Can you print 16x20 using Beseler Printmaker 67 from 35mm neg?

[amellice]

Hi all, anyone tried to print 16x20 using the Beseler Printmaker 67? I want to try to do it with 35mm neg. In the Beseler manual it says that you can reverse the head and project on the floor for sizes larger than 11x14, anyone tried that?

Will 35mm resolve with good sharpness for 16x20? I don't have medium format camera (yet)

Thank you

 

[darkosaric]

Will 35mm resolve with good sharpness for 16x20? I don't have medium format camera (yet)

Yes. Here is one example of 40x60 cm print from 35mm, and this a Lith print, so standard print can be only better in the term of sharpens. On the other side - negative was Kodak Technical Pan .

 

[Jim Noel]

Hi all, anyone tried to print 16x20 using the Beseler Printmaker 67? I want to try to do it with 35mm neg. In the Beseler manual it says that you can reverse the head and project on the floor for sizes larger than 11x14, anyone tried that?

Will 35mm resolve with good sharpness for 16x20? I don't have medium format camera (yet)

Thank you

NO! a 16x enlargement will not be appear sharp unless viewed from a considerable distance.

 

[Hatchetman]

There's only one way to find out!

Honestly if you are careful with all the steps along the way, it should look OK. I print to 11x14 and it looks pretty good.

 

[ic-racer]

You might be able to do it on the baseboard if you use the Schneider 40mm APO-High Magnification lens for 35mm negatives and you leave a 1" or so border.


To get all 4 corners sharp on a 16x20 enlargement from 35mm, you may need a glass carrier and the above mentioned lens.
I have been able to get very good results for a 16x20 with a non-glass carrier and a standard Nikkor 6 element 50mm lens by carefully placing the focus at the midpoint of the focus spread and using f16; this requires experience and skill and a Peak-1 grain focuser for the corners. Only close inspection shows any difference from the HM-APO lens and glass carrier. The problem is that it is way more difficult to do that way, and much easier to use the glass carrier and HM lens.

 

[MattKing]

It is certainly possible. But it will test your technique.

A 16x enlargement can challenge the capabilities of your equipment as well.

And achieving decent alignment with a reversed enlarger head is a finicky process, although certainly it can be done.

12 x 16 can often be a good compromise.

 

[Hatchetman]

With the head at the top of the upright, we found that a 12½ x 18½" print could be made from 35mm negatives without any problem. For anything bigger, the enlarger had to be reversed on the baseboard. This brings us to another point--the ingenious way in which the upright and the baseboard are joined. A large bolt is mounted in the baseboard with a washer to keep the bolt's head up a hair. The upright has a keyway which slips onto the bolt. Three screws are then tightened by hand and the enlarger is mounted. The 67C is the easiest machine to assemble that we have ever seen. Now, back to those big prints. You turn the enlarger around on its baseboard by removing the three screws (no tool necessary) and reverse the machine. Then replace the screws and it's done.

http://www.jollinger.com/photo/enlargers/beseler-67.html

 

[amellice]

Thank you all for your replies, so it's doable, I'll give it a try... thanks again

 

[darkosaric]

12 x 16 can often be a good compromise.

I just made quick scan of one part of 12x18 (30x45 cm) print, just that OP can see what to expect .

 

[MartinP]

In the detail crop, the grain is not sharp so the picture should really be sharper than it is seen here. The focus is also apparently on the back of the central figure, so again the subject could be sharper (although that is separate to the grain-image sharpness, or lack of it).

The main thing I have noticed for high enlarging ratios is camera shake and it's effect on the image -- the sharpness of the film grain might be super, but as seen above, a fuzzy camera image still makes it look sub-optimal. A solid tripod and/or the fastest possible shutter-speed is necessary. With a 50mm lens, and where it is possible, look to use 1/500 or quicker. It is not for nothing that the camera support used by Zeiss in their various lens and film tests is (or was a few years ago, at least) a block of concrete weighing over one tonne (over 2200 lbs).

In principle there is nothing to stop you making a large projected image, especially if some of it needs to be cropped out to fit circumstances. All the obvious variables of enlarger lens quality and the alignment of the neg, lens and paper come in to play. Also a larger print may need to be enlarged with a harder grade than a smaller print of the same image, in order to give a similar look. A condenser enlarger would help there perhaps.

Edit: Another amusement which I almost forgot is focussing! If there is no extension on the focussing-knob then you might run out of arm length when your eye is peering through the grain-focusser . . .

 

[Dr Croubie]

Will 35mm resolve with good sharpness for 16x20? I don't have medium format camera (yet)

Depends, did you take the original photo with a Zeiss Planar, Summicron, Takumar, Sigma Art? Or a Sears 28-300mm superzoom?
Did you shoot on APX25, Delta 100, TMX? Or on Delta 3200 or TMZ?
Develop in Rodinal, Perceptol, HC or Xtol?
Is your enlarger lens an Apo-Componon HM, or the bottom of a jam jar?

In short, there's way too many variables. The better equipment you use, the better the print in a technical sense (although composition, framing, and lighting are all up to you).

 

[nyoung]

Assuming you get the focus and alignment issues solved as per the other posters, you will need a solid base for the enlarger and absolutely 0 vibration of any kind in the darkroom - no A/C, fridge/freezer motors etc. At f11 or f16 on the enlarging lens, your exposure time is going to be loooooooong and even the slightest vibration in the system will trash your sharpness.

 

[Neal]

Dear amellice,

Print your photo. Plenty of 35mm negatives have been printed to 16x20 and yielded photos that people want to look at. However, look into aligning your enlarger as best you can. If the grain is sharp across the entire print you will be happy with the result.

Neal Wydra

 

[M Carter]

I have the same enlarger. I built a plywood box, about 8" square, and copied the bolt pattern for the column, and used t-nuts to mount the column to the "box", which is bolted to the table using more t-nuts and t-handle screws (like the handles on lighting stands and yokes). The enlarger just lives on that now... if I ever need to do something very small, I'll just raise the easel.

I've aligned everything with a level, aligned the lens board with paper shims, and used tapered composite shims at the mounting bolts (the t-handles make aligning it easier). At some point I'll get a laser alignment tool if I want to do very large prints.

Grain focusers are cheap on the used market and very handy. You can take an old negative and scratch a grid into it as an alignment and focusing check, too.

As for reaching rhe focus knob - I haven't had that problem, but I'd like to experiment with some very large prints. My cinema-camera type gear uses a follow focus; those focus knobs use 'whips', long rubber shafts with focus knobs on one end and a standard 1/4" socket assembly on the other. I imagine it wouldn't be impossible to create a focus knob that accepts the focus whip, even if it took 3D printing or something.

 

[removed account4]

Yes. Here is one example of 40x60 cm print from 35mm, and this a Lith print, so standard print can be only better in the term of sharpens. On the other side - negative was Kodak Technical Pan .

dang-it derko ! you post examples and set the bar HIGH

OP
i've got 16x20s printed with a durst m601 but no scans to show for what i did
not the same enlarger and i am able to turn the enlarger around on the baseboard and print lower than the table
or tilt the head and print on the wall ... not sure if yours does that but 16x20 or even bigger is doable from 35mm
BUT there will always be people with their noses to the print saying " this isn't sharp" because
they don't like standing back and enjoying the prints .. so like with everything, your mileage may vary
( and what works for some may not work for others )

joe

 

[GRHazelton]

I have made good full-frame 11 x 14 enlargements with an Omega enlarger and a Nikkor f2.8 50mm lens; one in particular was shot with a Praktica LTL mounting a Tamron 200mm f3.5, hand held, probably on the classic Plus-X film souped in D-76. But it isn't easy! And there was a certain amount of luck involved. 16 x 20? Never tried it, but that negative might stretch that far.

 

[tkamiya]

At that kind of magnification, a lot of things can "mess up" your results - thinks that you don't normally be too concerned about.

One of the biggest is vibration. I use an Omega D2 but I did have Beseler Print Maker also. I recall the column was quite wobbly. If you have your timer on the same desk as your enlarger, I'd move it elsewhere, so the act of pushing START doesn't disturb it. Once the exposure starts, do not move around. I practice this even with my quite sturdy D2.

Another is the lens. If you are using 4 element type, then your result with be compromised when compared to 6 element type. By how much depends on your particular lens. All the ones I had started to show when I went beyond 8x10.

Last is enlarger alignment. I put this last because I don't think Print Maker is adjustable.

As to sharpness, using Tri-X or Tmax400, it was quite acceptable, especially at a distance people would normally view photograph of this size. If you go right up to it, of course, you can see they aren't pin sharp.

 

[youngrichard]

Jump in. the water's lovely

I am not familiar with this enlarger, but I will make some general observations.

I like to go up to 20 x 16 whenever I have a negative that I consider worth the effort, and if my wife then gives the thumbs up it goes in the gallery on the wall in the hall. Remember you aren't expected to inspect it with a magnifying glass, viewers are going to be standing back several feet, so if it looks good held up to the face at 5 x 7, or at arms length in 10 x 8, it will look good at 20 x 16, up on the wall as you and your friends stand back to admire it.

I have never turned the head round and projected on the floor; too much hassle and as my enlarger is on a surface permanently flush against the wall I have nowhere to clamp the baseboard.

The first problem is projecting a 20 x 16 image onto an easel with selvage ie the space between the print area demarcated by the easel blades, and the outer extent of the easel. I minimise this by using my homemade borderless easel, which reduces that unusable area to ½ inch or 1 cm or so. In this fashion I find with my Durst DA900 that I can just get 20 x 16, but I have to use the full frame of the negative ie cropping is not possible. Using a 45 or 40 mm lens does not help; it is the distance from the centre of the projected image to the base of the enlarger column that precludes cropping. Still, a 20 x 16 is possible, and we are looking for a first class full frame negative .
See link: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Years ago, before I graduated to sophisticated enlargers with autofocus and Ilford MG 500 heads, I used a Durst 606, which I still have and often wonder why I ever gave it up. With this machine I was able effortlessly to go way beyond 20 x 16 projected on the baseboard ie there was quite a bit of scope for cropping. This was thanks to the cranked column extension seen in the picture, originally made by Gnome. These are rarely seen on eBay, and obviously your enlarger column needs to be of the same diameter. It may look a bit prone to mal-alignment but looking back at prints I made 30 years ago (now relegated to the upstairs landing), it was pretty good. Stand back 3 or 4 feet and the picture looks sharp to the edges; and from quite close-up too.Actually with a standard 50 mm lens there is not much scope for cropping, but with a 45 or even 40 mm lens extensive cropping is possible.
See link: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)


My DA 900 is designed for 6 x 7 120 negs, not 6 x 9; I find that if I enlarge to 20 x 16 from a 35 mm neg which has a similar height/width ratio to 6 x 9, it is necessary to slide the negative so that the segment I am enlarging is in the centre of the illumination ie slide the neg in the carrier so that the centre of your projected image is directly under the point of strongest illumination, ie directly below the centre of the light source, otherwise you get marked light fall of at one or other side of your print.

 

[tkamiya]

Just for fun, I've put in a Tmax400 35mm negative into my Omega enlarger. Used 40mm lens and projected a 30 x 20 image onto a white board. Film grain was there but no longer crisp. Then I projected a 16 x 20 image. Grain was reasonably there and image itself looked fine. With this image projected, I measured from baseboard to the flange of the lens. 25 inches. (remember this is a 40mm lens....)

So, using a good quality lens, this is entirely possible. It won't be a razor sharp image but good enough for most purposes.

I would try it.

 

[Dr Croubie]

So, using a good quality lens, this is entirely possible. It won't be a razor sharp image but good enough for most purposes.

I would try it.

I'd also try it, and hopefully this weekend or next I will (I've been shooting some APX25 with my sharpest lenses recently with the specific intent of enlarging huge, so I should try it myself one day).
You don't even have to sacrifice a huge sheet of paper. Just put your easel down to 16x20", put 5 smaller bits of paper in the corners and centre, anything 2x2" should be big enough, and enlarge away. You can then see if all of your corners are at least as sharp as each other, and how much worse they are than the centre...

 

[tkamiya]

Now, I'm starting to have some crazy ideas.....

 

[Dr Croubie]

Now I'm having crazy ideas too. I just remembered that I bought a Focussing Target from Scan Science when I bought my scanning fluid.
It's actually on 35mm film, so I can just as easily throw that in my enlarger and see how sharp I can get that too...

 

[Nathan King]

I own a Printmaker 67. I purchased the Versalab Laser Alignment tool to make sure everything was aligned perfectly. Most all T-Max negatives of mine can go to 11x14 without issue. Only some negatives can go to 16x20, and even with a perfectly aligned enlarger the grain sometimes isn't quite as sharp in some places as others at f11 because of the lack of a glass carrier. Going beyond 11x14 with excellent results is difficult for me.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Do not let yourself be limited by what is conventional 'normal' wisdom.

Of course a 16x20" print can be had from 35mm negs. You can make 30x40" prints too!

Will they look good? You be the judge of that, not everybody else. It is true, though, that some enlarger lenses will disappoint beyond 16x20", but do not let that stop you.

I thought once that a good 16x20 could not be had from 35mm film. Today I print from Fuji Neopan 1600, Ilford Delta 3200, and Kodak Tri-X (all 35mm) to 16x20" print size and I have prints that I am 100% happy with. And I am extremely critical about print quality. Sure they are grainy. But that means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Nothing.

Photography can be very technical, but in the arts (if that's what you are pursuing), your job is to push boundaries and explore subject matter. If we let ourselves be limited by what other people think about what size prints can be made from a certain type of negative, then we get stuck at a stage that has nothing to do with artistic expression. It is, quite frankly, stupid to set such limitations to what can and cannot be done. Just DO and explore for yourself. It's very exciting.

Has anybody seen the mural prints of Salgado's 35mm work? They are breathtaking.
Has anybody seen prints from Cartier-Bresson's work at 20x24" size? They are mind blowing.

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

I just made quick scan of one part of 12x18 (30x45 cm) print, just that OP can see what to expect .

HOLY sharp! That is great detail, and this came from a 35mm camera? What film, and lens type(manual, auto), may I ask? Thank you!