Enlarging 6x9 on a 6x7 enlarger?

[unityofsaints]

I would like to enlarge some work from my Fujica GW690 but 6x9 enlarger availability is extremely patchy around where I am based whereas 6x7 is plentiful. This got me thinking about the real image area of the GW690 - measuring the negative gives me barely 82mm width. Let's assume I can fiddle around with the the negative mask so as to allow the max. image area to be illuminated and burn in the corners to compensate for whatever vignetting there is. How much actual cropping would we be talking about in the end?

 

[John51]

Finding a genuine 6x9 enlarger is difficult. Many of them need a difficult to find extra part to actually print a full 6x9 neg. Do your homework before buying. Or you go for a very old enlarger from when 6x9 was still popular, which will be a condensor model.

If printing onto 8x10 paper, you're not going to get full frame from a 6x9 neg even with a 6x9 enlarger.

 

[ozphoto]

I "hacked" one of my LPL 6x7 universal negative carriers, by carefully removing the blades. Once removed, it matched my 6x9 negs perfectly.

Regarding lens choice, I use the same lens for both my 6x7 & 6x9; no need to burn in any corners at all for me.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

2 things you need: the diameter of the illuminated circle above your negative should have at least 100mm, preferably more. you negative carrier should at least be 56mm x 82mm , and your enlarging lens and bellows should be long enough to focus your negative with out vignetting. you will simple have to measure each type of enlarger to see.. . . . . .

 

[ic-racer]

More frequently one would use a 4x5" enlarger to make prints from 6x9cm negatives. Alternatively just crop in your mind as you shoot and compose to 6x7 proportions as you work. Some 6x9 cameras, like the Horseman VH-R, have little tick marks in the viewfinder for 6x7.

Some people crop 6x6cm negatives to 6x4.5 to fit on rectangular paper, so they are throwing away more negative than you will.

 

[unityofsaints]

If printing onto 8x10 paper, you're not going to get full frame from a 6x9 neg even with a 6x9 enlarger.

Some people crop 6x6cm negatives to 6x4.5 to fit on rectangular paper, so they are throwing away more negative than you will.

Exactly what I was thinking. As I am an optimist, I hoped to lose a few mm in the enlarger, a few due to the paper aspect ratio and be happy at the end cropping the same or less overall than on 35mm and other MF negative sizes

2 things you need: the diameter of the illuminated circle above your negative should have at least 100mm and your enlarging lens and bellows should be long enough to focus your negative with out vignetting.

Thanks for these parctical tips Greg, that's exactly what I need when I go out looking at enlargers.

More frequently one would use a 4x5" enlarger to make prints from 6x9cm negatives.

A used 67 enlarger costs about as much as 4 hours in a rental darkroom with a 4x5" enlarger in my city and there's just no way I have the space (or money) to spare to buy a 4x5 enlarger myself. That's my motivation for looking at option A ahead of option B.

 

[Paul Howell]

Where do you live? In my area Bessler 23c are common, and for not much money. Saying that you can file out the ends of the negative carrier to see if the condenser will cover a 6X9 or just use a little tape to mask out the viewfinder of the Fuji and compose as 6X7.

 

[darkroommike]

Finding a genuine 6x9 enlarger is difficult. Many of them need a difficult to find extra part to actually print a full 6x9 neg. Do your homework before buying. Or you go for a very old enlarger from when 6x9 was still popular, which will be a condensor model.

If printing onto 8x10 paper, you're not going to get full frame from a 6x9 neg even with a 6x9 enlarger.

The Beseler 23C series is as common as dirt in the USA and not at all scarce. But for just a little more money look into a 4x5 enlarger. Even if you never use it with 4x5 you'll appreciate the extra stability of a bigger rig.

6x9 has the same aspect ratio as 35mm which means that a 7x10 or 8x12 print is going to be closer to full frame.

 

[tedr1]

I seem to recall the Beseler 6x9 opening is about 82 x 56 so there is significant cropping.

There is a medium format enlarger by Kaiser that handles 6x9 http://www.freestylephoto.biz/454001-Kaiser-VP9005-Black-and-White-Condenser-Enlarger

 

[Luis-F-S]

More frequently one would use a 4x5" enlarger to make prints from 6x9cm negatives.

Overlooking the obvious! But I'm sure there will be all types of "workarounds" described on how to use a 6x7 enlarger, none of which will really work as well as a 4x5 enlarger which are plentiful!

 

[unityofsaints]

The Beseler 23C series is as common as dirt in the USA

I'm sure there will be all types of "workarounds" described on how to use a 6x7 enlarger, none of which will really work as well as a 4x5 enlarger which are plentiful!

This doesn't apply in Australia - you'll pay big money for 4x5 either for the enlarger or renting a darkroom which has one but 6x7 enlargers can be had for peanuts.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I would like to enlarge some work from my Fujica GW690 but 6x9 enlarger availability is extremely patchy around where I am based whereas 6x7 is plentiful. This got me thinking about the real image area of the GW690 - measuring the negative gives me barely 82mm width. Let's assume I can fiddle around with the the negative mask so as to allow the max. image area to be illuminated and burn in the corners to compensate for whatever vignetting there is. How much actual cropping would we be talking about in the end?

I'm a big fan of the 6x9 format but it really needs a 4x5 larger and a 105mm focal length lens

 

[darkroommike]

This doesn't apply in Australia - you'll pay big money for 4x5 either for the enlarger or renting a darkroom which has one but 6x7 enlargers can be had for peanuts.

So if you had told us where in the world you are located we could have given you better advice. Take a minute and fill out your profile.

I can't believe that 4x5 enlargers are that uncommon, after all up until the 50's it was the goto size for press photographers everywhere. And 2x3 enlargers are the same size as 6x9 enlargers and not one of them will have a carrier with an opening much more than 56x80-ish I say 80 something since a lot of 6x9 cameras shoot something slightly shorter for whatever reason. If you want to print a full 6x9 image you'll need a carrier with glass inserts, which you mask to the exact format of your negatives with black paper, once you've done that you'll then be making "format" prints which won't fit any standard paper size. You'll not get the same results modifying a 6x7 enlarger, you will get illumination fall off at the corners.

I think by this point it sounds like you are just trying to justify a decision you have already made, more power to you! Depending on how modular your enlarger of choice is, it may be very easy or incredibly frustrating to mod it for 6x9, you'll need a bigger light source and a longer focal length lens (100mm-105mm). Me I'd rather be printing that making stuff in the workshop.

 

[studiocarter]

The 23c Beseler with a ready made negative carrier works great as it is made for it, 6x9, 105mm lens. #8062 new may cost as much as the enlarger, but I got one from a major dealer anyway. Add to that the 8072 anti Newton glass carrier, but hey, this is what I do. It is also 6x9.
Then I started with 70mm cameras and rolling my own. So, a 4x5 enlarger was needed. It arrived from NJ in a box by mail, 69 pounds weight, well packed, see the unboxing video on studiocarter1 YouTube. In this case, the anti newton 4x5 carrier DOES cost way more than the total enlarger from a dealer in NY. That may never happen.

 

[unityofsaints]

So if you had told us where in the world you are located we could have given you better advice. Take a minute and fill out your profile.

I can't believe that 4x5 enlargers are that uncommon, after all up until the 50's it was the goto size for press photographers everywhere. And 2x3 enlargers are the same size as 6x9 enlargers and not one of them will have a carrier with an opening much more than 56x80-ish I say 80 something since a lot of 6x9 cameras shoot something slightly shorter for whatever reason. If you want to print a full 6x9 image you'll need a carrier with glass inserts, which you mask to the exact format of your negatives with black paper, once you've done that you'll then be making "format" prints which won't fit any standard paper size. You'll not get the same results modifying a 6x7 enlarger, you will get illumination fall off at the corners.

I think by this point it sounds like you are just trying to justify a decision you have already made, more power to you! Depending on how modular your enlarger of choice is, it may be very easy or incredibly frustrating to mod it for 6x9, you'll need a bigger light source and a longer focal length lens (100mm-105mm). Me I'd rather be printing that making stuff in the workshop.

I apologise for not completing my profile, I thought I'd done that but I was actually mixing up APUG with another forum. You would be surprised to hear about the length and breadth of things that are relatively scarce (or common!) in Australia due to its remoteness compared to the rest of the "civilised world" Besides this I also mentioned upthread that I don't have the space for a 4x5 enlarger and even a 6x9 one would be pushing it. I understand that there are compromises to be made here and the purpose behind the thread was to find out more about what those compromises would be. As luck would have it I have a lead now on a 6x9 enlarger and my preference would be to buy that instead of modifying a 6x7. Saying that, the thing is 40+ years old and hasn't been used in a long time so I'll defintely have to be as dilligent about inspecting it as I would have to be about moding a 6x7.

 

[MattKing]

Sydney Australia, Sydney British Columbia, or ??

Some 6x7 enlargers might have room for a 6x9 carrier and a light system that provides impaired illumination to the corners of that carrier.

Look for something that uses a very simple carrier.

 

[bernard_L]

things that are relatively scarce (or common!) in Australia

So, if Beseler enlargers are scarce and expensive in Australia, maybe you might look into brands like Krokus or Meopta? And, if you need to buy a 105mm lens from abroad, shipping will be less probihibitive than for an enlarger.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I "hacked" one of my LPL 6x7 universal negative carriers, by carefully removing the blades. Once removed, it matched my 6x9 negs perfectly.

Regarding lens choice, I use the same lens for both my 6x7 & 6x9; no need to burn in any corners at all for me.

Ozphoto, what enlarger do you have? I was thinking the same. I've just started to use old 6x9 folders, but I have a universal carrier with the adjustable blades on an LPL6700. I wasn't sure that the aperture above the carrier would be wide enough for 6x9. The blades even crop a 6x7 neg to some extent.

 

[Svenedin]

The Kaiser enlargers (I have a multigrade 6x7, 7005) are excellent and have good availability of new and second-hand parts (at least in the U.K.). Converting to 6x9 is just a matter of swapping the condensers.

 

[Neil Grant]

I "hacked" one of my LPL 6x7 universal negative carriers, by carefully removing the blades. Once removed, it matched my 6x9 negs perfectly.

Regarding lens choice, I use the same lens for both my 6x7 & 6x9; no need to burn in any corners at all for me.

Yes Ozphoto, which enlarger are you using? I have an LPL 7700 'colour' and I've used it successfuly to print 6x8cm negs using the 6x7cm glassless carrier with judicious 'opening'.
Lens was a 6-ele, 90mm Osawa Tominon el. I assumed the enlarger couldn't handle anything bigger due to insufficient coverage from the mixing box. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[ozphoto]

Yes Ozphoto, which enlarger are you using? I have an LPL 7700 'colour' and I've used it successfuly to print 6x8cm negs using the 6x7cm glassless carrier with judicious 'opening'.
Lens was a 6-ele, 90mm Osawa Tominon el. I assumed the enlarger couldn't handle anything bigger due to insufficient coverage from the mixing box. Maybe I'm wrong.

Ozphoto, what enlarger do you have? I was thinking the same. I've just started to use old 6x9 folders, but I have a universal carrier with the adjustable blades on an LPL6700. I wasn't sure that the aperture above the carrier would be wide enough for 6x9. The blades even crop a 6x7 neg to some extent.

I'm also using a 7700 colour head; haven't seen any drop-off at all. I don't use a UC for my 6x7, rather the dedicated 6x7 carrier. I got the universal carrier when I was given the 7700 (upgrade from a 670). Sat around until I contemplated the possibility of removing the blades for 6x9 use. Measured it up, gently took them off and have been printing my 6x9 negs ever since.

Using a 105mm Schneider - very nice older version that I had to purchase an adapter for, so that it would fit the 49mm lens mount.

Like you xtolsniffer, I'm using some old 6x9 folders and so far, so good.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Wow, great thanks, I'm going to have a look at my 6700 tonight. If I can use the universal carrier for 6x9 I'll be very happy - I was looking for a 6x9 enlarger or a 4x5 to print up my negs from my new (old) folders. If there is any fall-off at the edges I'm not bothered as it's a feature of the cameras anyway and adds to the charm.

 

[ozphoto]

Wow, great thanks, I'm going to have a look at my 6700 tonight. If I can use the universal carrier for 6x9 I'll be very happy - I was looking for a 6x9 enlarger or a 4x5 to print up my negs from my new (old) folders. If there is any fall-off at the edges I'm not bothered as it's a feature of the cameras anyway and adds to the charm.

I was contemplating similar when I thought to check the extra carrier. I just figured it had to be slightly larger than 6x7, as it was using the blades to mask the neg as well.

Finally grabbed a LPL 4x5 (head only), now just working on creating a reliable column setup.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I just don't have the space for a 4x5 in my darkroom (which is a small shed), so this may just work!

 

[xtolsniffer]

Dang! I just measured the head on my LPL6700c enlarger. If you remove the blades from the universal carrier you can get up to 86 mm across, good enough for 6x9. The aperture above the carrier in the enlarger head is 90mm but the one below the carrier is only 70 mm, so even with the blades removed, you're still going to get a crop to 6x7. I wonder if the 7700 series have a bigger aperture below the negative carrier?