Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-21-2011, 04:38 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,207
Original Poster
RML,Yes it looks like that. The "project" is to get this one working
on 35 mm in as original condition as possible.
The original owner is still a keen p&s photographer and is quite a computer guy too.
He is interested to see it working again
Parts and supplies are arriving, it might take a few weeks of spare time...

Did you see "This Old House " episode? They are doing street photographer Jules Aarons old house.
Showed his darkroom and a lot of his b/w shots in the gallery.

05-21-2011, 07:12 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
RML,Yes it looks like that. The "project" is to get this one working
on 35 mm in as original condition as possible.
The original owner is still a keen p&s photographer and is quite a computer guy too.
He is interested to see it working again
Parts and supplies are arriving, it might take a few weeks of spare time...

Did you see "This Old House " episode? They are doing street photographer Jules Aarons old house.
Showed his darkroom and a lot of his b/w shots in the gallery.

Yeah, actually, I saw that. They did a nice little bit on him: seemed a pity they weren't talking about preserving/restoring the darkroom (You know I would. Didn't actually look like much, but hey, History. )


And Chris is right about the fact that newer types will offer more convenience, but obviously you're dealing with a charm factor here and the old ones ought to work well enough. They still don't look too hard to come by (The way the price of a Beseler like I have went through the roof at Freestyle I was a little worried the glut was over, but it still looks like you can do fine on Ebay, shipping the things aside. (I really had a piece of luck with mine: the moment I started shopping,there was one of my favorites, right in the next town for fourty bucks. Great was da Skor. Too bad my darkroom *space* didn't pan out so well. )

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-21-2011 at 07:40 PM.
05-29-2011, 06:26 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,207
Original Poster
Progress on the 1955 enlarger:
I had to weld an extension to the lens bracket rack to get the new 50 mm Rodenstock closer up to the
carriage to allow focus on 8 by 10 paper. It turned out rather neat, and the old lens will still mount.
I got a slide carrier and cut it up so it drops into the existing carrier.
Some Gepe glassless slide mounts from B&H with metal frames. For low volume,its easy to mount the keepers.
The old electro-mech timer is still acurate. I made a safelite by painting a 25 Watt with some left over acrylic red glaze
and it sits in a period lamp base.
The prints can be really sharp, but it looks like my eyes are no longer focussing the MX properly.
Many of my shots are focussed behind the subject. I am using progessive eye glasses.

I have the standard 75 Watt lamp in but the exposure time is only 18 seconds on the Ilford Multigrade
with the lens stopped right down to f/13 or so.
I will try a lower power lamp next. What is a general exposure time I should aim for at say f/8 ?

thanks.
05-31-2011, 07:38 AM   #19
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
I will try a lower power lamp next.
15-20W is probably closer to what you need.


Steve

06-17-2011, 05:15 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,207
Original Poster
The 16 Watt was fine for the Tmax400- 45 seconds at f/8 or so
On the HP5, it was out to 60 seconds and 5.6 or less
Then I noticed that comparing the leader frames that were blown out, the HP5 is visibly less transparent than the Tmax.
Everyting else was fairly much the same same except the Tmax400 was in the microphen developer for 420 seconds and the HP5 for 530 seconds.
It looks like a 25 Watt or even a 40 Watt might be better for the HP5.
Is such a difference in base transparency normal?
thanks
07-15-2011, 11:47 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,207
Original Poster
Scanned Wet Enlargement.
UMax400 at iso 800 from Ricoh KR-5 and Rik Zoom 35~70

The 35 mm was mounted in Gepe metal frame and enlarged 6.4x to 230 mm (9 inch) wide
Printed on the Ilford Multigrade
Scanned on the Epson V600 at 300 DPI 8 bit to make a 2874 by 1950 jpg.
No pp
https://www.box.net/shared/5dled1nmi94jq22d2pon

Here is the 35 mm neg, in the metal frame direct scanned on the V600 at 3200 & 8 bit to make 4213 by 2741 jpg
and TMAX400 gamma (1.33) reversed in GIMP ready for sRGB.
https://www.box.net/shared/cys4m9kr2bzax0efu250
07-17-2011, 08:46 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,207
Original Poster
After some more trials, this is the best so far.
The Epson V600 plastic frame was removed completely because it reduces the neg to 33.4 mm wide (it should be 35.0 mm by vernier caliper measurement)
The Gepe metal mount containing the 35 mm bw neg was laid on the bed and the frame was manually adjusted.
Scan as a neg and 3200 dpi with all corrections off.
In Gimp, de Gamma by 0.75 ( 1/1.33 for TMax400) and apply un sharp mask at 5 pixels and 0.75% with a threshold (I forget) to minimise the amplification of speckles from the V600.
On the Eizo, I see it is not as sharp:
The b&w V600 neg by the Rikenon 35 ~ 70
https://www.box.net/shared/mhp1396c0ge18poky7je

compared to the ist ds camera jpg with the M 40mm pancake, in about the same light.
https://www.box.net/shared/h7v10vzyyr1yjsb4p1xq

However I will keep trying.

10-31-2011, 10:14 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,207
Original Poster
I had some time to the darkroom, so I dissassembled the V600 and fooled it into doing a scan under the enlarger.
That did not work and the reason is the scanner needs light at "almost" 90 degrees above the sensor,
so it can't see the enlarger lens light except for a "small zone" when the sensor passes directly under the enlarger lens.
Arr well.., I will put it back together and use it as a reflective paper print scanner where it works with excellent fidelity.
But I don't like it as a 35mm film scanner and maybe the reason is the above " almost" and "small zone"
which optically blurrs the edges on the small negs.
11-03-2011, 09:36 AM   #24
Veteran Member
Steve Beswick's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario, California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,736
2 separate things:

1) Using a CFL is gaining you no practical benefit. For the purposes of B&W work, the light from an incandescent bulb is more stable. Furthermore, if you use variable contrast paper, the color temperature of the incandescent bulb is far closer to what you want for the filters.

2) For your "scanner under the enlarger" idea, you could try laying a sheet of thin white paper on the scanner glass, with a sheet of glass over that, and try it again.
11-24-2011, 06:22 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,207
Original Poster
I would like to thank those who helped me on this thread previously. That help got me going.
I am too busy so not too much time for photography!
Summary:
I have Pentax MX with M 1:2 50mm or other Pentax lenses, on to TMAX400 or HP5 then Microphen/Ilfostop/fixer,
Then old condensor enlarger to Rodenstock Roganar-S 1.2.8 f=50mm to approx 230mm or 9 inch prints on paper Ilford Multigrade RC pearl 45 sec @ 6 clicks down.
The results are really good.
Now:
I was given a Zeiss Ikon Telma (Germany), the leather case is "Nettar" , with following approximate specs:1:6.3 f=10.5 cm , 7 to inf feet , 1/7 to 1/ 125 sec.
I was told this camera was made in 1937.. The lens, bellows and body appear in top condition, as far as I can see.
Film pressure plate is approx 91 mm wide by 63 mm high ( 3.6 inch wide by 2.5 inch high).

I would like to know what b/w film to use with the above size and process.
I understand that the enlarger lens will need to be changed, and I would like to know the best enlarger focal length, hopefully a lens with a screw mount same as the Rodenstock...which I measure at approx 38.7 mm thread O.D.
Thanks and happy Thanksgiving to those in USA and everywhere today
11-24-2011, 11:12 PM   #26
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
...Now:
I was given a Zeiss Ikon Telma (Germany), the leather case is "Nettar" , with following approximate specs:1:6.3 f=10.5 cm , 7 to inf feet , 1/7 to 1/ 125 sec.
I was told this camera was made in 1937.. The lens, bellows and body appear in top condition, as far as I can see.
Film pressure plate is approx 91 mm wide by 63 mm high ( 3.6 inch wide by 2.5 inch high).

I would like to know what b/w film to use with the above size and process.
I understand that the enlarger lens will need to be changed, and I would like to know the best enlarger focal length, hopefully a lens with a screw mount same as the Rodenstock...which I measure at approx 38.7 mm thread O.D.
Thanks and happy Thanksgiving to those in USA and everywhere today
Ping Nesster...he is our resident expert on old folders.


Steve
11-28-2011, 06:42 AM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
I just developed first roll of b&w, after 25 years, on MX with
pancake 40 and Rikenon 1:1.4 50mm. -looking good so far...
Questions:
I was given a 1955 vintage Federal enlarger which has cleaned up OK
except the top lens element of the 1:6.3 3.5 inch is chipped and hazed.
This enlarger was used for large format. It has 75 watt 211 lamp
through a sand blasted diffuser and a condensor lens.

What is a good focal length for a replacement lens, for 35 mm negs
for up to the 9.5 by 7.5 inch frame on this thing?
I see used enlarger lenses of many fl and it looks as if I could make an
aluminum adaptor to the Federal.

Also I would like to know of a 35 mm scanner that has a linux driver (fedora/rhel)

I appreciate any assistance or comments offered.
It's really too bad I sold all my darkroom stuff when I went digital. I traded in 2 B&W and one color miopta enlargers, along with a 28mm bessler and 50mm nikor lenses for the color enlarger, and 50 and 75mm miopta lenses for the B&W.

For 35mm onto 8x10 the 50mm focal length is a good option, but for bigger enlargements you may want to use a shorter focal length, otherwise the enlarger runs out of height adjustment.

the 75mm lens was OK for 6x7 negatives
12-02-2011, 09:47 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
grhazelton's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Jonesboro, GA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,970
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
It's really too bad I sold all my darkroom stuff when I went digital. I traded in 2 B&W and one color miopta enlargers, along with a 28mm bessler and 50mm nikor lenses for the color enlarger, and 50 and 75mm miopta lenses for the B&W.

For 35mm onto 8x10 the 50mm focal length is a good option, but for bigger enlargements you may want to use a shorter focal length, otherwise the enlarger runs out of height adjustment.

the 75mm lens was OK for 6x7 negatives
Um,

If you use a shorter focal length for bigger enlargements you may not cover the negative fully, unless you cop a wide angle enlarging lens. There are such things, but rare and probably expensive. Stopping the lens down will help, some, but a good enlarging lens is best at mid range apertures. 75mm is probably stretching it for 6 x 7. As a rule of thumb the enlarging lens for a given format should be close to the "normal" taking lens for that format. For example, a Pentax 67 uses a 105mm, I think, so a 100mm or so enlarging lens would be good.

BTW, there are some killer enlarging lenses out there - Schneider Componons and Componon S, Rodagons. Fuji Fujinons are pretty good, I gather. And the prices are good. I scored a 50mm Componon S f2.8 NOS for about $85, current price is about $300. Don't shortchange yourself with a cheapo enlarging lens.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
enlarger, film, inch, lens, linux, mm, photography, replacement, scanner
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Linux lens correction tool Mullah Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 4 12-18-2009 04:14 AM
replacement lens kit mec17 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 11-12-2009 12:50 AM
Looking for a kit lens replacement. NaClH2O Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 06-11-2009 12:18 PM
Epson V700 scanner and Linux ? StevenVH Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 6 03-17-2009 11:22 PM
enlarger lens know-how rparmar Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 03-05-2008 08:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:02 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top