Duh?

[Pfiltz]

So far, I usually just print the full 4x5 neg. Today, I developed a neg that was shot in Florida late last year. I saw this BIG yellow/black field spider just chill'n out. So I print the full neg, which shows the background and the spider, but the spider is kind of small relative to the over all shot.

For what ever reason, I think Hey. Crank up this enlarger to as high as it will go, and print the spider BIGGER

Now I have something else to keep my eye on. Really cranking in on some of my negs to fill the print with something possibly special -vs- just printing the whole neg.. I've never thought about "zooming" in on a neg for a different perspective.

Just too cool.

 

[horacekenneth]

yeah it is

 

[horacekenneth]

I want to see it

 

[ic-racer]

Use your 50mm lens and really zoom in on a small detail!

 

[Pfiltz]

Use your 50mm lens and really zoom in on a small detail!

Ahhh, didn't even think of that. There's so much of this, that I still don't know, or even think of.

Weird... I us a 135mm lens on my Beseler, and printed at 20 sec@f32 and got a nice looking print. So, I tried my 90mm, because I didn't have a 50, and I had to expose it for 2 minutes at f22, using the same 3.5 filter I've been using for contrast.

Why the big difference in time?

BTW, here is the full neg version

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Ahhh, didn't even think of that. There's so much of this, that I still don't know, or even think of.

Weird... I us a 135mm lens on my Beseler, and printed at 20 sec@f32 and got a nice looking print. So, I tried my 90mm, because I didn't have a 50, and I had to expose it for 2 minutes at f22, using the same 3.5 filter I've been using for contrast.

Why the big difference in time?

BTW, here is the full neg version

Because you're taking less light (smaller section of negative) and spreading it over the same size print.

 

[David Brown]

That's why the head on your enlarger is adjustable ...

 

[L Gebhardt]

There should be no difference between the 90mm and the 135mm if the image on the easel is the same size and the aperture is also the same. That's true for a diffusion enlarger. I don't know how it works with a condenser. My guess would be you didn't switch condensers when you switched lens, but that's just a guess.

But in either case you will get much sharper results if you don't stop down so far. Try f/11 or f/8. If your enlarger is aligned you don't need much depth of field.

 

[polyglot]

The time got longer because you made the image larger - effectively you had more bellows-factor, except in this case the "bellows" is the gap between enlarger lens and paper. Or stated alternately, you had to get the same amount of light from a much smaller part of the negative, so it took longer.

 

[ROL]

Cropping A Negative –> Extreme Cropping