8 x 10 enlarger ?

Dave Wooten · Nov 20, 2007

What is the smallest column extention and lens needed to:

1. Make a 16 x 20 print from an 8 x 10 neg?

2. Make a 20 x 24 print from an 8 x 10 neg?

Thanks in advance. I knew you would know.

Kerik · Nov 20, 2007

Time to raise the roof, Dave!

Dave Wooten · Nov 20, 2007

The sky is the limit...

Kerik said:
Time to raise the roof, Dave!

I don t have to do that! The little woman is doing that!

glbeas · Nov 20, 2007

Want me to measure how big an 8x10 neg projects at the top of the column on my Elwood with it's 300mm lens?

glbeas · Nov 20, 2007

It measured about 22x27 inches at the top of its column. The bellows had plenty of compression left for a shorter lens or floor projection for a larger projection.

Curt · Nov 20, 2007

Dave, maybe time to think Horizontal, are you making an enlarger or sizing your space for one?

Curt

John Kasaian · Nov 20, 2007

If you've got an ELwood just rock that puppy into horizontal mode and project on either a sheet of steel or an easel hung on the wall!

Dave Wooten · Nov 20, 2007

Curt said:
Dave, maybe time to think Horizontal, are you making an enlarger or sizing your space for one?

Curt

Actually all of the above, just getting the stats in order, Gary Beasley has a nice Elwood I just have nt been able to get arrangements to get it packed up and shipped. I am putting together a teaching studio and so far have been able to purchase or acquire for pick up, 3 D2 V Omegas, 2 Omega E 5 x 7's , several smaller Omegas for 35mm and medium format and a Bessler 45 M so to date all formats with the exception of 8 x 10, so that is the humble project.

Wondered how far above the base board would the enlarger head have to be to make 16 x 20 and 20 x 24 prints. So would want the lens that required the least extention above the base board etc.

Curt · Nov 20, 2007

Sounds good, I'm still frustrating over a 5x7 and/or 8x10. I don't want a rust bucket nor do I want a computer cnc run model. It's a physical fit and a pocket book fit. Maybe I will take the old 2D Kodak 8x10 camera and make an enlarger out of it. I have the cold lights and lenses for 5x7 and 8x10. I wonder how large of an enlargement can be made with a Beseler 8x10 conversion head on a Beseler 45m?

Good Luck with your project,
Curt

Dave Wooten · Nov 21, 2007

Thanks Geary! That is the formula I was I was looking for.

And thanks for doing the math.

jp80874 · Nov 21, 2007

Dave,

Don't forget that not every student prints full negative. Cropping an 8x10 negative then printing to 16x20 or 20x24 will take a little more extension depending on the percentage of crop.

On the other hand I have a 138S Durst converted to cold light in a darkroom with a seven foot two inch ceiling. The head is on the post about an inch under the ceiling for air movement. Making 20x24 prints I have never dropped the table its full range while using a 300mm lens. I have a 240mm to switch to, but have never needed it.

John Powers

galyons · Nov 21, 2007

Corrected

Hi Dave!
Using "The equation for the distance D between film and image as a function of lens focal length f and magnification m is D = f * (m+1)^2 / m."

For 8x10 negs:

300mm lens: 2 mag (16x20) 135cm/53.2" 2.5 Mag (20x25) 140.8cm/55.5"

240mm lens: 2 mag (16x20) 108cm/42.5" 2.5 Mag (20x25) 112.7cm/46.3"

My DR has an 8' ceiling. I use a Durst 184 with Pavelle head. I use 240mm, 300mm, 360mm, as needed, but the 300 is the default. I have printed 20x24 with a 300mm. My Max D = 66.5" so, I could, theoretically, get to 3x (24X30) with my 300mm! Platen low/head high!!

Cheers,
Geary

Dave Wooten said:
What is the smallest column extention and lens needed to:

1. Make a 16 x 20 print from an 8 x 10 neg?

2. Make a 20 x 24 print from an 8 x 10 neg?

Thanks in advance. I knew you would know.

jonw · Nov 21, 2007

Dave Wooten said:
I don t have to do that! The little woman is doing that!

Boy do I know that...I just purchased a 5x7 Enlarger to go with my 35mm and 4x5 Enlargers (they were lonely) and I wish she only raised the roof

I can't wait until we actually have space for my darkroom!

Jon

Neil Poulsen · Dec 16, 2007

I think the important number is the distance between the negative and print.

The minimum that I come up with for an 8x10 negative using my spreadsheet intended for making these calculations is 43 inches for the above distance. That assumes no cropping.

rootberry · Dec 16, 2007

I've never owned an enlarger, and now all I have is my 8x10 cam. So the question is (not trying to hijack the thread): Should I get a bigger camera or an 8x10 enlarger?

Hmmm, I do have a 16' ceiling in my DR....

jp80874 · Dec 16, 2007

rootberry said:
I've never owned an enlarger, and now all I have is my 8x10 cam. So the question is (not trying to hijack the thread): Should I get a bigger camera or an 8x10 enlarger?

Hmmm, I do have a 16' ceiling in my DR....

Yet another possibility is to get the enlarger and print to what ever size you like, in my case 20x24. Then get a larger camera. A panoramic view is a great compliment to the 8x10 shape. I have 7x17 that I contact print in a frame built by Bill Schwab. This is used on the enlarger table under the enlarger light source and filters.

If you do a series of twenty images for a class or show this gives yet another level of interest to the group. Most shows push for uniformity of image size. In a photo critique at APUG-Toronto, Les McLean suggested a mix of 20x24, 7x17 contact prints and 4x5 contact detail prints. My instructor wanted uniformity, but I like the idea and have started to use it on my latest series for a potential show outside of school.

John Powers

Dave Wooten · Sep 13, 2011

Well 4 years after my original post inquiry I have finally found an 8 x 10 enlarger to my liking...thanks Tim B. The Bessler XL safely made the trip from Colorado to Las Vegas last month. The lab is coming together piece by piece and bit by bit....(so now I will hit the "Post Quick Reply" button

Toffle · Sep 13, 2011

"Like" button.

2F/2F · Sep 13, 2011

I got my Super Chromega F Dichroic II with 300mm Nikkor for $750. It had all the stuff (fan, power box, ducting, etc), plus a voltage regulator (though it is only 1000W; 1500 or greater is preferable from what I hear). Plus I had to drive about 900 miles round trip to pick it up. I had to spend another $100 or so on a Lektra timer for it so I didn't blow out my Time-O-Lite. Deals are out there. I say wait for a deal to come, rather than doing a camera conversion. There are no compromises in functionality that way, and alignment, service, and parts are potentially easier to deal with.

Anyhow, my real point is that you actually need some decent headroom to make a 16x20 with a 300 lens. I cannot do it with the headroom I have, even with the shelf on the bottom rung. This is because I have 10 inches of column that I cannot use. I got the enlarger to print 5x7 and to make oversized proofsheets, so it is a bit frustrating until I get that figured out. it seems like I cannot even get to 2x magnification. 11x14 enlarged proofsheets is the max for me at this time. Since I don't think I will be moving any time soon, I am seriously considering trying to track down a wide-angle lens for the 8x10 format, if there is such a thing.

I might consider calling it good for now with the two E models you have. There are advantages in size. And then you get to shoot 5x7 instead of 8x10. It is half the price, and I actually prefer the aspect ratio greatly. At those print sizes, you don't effectively lose anything in quality if you have your students shoot and enlarge 5x7 instead of 8x10 (though you do lose the ability to make full enlarged proofsheets), and you save a lot of room and expense in your lab.

2F/2F · Sep 14, 2011

Curt said:
I wonder how large of an enlargement can be made with a Beseler 8x10 conversion head on a Beseler 45m?

The rails need not be used with the factory baseboard. So, you could go quite large if you make an elevated wall stand for the enlarger.

Dan Dozer · Sep 14, 2011

2F/2F -

I have a totally different set than you because I turned my Kodak 8 x 10 2D into a horizontal enlarger. The normal lens I use for 16 x 20 enlargements is a Rodenstock Rodagon 300mm. But for blowing up only part of the neg, I use a 240 El Nikkor F5.6 lens and it works great. I'm pretty sure that it would also work with the full negative.

2F/2F · Sep 14, 2011

2F/2F said:
The rails need not be used with the factory baseboard. So, you could go quite large if you make an elevated wall stand for the enlarger.

P.S. Those enlargers can be used horizontally as well. Might be rickety with the 8x10 conversion; I'm not sure as I have never tried.

Thanks, Dan. I will look into that model lens.

ic-racer · Sep 14, 2011

2F/2F said:
I am seriously considering trying to track down a wide-angle lens for the 8x10 format, if there is such a thing.

There are a few options. The Schneider 240mm lenses cover 180mm x 240mm, however, they have (8x10") in parentheses after that. Obviously that is not a direct metric conversion, so they presume you are not printing full frame. From what I read, are very popular and seem to work well. Also there are process lens options out there in the 250mm focal length. Going from 300mm to 240mm gets you about one paper size bigger.

With the grain magnifier at the corners my 300mm is sharper than my 240 Componon-s when wide open, but I don't print wide open so I suspect the prints would be nearly identical. So I don't see any need to repeat the comparison that I suspect many others have done. My head goes almost all the way to the top, so I have not had a need to use the 240mm yet, though I have had it for 6 months or so.

Hikari · Sep 14, 2011

You can also dig a hole in the floor...

8 x 10 enlarger ?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency