Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-14-2011, 06:44 PM   #1
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,206
Enlarger lens replacement and linux scanner for 35 mm

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.

05-14-2011, 07:03 PM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,901
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
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.
Just get VueScan. It supports 700 scanners in Linux, you should be able to find something. The Minolta Film scanners apparently work as do the Nikon scanners.

VueScan 9 Scanning Software for Windows 7, Mac OS X (Snow Leopard) and Linux

VueScan 9 Release Notes

Last edited by boriscleto; 05-14-2011 at 07:11 PM.
05-14-2011, 07:07 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mount Joy, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 542
Regarding a scanner for 35mm negatives that will work on Linux, I recommend using Vue Scan. I used it for a number of years with a Konica Minolta Dimage 5400 dedicated film scanner, and it delivered images superior to the native software that came with the unit.

The interface is downright ugly, and frankly, it could use an overhaul. However, the pros far outweigh the cons. The biggest advantage with Vue Scan is that you can use it with just about every scanner ever made, whether it's a dedicated film scanner or a budget flatbed scanner with a film adapter.

My personal choice of scanner in your situation would probably be anything made by Epson, though others may have their own ideas/preferences.
05-14-2011, 08:41 PM   #4
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
Thanks Boris and LowV
I will check out Vuescan, and Epson then.

Hi, Chris, the hole in the bellows is 29.45 mm I.D. ,
the major diameter of the original lens thread is only 22.8 mm.

I see Omega lens plates of 25, 39, 44 & 50 mm.
So a 25 mm lens thread would be surely OK, and
39mm may be so if the bellows hole is large enough (almost certainly, I think)

There is a large selection of used lenses.
I can make adaptor to the Omega plates I see,
so I will look for a 50 mm.

As for the carrier:
It looks like previous owner ran 2 by 2 inch negs through it.
I am asking him how he did it because I can't see how film strips would go through.
There are many accessories including glass plates and shims to frame 35 mm.

This thing is not quite Pentax tech, more like
what you would see in a good old USA steel mill of the time.
So I reckon I can make another film carrier with welder.
(and angle grinder to correct the front focus and bookeh in tungsten).

Thanks very much for the quick help!

05-15-2011, 10:27 AM   #5
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,545
Oh, Wombat, ....Chris was talking about a 50mm *focal length* if that wasn't clear, (On another read, I'm thinking you have that part right, actually.)

39mm is a very standard mounting size, commonly used in enlargers, (Vastly the most common, actually: ...you seem to have plenty of lens boards for *other* sizes, so you might find a neat bargain in another mounting size there, just cause fewer use them. )

Around a 50mm lens is pretty standard for 35mm film enlargements: generally whatever's the 'normal' lens for the film format will be about right.


As for negative carriers, ...if you can do your own grinding, you're in good shape: any nice flat plates that you can sandwich and make fit will do. (The thickness isn't too critical as long as the enlarger can accept them: the focusing is by bellows and you'll just never miss a millimeter or three of thickness.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-15-2011 at 10:34 AM.
05-15-2011, 10:54 AM   #6
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
Thanks, RML, Yes I understand, need a 50mm fl and don't care about the thread.
I have a Nikon f1:1.4 50mm on watch list that comes with a mount screwed to it.

Also it might be better if i get a used neg carrier and chop it up to fit rather
than try to make the accurate cutout, so I am watch listing one of those.

Deluxe version of this enlarger came in fifties with a fluoro lamp-
22 Watt cool white, so I am wondering if it is worth trying a compact fluoro
to avoid the cost and heat of the special tungsten lamp.
05-15-2011, 11:23 AM   #7
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,545
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
Thanks, RML, Yes I understand, need a 50mm fl and don't care about the thread.
I have a Nikon f1:1.4 50mm on watch list that comes with a mount screwed to it.

Also it might be better if i get a used neg carrier and chop it up to fit rather
than try to make the accurate cutout, so I am watch listing one of those.

Deluxe version of this enlarger came in fifties with a fluoro lamp-
22 Watt cool white, so I am wondering if it is worth trying a compact fluoro
to avoid the cost and heat of the special tungsten lamp.

No-go on the CF bulbs, actually: better to use a household tungsten bulb: CF's are not consistent enough for this application and there just isn't that much burn time to save electricity about. The big problem is the *brightness* is not a constant: the fact that they take a while to come up to full brightness is nice to live with, but not over a space of maybe the ten to sixty seconds most use in printing. (Hint: I like to use times that are multiples or divisors of twelve. Makes the math easier. But over that kind of time scale, a CF bulb won't be putting out constant light. )

I don't believe there was ever a Nikon 1.4 *enlarging* lens, though. I've got an old EL-Nikkor 2.8 and as far as I know, that's as fast as an enlarging lens gets or needs to be. (You want to actually expose your paper at around f8-f11 anyway, most of the time. )


If you're talking about a Nikkor in M39 that's that fast, I can only think it'll be a valuable old rangefinder lens (Did they even make those?) that you probably will not get for any reasonable amount of money, ....and if you did, you could buy some truly choice enlarging lens and probably a K-5 and a Limited besides.


Unless you mean someone has kludged a Nikon-F-mount onto a lens board for some reason: I've never heard of that being done in enlarging.


*peeking on Ebay* Hey, *this* might or might not be cool: http://cgi.ebay.com/KODAK-ENLARGING-EKTAR-LENS-f-4-5-50mm-/290565215888?pt=L...item43a7095690

Slow enough to be dim, but may be very nice optically. Or just neat. I've a soft spot for some of the old American glass, though (I say this cause it's an old Ektar, not cause I really know. Vintage, though, and easy to try, since if you have the boards, this one has the retaining ring. )

There's also tons of those El-Nikkor 2.8s pretty cheap: they aren't of the very, very best, but they're good to work with and won't be the weak link for a very long time, I assure you. (I've got one and probably won't look for better unless and until I've gotten past the point of picky about paper and the like. )

(There's also a newer Rodenstock which is not of the name's big reputation, (Rogonar rather than Rodagon, ) but should also serve quite nicely for about fourty bucks (counting big shipping) )

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-15-2011 at 12:06 PM.
05-15-2011, 07:17 PM   #8
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,034
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
CF's are not consistent enough for this application and there just isn't that much burn time to save electricity about. The big problem is the *brightness* is not a constant:
They also continue to "glow" after the power is shut off. Not good. Interestingly, replacement bulbs are generally available for most enlargers, though many of that vintage used standard tungsten incandescent bulbs. Google is our friend.


Steve


BTW...1+ on the EL Nikkor 50/2.8. They are good, abundant, and inexpensive.

05-16-2011, 07:08 AM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
RML :
Sorry its just me again, clacking out too many ::: and ...
Actually I am after a 1:4 50 mm enlarger lens which seems to be a common type.

RML and Steve:
I warmed up the CFL in the enlarger for a few minutes and then used ist ds in
Manual, White Balance, tripod, and Gimp to measure 6 test shots
at 10 second intervals of the enlarger's image 9 by 6 inches on its gray base plate.
The first shot when the lamp came on was 52/255, 54/255 at 10 sec, and at 60 sec it had risen to 55/255.
Green Channel was 37/255 all the time.
I did not try to measure the after glow because I could not see it.

There was vignetting which I hope will be less when I replace the lens,
and is not too much caused by the old condensor in this thing.

Actually not only do I dislike tungsten lamps, in 1974 not in photography,
I was in R&D on voltage stabilizers which among other things were used by the color photo labs of the time.
I recall spending time with the owner of a photo business in Sydney, who generously gave me
the basics on color temperature and showed the results of voltage fluctuations in his darkroom.
At that time we had difficulty to make analog electronics accurate enough for color photo stabilizers,
and they continued to use the older ferroresonant types.

So I think the cfl might be worth a try in this old enlarger.
Now I need paper and developer!
And I am looking at an Epson V600 scanner just in case!
05-16-2011, 09:57 AM   #10
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,545
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
RML :
Sorry its just me again, clacking out too many ::: and ...
Actually I am after a 1:4 50 mm enlarger lens which seems to be a common type.
No worries: anyone'll tell you I'm a chatterbox, myself, if that's what you mean.

(With the Nikkors, by the way, the 2.8 is said to be superior to the F4, (Which is OK, I think, anyway) ...with the Rodenstocks, I gather anecdotally you'd be better off with an f4 Rodagon than a 2.8 Rogonar. I'm sure either would be adequate, though, at least for starting out.


QuoteQuote:
RML and Steve:
I warmed up the CFL in the enlarger for a few minutes and then used ist ds in
Well, that's part of the thing about it: you don't generally want to hang around trying to let the bulb warm up just to have consistent exposure. Especially when you want to be dodging and burning and stuff like that.





QuoteQuote:
There was vignetting which I hope will be less when I replace the lens,
and is not too much caused by the old condensor in this thing.

Does seem you're on the right track there: of course remember that a CF bulb is probably going to be putting out light differently with respect to the condensor than would a more-or-less standard filament, which does it all in a very small space that condensor will be designed for.

Alternately, if you end up really liking the CF for other reasons, you may be able to convert your old beast to *diffusion,* which has some nice qualities (and a few less-nice ones) and won't be so picky about where in the bellhousing the light is coming from.

QuoteQuote:
Actually not only do I dislike tungsten lamps, in 1974 not in photography,
I was in R&D on voltage stabilizers which among other things were used by the color photo labs of the time.
True enough, though the variation is less, and with conventional bulbs you can *see* the flicker, even if you don't have such a stabilizer and your power grid's wonky. In B&W it's not such a big deal, at least.

(Leads to the thought: What about halogen or LED bulbs? )



QuoteQuote:
I recall spending time with the owner of a photo business in Sydney, who generously gave me
the basics on color temperature and showed the results of voltage fluctuations in his darkroom.
At that time we had difficulty to make analog electronics accurate enough for color photo stabilizers,
and they continued to use the older ferroresonant types.
Figures aside, are you actually planning to do color? Very few bother, even if they know how. I have no particular plans to do so, myself.


QuoteQuote:
So I think the cfl might be worth a try in this old enlarger.
Now I need paper and developer!
Well, I'd still advise against trying to learn on a CFL, there's no benefit you'll notice and a lot of problems. But, again, some of those new LED bulbs and things might be enough to satisfy your engineer's sense of properness. (Otherwise, maybe just work up a stabilizer of your own? Seems you have the know-how. )

(Come to think of it, I wonder if you could just run your enlarger off a PC battery backup and have constant supply anyway. Here's me, head still in the 80's. )


QuoteQuote:
And I am looking at an Epson V600 scanner just in case!
Different applications, but useful. Theoretically. (looking at bent 4490 she paid real money for and never worked right.) That'll send someone like me scurrying for the amber light before you know it, I think. And I haven't yet even dealt with so much as a Kodak photo printer.
05-16-2011, 10:16 AM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
RML: OK I will take your advice and start with a standard tungsten lamp.
Only B&W.
What paper and developer do you recommend to start with?
I prefer to stay with Ilford range from B&H.

Thanks for the help so far.
05-16-2011, 01:27 PM   #12
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,545
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
RML: OK I will take your advice and start with a standard tungsten lamp.
Only B&W.
What paper and developer do you recommend to start with?
I prefer to stay with Ilford range from B&H.

Thanks for the help so far.
No worries: Regular Ilford Multigrade is good, ...also check out Freestylephoto.biz:

(Actually, let me peek for you: a lot of what's on the market now, I just haven't tried, and a lot of the old stuff isn't around anymore...) they've got some informative stuff as well as a lot of stuff for students, where you can save a few bucks and get a little more info. )


Hrm, I might try the Arista.edu Ultra paper: seems pretty standard, and you can have a graded RC paper, which keeps things simple to start, and'll save you on contrast filters while you get the basics down. Or you can just get the contrast filters, multigrade/VC paper, and restrain yourself a bit.

Basically, I suggest don't get too fancy or spend for fancy stuff at first: you're going to go through some paper learning: you just don't want to go *so* cheap it might take more expertise than you've got to make it behave.

I'd suggest you start with just a resin-coated (RC) glossy ('Pearl' is OK, but glossy'll be easier for you to inspect and feel your way with.)

(For fancy, they're kind of implying this Oriental G is like the old "Oriental Seagull," a favorite of mine I too rarely got to use back when it was a starving-artist favorite. *sniff* Did I get Agfa? Please, guvnor, spare a pack of.... )

Actually, I always did like the Ilford multigrade as these things would go. (At least the Multigrade III, ...I just can't seem to recall if the change happened when I was last working in a lab, but I didn't get to pick the materials there anyway. ) It used to cost more than the now-defunct Kodak line, but now it's about baseline. You could save a little of that for when you feel confident, or if the money difference doesn't matter, just go to town.


For developer I pretty much always just used Dektol or the Ilford equivalent, that's pretty consistent and standard: for myself I'm looking into some eco-alternatives, (Verdict not in yet) but I presume Freestyle's house-brand Arista will do you fine if you want to save a few bucks.

Consistency's your friend when trying to learn: you do sound like a quick study about the technical things, so start there, and you'll know when you've got it down and want to go further.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 05-16-2011 at 01:59 PM.
05-16-2011, 07:23 PM   #13
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,034
I have been thinking of firing up my enlarger and have been thinking that Adox MCC papers might be a good option.


Steve
05-18-2011, 11:43 AM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
I was just told by the original owner that this old 1955 Federal enlarger was brought back from Cuba when he was in US Navy.
He apologized that the lamp only lasted 56 years, saying it must have got shook up on the way back.
He said in those days, they used to cut the negs into single frames before enlarging.
05-20-2011, 06:50 PM   #15
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,545
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
I was just told by the original owner that this old 1955 Federal enlarger was brought back from Cuba when he was in US Navy.
He apologized that the lamp only lasted 56 years, saying it must have got shook up on the way back.
He said in those days, they used to cut the negs into single frames before enlarging.

Ah! Lame! What kind of junk's he trying to pawn off on you! 56 years?!

In all seriousness, if that's what I think it is, there were much-better designs to come after that was made, but you probably can't complain about the quality of manufacture for its kind.


You can probably avoid having to cut negs to single frames at least, with the skills you've described. I'd even say 'Just get something more modern' but it may be the glut's just off the market. (But you could keep your eye out. If someone wants it out of the way, someone wants it out of the way. )


Fine enough to see if you like this, and certainly charming. (Basically, a bellows and lamphouse on one stout pipe? )
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 07:13 PM. | 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