35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?

[patrickjames]

I am a firm devotee of 35mm even though I have and use other formats, mostly 4x5. For me, the spontaneity cannot be matched. As far as printing goes, the enlarger and the lens are everything. I would bet that well over 90% of enlargers are not aligned properly. The people that say 35mm cannot be done in a quality way are usually in that 90%, as was Thomas before he bought the V35. If you are not using at least one of the APO lenses then go get one, they are selling for a paltry sum these days. The reason most prints from 35mm that are larger than 8x10 look like crap can be narrowed down to these two things. I am currently using a Saunders 4550xl with an anti-newton glass carrier. My enlarging lens is a Zeiss Orthoplanar which can handle 70x enlargements according to Zeiss, although I haven't made anything that large with it. The whole shebang is aligned with a laser tool. I am a lucky man. I have no complaints.

It is important in discussions like this that tend to get technical to point out that a great image is a great image no matter what format it was shot on. Even if it is blurry or not developed exactly, etc. I personally don't chase the fine grain hyper sharp negative. I like grain. I like acutance. Lucky for me those two things go together like two peas in a pod! I prefer 400 speed films since I use some heavy filters and I don't like using a tripod. I don't like tripods although they are sometimes a necessary evil. I like using rangefinders, specifically a Hexar RF. I like Zeiss lenses. I think the Zeiss lenses for the Contax SLR system were the best lenses ever made for SLRs. Just the right amount of everything. Most lenses designed in the last 20 years or so are too good. I also like high quality point and shoots like my Ricoh GR1 and my Contax TVS. Of course all of these are 35mm.

To me, 35mm is everything film photography can be. I think it defines photography. The vast majority of great images that you have stored in your brain from the history of photography were shot on 35mm film.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Excellent contribution to the thread, Patrick!

And I couldn't agree more about alignment. My Omega can be aligned, but it drops out of alignment so quickly it's not worth keeping up with it. The thing is horrible.

Re: APO lenses. Do they really make a practical difference against something like the Focotar I use up to 16x? The reason I'm asking is that I get accounts that it isn't until you see about 20x that you start to see a difference. Can you clarify with either some practical examples where you have noticed a very clear difference, and what that difference is? Eager to know.

Thanks again for an excellent post.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Michael,

That's interesting as far as having full correction at one stop down below wide open. Usually, for normal lenses, ultimate performance is two stops from wide open.

What's the maximum aperture of your APO lenses? I checked the available 50mm APO lenses available today, and it seems that Rodenstock makes a 50mm f/5.6. That is too slow for me many times. My preferred aperture is f/4, which usually gives me printing times that are good for dodging and burning, split contrast printing, etc. I use a metronome as a timer, so I need full seconds to get precision. To be in the 30-45s range is ideal for me, and gives me perfect repeatability.
But if there were f/2.8 APO lenses, and I could see a significant quantified difference at 16x, I might get one.

 

[Bob Carnie]

My 50 apos are f2.8
80 apo are f 4
90 apo are f 4
150 apo are f4

never heard of a apo 50 at f 5.6

Michael,

That's interesting as far as having full correction at one stop down below wide open. Usually, for normal lenses, ultimate performance is two stops from wide open.

What's the maximum aperture of your APO lenses? I checked the available 50mm APO lenses available today, and it seems that Rodenstock makes a 50mm f/5.6. That is too slow for me many times. My preferred aperture is f/4, which usually gives me printing times that are good for dodging and burning, split contrast printing, etc. I use a metronome as a timer, so I need full seconds to get precision. To be in the 30-45s range is ideal for me, and gives me perfect repeatability.
But if there were f/2.8 APO lenses, and I could see a significant quantified difference at 16x, I might get one.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My 50 apos are f2.8
80 apo are f 4
90 apo are f 4
150 apo are f4

never heard of a apo 50 at f 5.6

Thanks, Bob.

The lens I was referring to was this one:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/452340-Rodenstock-50mm-f-2.8-APO-Rodagon-N-Enlarging-Lens

In Freestyle's latest printed catalog, they mis-printed and made it a 50mm f/5.6... Or I might have been tired when I read it

Anyway, that's comforting to know, that the APO lenses don't constitute a limitation regarding maximum aperture.

Still, though, is there a clear difference in smaller, more normal print sizes that can be discerned? Or is it mainly when prints get bigger, upward 20x24 at 20x or so from 35mm?

 

[Bob Carnie]

I started my business with regular Rodagons, as time went on I tested Apos against them,, In every case I found superior quality with the Apos , now I never use the regular lenses other than out of focus for contact sheets.

I am sure those will argue this perceived difference, but I have invested heavily in Apos after I had a full range of regular Rodagons, I feel there is a difference therefore the additional investment.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks, Bob. I may look into getting one down the road when there is money in the photography bucket.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

You might want to read what Ctein has to say about enlarging lenses in his book Post Exposure. You may not need to drain that photo bucket after all.

Post Exposure recently became a free download here:
http://ctein.com/booksmpl.htm

In addition to the lens ratings, he deals with a lot of the resolution issues that are relevant to this discussion (and uses a higher resolution standard than most discussions, which helps to differentiate the issues).

 

[jamusu]

Bob Carnie enlarged 30x40 (murals) and 20x24 (prints) for documentary photographer Ryan Pyle's
"Chinese Turkistan Series" from his 35mm negatives. Bob, are the photos of this series on your
website the actual murals/prints?

Jamusu.





Go here and click on portfolio to see some of the work: http://www.elevatordigital.ca/deg/?ryan

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You might want to read what Ctein has to say about enlarging lenses in his book Post Exposure. You may not need to drain that photo bucket after all.

Post Exposure recently became a free download here:
http://ctein.com/booksmpl.htm

In addition to the lens ratings, he deals with a lot of the resolution issues that are relevant to this discussion (and uses a higher resolution standard than most discussions, which helps to differentiate the issues).

Mark, that is a truly excellent source of information. Thank you for posting it!
When I have more time, I'll read all of it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Bob Carnie enlarged 30x40 (murals) and 20x24 (prints) for documentary photographer Ryan Pyle's
"Chinese Turkistan Series" from his 35mm negatives. Bob, are the photos of this series on your
website the actual murals/prints?

Jamusu.





Go here and click on portfolio to see some of the work: http://www.elevatordigital.ca/deg/?ryan

I haven't seen any of Bob's murals, but I have seen some of his standard large prints up-close, and I will trust just about anything he says, because they are spectacular works. That experience of work, spanning decades, printing for others, 30x40" and larger, over and over again, speaks volumes to me. It isn't experience and knowledge that is easy to come by.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I haven't seen any of Bob's murals, but I have seen some of his standard large prints up-close, and I will trust just about anything he says, because they are spectacular works. That experience of work, spanning decades, printing for others, 30x40" and larger, over and over again, speaks volumes to me. It isn't experience and knowledge that is easy to come by.

I'm amazed by anyone who can do that. Prints that large are a whole different world. I find 20x24" to be about my practical limit (except for Cirkut contacts prints).

 

[patrickjames]

Thomas, are you using the 40mm Focotar that came with the V35? I was looking into getting a V35 a while back and in the process of looking I remember a couple of accounts that the 40mm Schneider APO outperformed the Focotar, especially in the corners. IIRC the Focotar is a 5 element lens similar to the old Ektars. I may be wrong on some of this because I don't have any direct experience, but it may be something worth looking into for you. APO lenses are pretty cheap these days.

My own experience since I started enlarging bears these things out. I started with an Omega c700 then a B22 a good 16-17 years ago, then bought a Saunders 670 VCCE a couple of years later and saw an immediate improvement in my prints. When I lucked into the Orthoplanar I saw a dramatic improvement, one which made me realize that the enlarger was out of alignment. I had always used regular Schneider lenses before that and they tend to be lower in overall contrast which masks any alignment issues. When I first got the Zeiss lens I did a test with my enlarger maxed out. The difference in resolution between the Zeiss lens and the Schneider Componon-S I was using at the time was dramatic. This also highlights the fact that lenses have different ranges. The Schneider was outside it's best range at that magnification while the Zeiss lens was just singing away. From what I have read over the years, normal enlarging lenses are optimized for an 8x10 print. Apo lenses have a little greater range. Then there are the lenses like the Rodagon-G that are optimized for big prints. It is important to use a lens that will perform well at the size you want. For most people, an APO lens would be the best.

I doubt you will find anyone who will say that an APO lens won't make a difference at larger sizes. The down side of using a good lens though is it magnifies errors in alignment. I think a laser alignment tool is indispensable.

By the way, since Ctein was mentioned above, he made his book Post Exposure available for PDF download on his website recently. I read it years ago and plan on going through it again when I get the chance.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hi Patrick,

I am indeed using the Focotar 40mm f/2.8 lens that came with the V35. And I also have the standard 50mm Nikkor f/2.8. The Focotar seems to give sharper prints than the Nikkor does.
Between 6x8" (on 8x10 paper) and 9x12" (on 11x14 paper) I don't see a discernible difference in print quality when I use the Focotar lens. It looks the same, just bigger.

For now I am happy. My prints look fantastic with the Focotar lens, and if there is something better to be had, then eventually I'll check it out. But I didn't really start this thread with the intent to seek out something superior to what I'm already more than happy with. It was an unexpected bonus. And I'm grateful to be able to expand my knowledge base in such a rational and comprehensive way.

 

[brucemuir]

You guys are giving me a complex about my converted Omega DII than I retrofitted with the dichroic head.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You guys are giving me a complex about my converted Omega DII than I retrofitted with the dichroic head.

Hi Bruce,

I humbly apologize; it's certainly not the intent.

To put things in perspective a little bit, what I'm doing here is to seek out how people perceive the 35mm format, and its capability to be the origin of very fine prints.
As I did this, it has become apparent to me that there might be even more to have from this formidable format, and I'm very grateful to have that knowledge. Gives me something to think about.
But I was completely happy with my prints prior to starting this thread, and I still am completely happy. It's just encouraging to have more potential for the future. And the point is - if you're happy with what your enlarger does, if it satisfies your demands, then it's good enough.

What I have found out throughout my process of going from a rickety Omega to a state-of-the-art instrument like the Leitz, is that money spent on a really good enlarger and lens is probably the best investment you can make if you feel you have to improve the quality of your prints. Dollar for dollar, it feels like, to me, that I get the most value that way.

 

[jamusu]

People are talking about 20x24 and 30x40 prints from 35mm negatives. That's fine for them, but there is no way I would consider the image quality in such prints acceptable for my photographs. Before people jump all over me, to be clear I'm not talking about printing skill here. I'm talking about the limitations of the format. It is all about personal preference.

Michael.

There is no need for anyone to jump all over you. You made it perfectly clear in my view that you were referring to your work solely when it comes to making enlargements from 35mm negatives of these sizes. Out of curiosity, what is your maximum enlargement size for a 35mm negative?

Jamusu.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I completely agree with Jamusu. A lot of information is relative in usefulness among different individuals... so definitely, no need to apologize. Instead, I am so happy that everyone contributing to this thread has been able to stay so level-headed about the shared information, and remained objective and empathetic. I for one have learned a great deal!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Those are some really fine photographers and printers you list as inspiration, Michael. Mostly when I see their original prints I am struck by the level of their craftsmanship. Decades on, the prints seem vital and important, and they impress visually. Not bad role models to have, I would say.

I have to confess that some of my own inspiration comes from many sources, and they don't usually work like I do. I love Miro, Toulouse-Lautrec, Carl Larson, and lots of other artists, and they aren't even photographers. But my output is always originating from mood, or some form of visual impact that draws my attention, design if you will.
So my 35mm work, as an example, had the wrong 'weight' and mood for many reasons. Then all of a sudden something clicked within me, after I started using the Focomat especially, and I felt that the output I generated was perfect for what I'm trying to communicate. You know, mood is so hard to explain in words, but all of a sudden I felt the presence in my prints that I hadn't felt before. Previously I had only had it from my medium format cameras. The reason I can connect with the subject matter better now is how 'clean' the prints are. No weird artifacts, no strange alignment issues, no crazy dust issues, and sharp enough to bring forth the details I choose to show - even at fairly large print sizes.

The technical aspect of this is that the quality of the prints I can now achieve, allows me to 'feel' the subject matter, if that makes any sense. That's what it's all about for me. That's what truly matters. And I have reached my goal. I think I might even dare saying that I've exceeded my own expectations, and that's why I am so incredibly excited!

 

[jamusu]

Michael.

Thank your for the explanation. Makes perfect since to me.

Jamusu.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I run with two enlargers, a Devere 504 that I only use for 120 format now and a Leitz V35 for 35mm. Honestly since I started printing with the V35, my 35mm prints improved by leaps and bounds. Having an autofocus system helps a long way so you have contend with is the contrast and exposure.

 

[BetterSense]

Do autofocus enlargers actually have electronic focus adjustment like autofocus cameras?

I have a Omega C700; what's the best way to obtain a glass negative carrier?

How big of a print can you make from 35mm? I assumed that for murals, you first would have to dupe the negative to a larger format.

 

[MattKing]

Do autofocus enlargers actually have electronic focus adjustment like autofocus cameras?

Autofocus enlargers use mechanical cams to adjust focus. The cams are matched to particular focal lengths. The enlarger settings are first calibrated to the lens. Then, as the enlarger head is raised or lowered to change magnification, the focus setting automatically follows.

They sometimes have fine focus adjustments as well. The fine focus adjustment on the Durst version that I used the most was a PITA (IMHO).

 

[Sim2]

This is a great thread, read it from the start and some wonderful thoughts and contributions.

I was wondering whether as 35mm used to (still is?) be the format that people tended to start off with before moving on to larger formats for "the quality gains", the quality of prints (and inferred quality capabilities of the format) weren't perhaps the best because the whole process was still being learnt?

When the process of exposure, dev and printing had gone beyond the learning to the competent stage, if that coincided with a format change the "fine-tuning" of process skills could be confined to the larger format leaving the impression that the 35mm format was the poor relation. Not sure if this makes sense - sounded better in my head

Having seen the quality that I used to print at a press agency (many lifetimes ago) even from "non-optimal" shooting situations we often used to print 20x16 for the photographers 'folios and they looked pretty fine.

Wriggle room for mistakes/errors is much less though with the smaller format compared to medium or larger formats.

Nice thread.

Sim2.

 

[lajolla]

Younger shooters will eventually find out that both age and visual acuity will ultimately determine what film formats still can be dealt with both in-camera and in the darkroom when you pass the age of retirement and your body begins to noticeably break down
There will always be a fond place in my heart for 35mm auto-focus cameras and lenses. And my larger format enlargers have always done a superb job with miniature 35mm negatives. But the key is to keep working with your enlarger in the darkroom, no matter what the format. Like everything else in life, when you get older, you either use it or you lose it.