mikeb_z5 said:...inserted my new used 4x5 glass carrier and rechecked alignment. I was surprised to find that alignment had changed about 1/8" on the target somehow.
wfwhitaker said:1/8" variation on the target doesn't sound like a lot. Depends upon how high the enlarger head is set (what would otherwise amount to magnification). Possibly the glass in the carrier is providing its own reflection and may not be completely plane parallel. The question is whether or not the negative itself is orthogonal to the optical axis. But again, 1/8" doesn't sound like a lot....
1/8" out of alignment is significant as I have found since I started using the laser alignment tool. I think you may have highlighted the problem though when you mention the reflection. I sometimes get two laser spots bouncing back from the glass but one is always stronger than the other and that is the one I use for alignment purposes. I also use a Zone VI VC enlarger and to my sirprise I noticed that the head does go out of alignment when moved up and down the column so I re-align every time I set up the enalrger to make a print.
Les McLean said:. . . I sometimes get two laser spots bouncing back from the glass but one is always stronger than the other and that is the one I use for alignment purposes. . . .
rbarker said:Les - I'm curious. Assuming the two laser reflections are coming from the two surfaces of the bottom glass, wouldn't the dimmer reflection represent the top surface upon which the negative is resting? If so, wouldn't that be the better reflection to use?
The idea of a "flat field" is a primary concern. Even though there are "primary design criteria", there are also "secondaries" ... and those characteristics that are inherently "there". Every "flat field" lens will have a finite depth of field or depth of focus. Example: Mount an enlarging lens onto the lensboard and use it as a taking lens. You will see that everything focuses in much the same way as a taking lens - there will be no razor thin "plane" where everything "snaps in" and then "snaps out".Bob Carnie said:I am sure that the design of lenses for enlargers are not built with depth of field in mind. The are designed to be focused sharp along a flat field which is the enlarger easal.
??? Depends on WHY the edges are "unsharp." If sharpness isn't there in the negative, there is little hope for improvement. If there is an amount of misalignment - Stopping down most certainly will increase apparent sharpness. Try tilting the easel -- something I've done to correct perspective. One focuses near the center, and then stops down to gain a suitable amount of "sharp".I have never corrected un - sharp edges of a print by closing down, alignment of the lensboard negative stage and easal is the only way that I am aware of getting sharp edge to edge.
True ... there is an "optimum" aperture for all photographic lenses - part of the design criteria. Has little to do with alignment, though.As well try putting a lith negative of very small sharp type into your enlarger and project , and then start wide open , middle f stop, and very closed down.
adjust the density so that each print equal.
You * will * find that some of the prints are much sharper and ledgible to read.
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?