Do enlarging lenses have their own character, like camera lenses?

[gone]

On MF cameras, I've generally preferred triplets to the higher priced lenses w/ more elements. To me, they give a more natural look to the photos, especially w/ portraits. The sharpness in the center when they're wide open is pretty cool too, and they're plenty sharp when stopped down. Does it work this way w/ enlarging lenses?

The reason I ask is that I'm going to make some prints using an older negative that I'd already made a print from some time ago w/ an old, scalloped Nikkor 50 4 lens, which I believe was a 4 element design. Well, that print looks "better", or at least different, than the current enlargements that I'm getting from my 6 element Besseler lens (just this one particular negative so far). The old neg is from a Retina camera, so it's sharp enough on it's own, and doesn't need much help from a very good enlarging lens. I don't know, it just has a different look and feel to it. Sorta subtle, but it's there.

 

[NB23]

The goal with enlarging is to get the closest possible to the negative.
You want to print the negative exactly as it is so you can enjoy looking at unadultered images and enjoy your camera’s rendition, fully.

What good would it be to shoot with a 50mm summicron apo if your prints come out adultered. Are you really looking at a 50mm summicron apo image?

No, definitely, the darkroom is no place go artistic. The goal is to be as honest as possible to the negative.

 

[Mr Bill]

Does it work this way w/ enlarging lenses?

Hi, I don't believe so. Although this is not my area of expertise.

With a camera lens, some of the "character" is a result of the behavior of light rays in out-of-focus areas. With the enlarging lens everything is ideally in focus; you ideally have one flat plane projected onto another flat plane. So sure, a poor enlarging lens could fail to "adequately" bring all light rays into a proper focus. Perhaps even all colors might not coincide at the same plane; I'd guess this could cause slight a difference even between a fixed grade vs variable-contrast paper.

I'd guess that the difference in your older print is more likely due to a difference in the paper used at that time than in a lens difference. But just a guess. If it was a lens deficiency in the older lens - the 4-element (?) El Nikor - perhaps a very slight defocus of the later lens might approximate the difference. Just a guess.

Personally, if I wanted to answer the question I'd start out with a strong magnifier on both prints, examining how the grain structure is reproduced. That ought to answer the question, I would think.

Fwiw, the guy who goes by the name Ctein used to have a free download of his book from his website. It had a section on his personal testing of enlarging lenses. You might find some interesting information there.

 

[distributed]

The book mentioned is "Post Exposure" by Ctein and it can be found on his webpage: https://ctein.com/booksmpl.htm

 

[grain elevator]

. The old neg is from a Retina camera, so it's sharp enough on it's own, and doesn't need much help from a very good enlarging lens.

Re-think this part. An enlarging lens cannot make things sharper than they are on the negative, it can only (ideally for most of us) not degrade them appreciably. But of course it's a valid choice to go for soft prints. I prefer to see sharp grain and get any softness I want in taking stage.

 

[removed account4]

No, definitely, the darkroom is no place go artistic. The goal is to be as honest as possible to the negative.

strange, I've always heard, learned and read the darkroom is where one interprets what is on the negative
and that includes burning and dodging and other forms of artistic interpretation. even people who allegedly "straight print" everything
burn and dodge... is that considered "artistic interpretation" ?

 

[Mr Bill]

The book mentioned is "Post Exposure" by Ctein and it can be found on his webpage: https://ctein.com/booksmpl.htm

Thanks, distributed.

 

[koraks]

the darkroom is no place go artistic.

LOL. Funny slip of the tongue. I assume you didn't mean it like you wrote it.

 

[faberryman]

LOL. Funny slip of the tongue. I assume you didn't mean it like you wrote it.

He may have been articulating the aesthetic of the straight print.

 

[NB23]

I understand myself

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't find any difference in most of my lens, 4 and 6 element lens at F11 print the same. I do have couple of 3 elements lens which are softer in corners and a 2 element lens with waterhouse stops that is noticeably softer. It is fixed on a Federal Stowaway JR, a diffusion enlarger, the lens must be between 90 and 100 as the enlarger is 6X9. I do use from time to time when I really want a soft look to a print.

 

[MattKing]

Enlarging lenses do have characteristics.
For example, if you print colour, lens design and coatings can affect colour rendition.
There is also a tendency for brands and product lines to have a particular approach to the balancing of contrast and resolution characteristics across the entire negative (centre vs. corners).
The differences between brands and the differences between product lines within a brand are relatively small, but if it is your goal to have consistent results among several formats (and the lenses used with them) than it is helpful to have a more matched (brand and product line) set of enlarging lenses

 

[Patrick Robert James]

There are differences. Some lenses have more contrast, some are sharper, some less so. I keep an old Leitz Elmar around because it has a nice look with portraits. Schneider lenses have a softer tonality than Nikkor lenses. Rodenstock is in the middle. Japanese lenses like the Fujinon EX and the Minolta CE are different than the German lenses. The differences though between good 6 element lenses aren't as great as the differences between a 6 element lens and an Elmar for example. Those are all generalities and I am simplifying.

Since you are enlarging the grain when making a print, uniformity is important. You don't want the edges to be mushy and the center to be sharp regardless of what lens you use. Then again, maybe you do.

 

[koraks]

I understand myself

You're ahead of me there!

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I've wondered about this myself. Certainly they can be different. Objectively better is not always what all of us prefer for camera lenses, so why not enlarging lenses?

There was a story a number of years ago about a mid century European photographer who was being shown in the U.S. with new prints made by someone here he approved. But he didn't like the prints and they finally had to have him send his funky old enlarging lens over to get the kind of prints he wanted. If anyone can recall the details of that I'd like hear. I believe it was in a U.S. based magazine quite a while ago.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Premium quality late enlarging lenses have subtle differences in resolution, evenness of field, and contrast, but all of that is relatively minor. To note any significant differences between brands you'd have to either go back in time to an era when most of these were less corrected, or compare cheapo "student-grade" enlarging lenses. When it comes to medium format work, I prefer the higher end options like Apo Rodagon N's because MF negs do typically need to be enlarged more than LF originals. So top quality is worth it for me. If you want funky, it's easy enough to bring in a spider to weave a cobweb over your lens, or to leave it in some damp place to grow fungus. Smear vaseline over the lens or whatever. But whatever makes your heart tick.

 

[ic-racer]

Using enlarging lenses for their unique characteristics is a little uncharted territory and open for exploration. First I mention the recent thread on using 8mm movie camera lens on the enlarger.

In addition to that here are a few of my examples of other things I have explored. First is a fogged enlarging lens used for creative effect.

Next is a Zoom enlarging lens. I think there is a lot more out there that has yet to be discovered.

 

[ic-racer]

Of course there is William Klein's famous image where he moved the enlarger head during exposure:

 

[cliveh]

As stated by Matt, enlarger lenses do have there own characteristics and you need the correct enlarger lens to match the characteristics you wish to compliment the camera taking lens + of course the thousands of other factors within the process in getting that far.

 

[NB23]

You're ahead of me there!

Basically I was saying that the goal is to get the truest as possible to the negative
itself.

Same as with scanning. I personally want my scans to be true to the negative, not true to a new layer of funk added on top of a negative by a scanner. Just as I favor looking at things with my bare eyes, without pink, yellow, cheap or dark sunglasses.

 

[Ron789]

The goal with enlarging is to get the closest possible to the negative.
You want to print the negative exactly as it is so you can enjoy looking at unadultered images and enjoy your camera’s rendition, fully.

What good would it be to shoot with a 50mm summicron apo if your prints come out adultered. Are you really looking at a 50mm summicron apo image?

No, definitely, the darkroom is no place go artistic. The goal is to be as honest as possible to the negative.

Intersting point of view.... But for me the negative is only a starting point, an unfinished intermediate product. The true creative work happens in the darkroom, using the negative as a source to create the image I want to get out of it.
And yes, different enlarging lenses have different characteristics; part of the creative process is to use those different characteristics to obtain the final image I want.

 

[koraks]

Basically I was saying that the goal is to get the truest as possible to the negative
itself.

Oh dear. So it's about truth. I don't think I'm able to play if that's the game.

 

[whojammyflip]

Big difference in purposes of these two lenses is that an enlarging lens is imaging a flat subject and the camera lens is imaging a 3 dimensional subject.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Using enlarging lenses for their unique characteristics is a little uncharted territory and open for exploration. First I mention the recent thread on using 8mm movie camera lens on the enlarger.

In addition to that here are a few of my examples of other things I have explored. First is a fogged enlarging lens used for creative effect.
View attachment 281386

Next is a Zoom enlarging lens. I think there is a lot more out there that has yet to be discovered.

View attachment 281387

I like the fogged lens shot. I'm embarrassed to say that it never occurred to me to think about the fact that haze would have a sort of opposite, and maybe interesting, effect in printing negatives. It is probably good to keep and open mind about these things.