So it seems the ultimate is wet mounting with regular glass. That must be an awful mess with 4x5 but I'll be doing so few very large prints I suppose it might be worth the effort.
I don't think Ctein wet mounted negs for enlarger use. Don't recall anything like that in his darkroom, which was quite basic. You could ask him. He does fluid mounting for scanning 120 film, however. He might have a few odds n's ends of dye transfer punches etc left, probably no dyes or film. He sent me an e-mail recently linking me to someone overseas scraping together supplies for a potential DT lab; but I should have my own little DT line
up and running in the next few months.
I have never seen itI realize AN glass has little effect on relatively small prints but what about HUGE prints? Does that fine granularity of the AN glass ever show in really big prints?
No, it isn’t.I think SPUR is Gigabit
Thankyou for clarifying that.No, it isn’t.
Gigabitfilm or Gigabit film in English is a family of special films together with a
proprietary developer formula, developed by Detlef Ludwig, Kreuzau, Germany.
It is true that Heribert Schain and Detlef Ludwig know each other well.
There was Gigabit 25 ISO as sheet film, 4" × 5". There was Gigabit 32 ISO as 35mm perforated film. There still is Gigabit 40 as 35mm and 16mm perforated films. I have introduced Gigabitfilm to cinematography in 2002 in 35mm and in 2005 in 16mm, respectively. I had a commercial lab specialised in black and white from 1999 to 2008. I want to reopen a film lab as soon as I have the means and Gigabit shall be among the offers from day one on. C-41 and E-6 shall also be available.
I’m on the dole.
I do you glass in the lower half on my carriers for 120 and the metal mask in the top, I guess I wouldn't be adverse to glass in the lower part of an LF carrier it's just that in 40 years of printing LF the carriers have always been glass less.
Some numbers:
150mm lens with 6X enlargement
F5.6 depth of field at neg = 0.0590mm so +or- 0.0295mm
F11 depth of field at neg = 0.226mm so +or- 0.113 mm
F22 depth of field at neg = 0.899mm so +or- 0.449 mm
150mm lens with 10X enlargement
F5.6 depth of field at neg = 0.0685mm so +or- 0.0343 mm
F11 depth of field at neg = 0.267mm so +or- 0.123 mm
F22 depth of field at neg = 1.07mm so +or- 0.535 mm
At F22 you could quite easily run into problems of AN Glass being in focus. Much less likely at F11 and very unlikely at F5.6
So to help avoid the problem, keep aperture as wide as is practical to give sharpness.
But finer grained AN glass is less likely to be visible if it is in focus.
I think its to do with the minimum circle of confusion in the print which gets bigger as the aperture gets smaller and therefore dof able to produce that is bigger than you think. I worked with smallest possible theoretical CoC at each aperture and magnification.I notice that the results are very similar for 6x7 with a 90 and 4x5 with a 150.
The numbers seem to show the DOF increases as the magnification increases. Using the thought process of imagining the enlarger as a macro camera and comparing this to a conventional macro camera setup, this seems counter-intuitive, I would expect that as the magnification increases (in this case the lens moves closer to the negative) the DOF would shrink. Perhaps my thinking is incorrect (wouldn't be the first time)
I realize AN glass has little effect on relatively small prints but what about HUGE prints? Does that fine granularity of the AN glass ever show in really big prints?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?