M Carter
Allowing Ads
See if you can locate the work by CTEIN called Post Exposure it lists tests of a number of lenses.
I got no data for yours, but the predecessor Companon was stated as being optimized for 1/10, and being proven for 2/1 to 1/20.
In case of doubt test lenses against each other at the scale you require.
Interesting that now they state a quite different range than decades ago.
I assume it is rather a matter of evaluation or even wording than a change of optics.
That data sheet is for a lens that is designed for taking images, not printing images. It is even called a macro lens.
I'm not saying that it isn't perfectly suitable for use as an enlarging lens, but rather that its specifications and other information are worded differently.
And anyway, how many 40x50" or larger prints are you going to be making? There will be plenty of other things that kill sharpness & resolution at that size before the enlarging lens will. Film flatness in the camera for a start...
I hope to make a lot of them, for a specific project. And yes, I know how many people post here "just got my first enlarger and want to do house-sized prints" and so on. And, I'll be doing these as liquid emulsion on canvas... masochist for sure. Mamiya RB negs, 11x14 or 16x20 bromoil prints, those duplicated on 4x5 film and enlarged on canvas.
Anyway, my RB negs have dynamite sharpness corner to corner - even with my old Beseler 67c enlarger, I was able to mod it (ceiling bracket, glass carrier, besalign board) and do really snappy prints up to 28" or so. I now have an MXT and use the versalign with it, and made a registered carrier. I will need to wall mount it for really large work, but years ago I did a lot of duping E6 slides to large E6 film by fitting a camera flash to the enlarger (the lab said "you can't dupe on Velvia!" - I proved them quite wrong), and I may experiment with that for exposure on the finals. So I've given a tremendous amount of thought to every step of the process (including a baseboard-tray with plumbing setup), and the bromoil and emulsion work I've evolved by starting small and working my way up.
And (thanks fellow APUG user) I recently obtained a Rodagon G 150mm, and I'll do plenty of testing at any give size to see which lens delivers the best image. But I can see scenarios where the Componon or the G would be proper focal lengths, and it will come down to testing at a given project's size to suss out which one to use and at which stop. My main curiosity was how far into "G" territory (size-wise) the Componon might go, and is being at the large scale end of one lens different than the smaller scale of another (say I'm right at 10x, where neither lens is optimal if the Componon is similar to Nikkors/Rodagons).
All easily established by testing I suppose, overall I was curious about the manufacturer's stated range for the Componon and does it happen to be superior to a Nikkor/etc. at larger sizes?
Any particular reason for the duping stage? Or is it for reasons of mass production of prints from a master bromoil
The end result I'm after is sort of a transformed/timeless look - I wanted something that had no sense of "time" to it, like it could have been from the birth of photography or today, with the texture of canvas and the look of a large stretched canvas vs. a panel - which could be tinted by using oil glazes, which - after a final varnish - give a lot of depth. Doing a huge bromoil (my testing has gone up to about 18x28" or so) would be problematic, and bromoil on canvas I'm thinking would look very "dirty". So it's a way to get the pictorialist look of bromoil and the transformative effect onto very large canvas. Prepping the canvas is time consuming and the emulsion is pricey, etc., so dialing in the image in a less costly way is really paramount to me.
Thanks for the duping advice, I haven't tried ortho films - my initial tests were duped with Ilford Pan-F plus, which gave me good contrast control in development (the emulsion I use is about grade 3+). So a lot of testing to determine the contrast and speed of the emulsion vs. an affordable paper (so initial exposure tests could be done on regular photo paper). As I move up to larger sizes, I'll try to have two images ready for canvas, prep 2 large canvases, and also make some canvas test strips (which are handy for testing and dialing in the tinting colors down the line). So if I blow one print I can take another shot (seeing how I'll have gallons of chems mixed up) or if it's good get a 2nd image within a day or so.
Here's a so-so phone shot of where my testing is at - about a 28" print that included some of the props and style, though my finals will be complete "settings" with a sort of allegorical take, props and so on (not the best neg either, learned I'll need some harder focus, deeper DOF and so on). I plan to create the actual settings as small models, photograph those, and merge them with the model at the bromoil stage (gotten good at darkroom masking, sky replacement and so on, no photoshop allowed!) This gives me two opportunities for any minor retouch, as both bromoil and the final canvas are larger scale (than negs) and are ink or paint based. I have decades of illustration and photoshop work that's given me a good idea of what "reality" looks like when created from multiple images or sources - perspective, lighting, etc.
So, a nutty overall process that uses virtually every artistic discipline I've tried my hand at, from dealing with models and sets and props and lighting, model making, darkroom processes, and oil paints, with lots of technical/mechanical stuff. My goal is to make some fine-art, symbolic/allegorical work than any gallery owner would see and go "what the hell?!?!" - Scale, subject and color that stops you in your tracks, makes you think or question or fill-in-your-own blanks and reactions, and uses my creative side, my desire to sort of "say" some specific things with imagery and not words, and do it with a lot of cool process involved. Major goal being do work that hits a lot of my tech and creative obsessions, that I'd want to own myself, and could actually sell for significant $$. We will see!
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?