 and from X5, so I've my own criterion.
Note: while my photographs are not worth to be X5 scanned, I process negatives of a remarkable artist, my experience with X5 scans comes from that.
This is an stupid personal attack, have no arguments? .
I find that's quite easy to get perfectly sharp prints from LF negatives, beyond what human eye can see, a 1m print is no challenge, one only needs a sharp negative, a suitable and decent enlarging lens, stopping two clicks, and some basic skills for alignment.
What optical aberrations would you get from a 30 years old plain Rodagon? Any?
If wanting a 3m print from 45 then you may need a Rodagon G, that's all.
Last edited by Pere Casals; 17-Mar-2018 at 19:53.
Bookmarks