Enlarging 6x9 on a 6x7 enlarger?

[John51]

I think by this point it sounds like you are just trying to justify a decision you have already made, more power to you!

That is me wrt 6x9 enlargers. I have a 6x7 colour enlarger and both of my 6x9s are rangefinders. If I ever get negs from them that make better prints uncropped than slightly cropped, it'll be a fluke. So I need the extra 2mm for what? One neg every 2 years or so?

I do want a condensor enlarger as an extra though, justification enough for getting an old 6x9 enlarger.

 

[darkroommike]

Depends on where you are, I know a guy that was trying to give away an Omega B8 medium format enlarger last year. And a Beseler can probably be nicked for under $100 in the US, check here of course but I have better luck with Camera swap meets, Craigslist and Ebay.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't know the situation in Oz, but here in the US, 4x5 enlargers are far more common than 6x7 versions, are generally better built to begin with,
and can often be found for free. The problem with trying to squeeze a 6x9 into a 6x7 enlarger, besides modifying the carrier, it that the light source
or diffuser might not be able to give even illumination for the extra width. I personally happen to prefer the slightly stretched 6x9 shape to 6x7, but
do shoot both.

 

[ozphoto]

I don't know the situation in Oz, but here in the US, 4x5 enlargers are far more common than 6x7 versions, are generally better built to begin with,
and can often be found for free. The problem with trying to squeeze a 6x9 into a 6x7 enlarger, besides modifying the carrier, it that the light source
or diffuser might not be able to give even illumination for the extra width. I personally happen to prefer the slightly stretched 6x9 shape to 6x7, but
do shoot both.

Hi Drew, sadly in AU (and in Thailand), not the case at all - I envy you guys about this; you are truly very lucky to have so much gear available to you at great prices.

Enlargers aren't all that cheap here period either new or used, and seeing them being given away is ultra rare. I did pick up a 4x5 LPL head several years back, but it is just that - the head (including power) and a 4x5 carrier. Nothing else at all. I'm still trying to work out how I can actually make it usable for my particular situation, so not prepared to fork out more $$ for carriers if it won't suit.

With regard to using the 6x7 as a 6x9, I didn't want to fork out another $500-$600 for a used 6x9 B&W enlarger (the 7700 is colour), so the hack was the next best thing for me. Had I been able to get a 4x5 for a similar cost, it would have been a no-brainer.

 

[ac12]

Not to be too negative, but when you get a camera, you should also consider how you are going to print it. Or with slides, how to project it. IOW the entire usage path from camera to print/projection.
Example1, I have a 6x6 slide projector, but that is as big as I have. I can't project a 6x7, 6x9 or 4x5 slide...no matter how much I want to. So I have to limit my slide shooting to 35mm or 6x6. Anything larger is limited to viewing on a light box.
Example2. When I decided to get a 4x5 view camera, I accepted that I had to get a 4x5 enlarger and got one (actually 2). I had to upgrade from my current 6x6 enlarger.

The question of modifying a 6x7 enlarger so that you can print a 6x9 negative is part of that evaluation. But personally, I would be pesimistic about going beyond the manufacturers design for the reasons others have stated.

For those with access to 4x5 enlargers, some of them are not that much larger than a 6x7 enlarger, in terms of the space it takes up. Measure them.
Example, my Omega C67-XL (6x7) has a 26x18 baseboard, and my Omega D5 (4x5) has a 28x18 baseboard. The width of the baseboards is identical, 18 inches. The D5 baseboard is only 2 inches deeper. Now the bulk of the head and column is much greater on the D5, but that is air space, not counter space. OK this is comparing an XL to a non XL chassis, but this is what I found and bought.

 

[unityofsaints]

Not to be too negative

I see what you did there!

, but when you get a camera, you should also consider how you are going to print it. Or with slides, how to project it. IOW the entire usage path from camera to print/projection.

I know this isn't DPUG but I went the scanning route previously and would now like to transition into darkroom printing for my B&W. So I did consider my usage path for my 6x9 camera but am planning to add to it now.

For those with access to 4x5 enlargers, some of them are not that much larger than a 6x7 enlarger, in terms of the space it takes up. Measure them.
Example, my Omega C67-XL (6x7) has a 26x18 baseboard, and my Omega D5 (4x5) has a 28x18 baseboard. The width of the baseboards is identical, 18 inches. The D5 baseboard is only 2 inches deeper. Now the bulk of the head and column is much greater on the D5, but that is air space, not counter space. OK this is comparing an XL to a non XL chassis, but this is what I found and bought.

Very good points, I just presumed 4x5 enlargers are massive because I have access to a mammoth De Vere one but clearly they're not always that big.

 

[ac12]

UoS

Now I see where you are coming from. Yes changing process flow from scan to darkroom does upset the cart.

You MUST measure the baseboards, my Omega D5 and Durst L1000 have different size and width baseboards. The Omega is deeper than it is wide, and the Durst is wider than it is deep. And the XL enlargers probably comes with a larger baseboard than the standard height enlargers. In my case, I have a height limitation, and cannot use a 4x5 with an XL chassis, or it will run into the floor beams from the floor above. I took out the tape measure to verify this constraint.

 

[trondareo]

Focomat II has 6x9

 

[nworth]

I have a Beseler 23CII, so I don't have your problem. But think for a moment about just what you want to do. In most cases people want to print only a portion of the 6X9 negative - maybe enough to fill an 8X10 print. The 6X7 format was chosen to more or less correspond to an 8X10 print. For many prints, you could simply adjust the position of the 6X9 negative in the 6X7 holder to get the desired image. If you need the full frame, you are probably out of luck. 6X7 enlargers and their lenses were just not designed for that kind of coverage.

 

[unityofsaints]

Thanks for all the replies so far, I've learned a lot about what's possible (and what isn't) from all of your contributions.

The update on my quest to find a means of enlarging 6x9 is that I've only located three bone fide 6x9 enlargers that are for sale in all of Australia. One is a local Durst A600 and I've viewed it but the price was a bit steep and it's B&W only with no real shot of ever finding a colour head or (spare parts for that matter) due to its age. The other is an even more ancient 1951 Kienzle where the price is right but it's so far away that the freight cost would be prohibitive. The third is a mix of option one and two

There are some 4x5" ones around but there the trick would be fitting it into my apartment and also finding the neg carrier and lens for 6x9. At this point I will probably keep renting for the time being or pick up a 6x7 enlarger super cheap and attempt to hack it and/or accept the cropping.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Buy a 4x5 and save yourself a lot of trouble.

Lenses shorter than 105 may work for small prints because the extension makes them effectively longer, but large prints will become a problem.