Enlarging Rolleiflex and Hasselblad negatives

[Arthurwg]

For sure it's a PITA. I use an LPL 4x5 enlarger that has a large base board, which allows me more room to move the easel around. With larger prints I have to align the image top to bottom across the short side of the paper rather than the long way which I prefer, but I can make it work OK for the most part.

 

[John51]

Rotate the enlarger base 90 degrees and work from the side of it instead of in front.

Cheap enough to try.

 

[voceumana]

If you can find a Beseler 4x5 enlarger, their negative carriers rotate, and the head is designed such that there is free space on all 4 sides of the negative carrier stage, thus rotating the negative carrier permits functioning as you desire. Many enlargers have a solid barrier behind the negative stage, making rotation of the negative carrier a difficulty.

Omega enlargers also have some space behind the negative carrier stage, and probably enough to rotate the carriers.

As far as having enough space to enlarge to your desired size, mounting the chassis of any enlarger directly to a counter top (or to the wall behind the counter) provides the greatest freedom for placement of the easel. I don't know why so many enlargers have rectangular baseboards, when that approach permits a larger vertically oriented image compared to horizontal, and many of the rectangular formats produce a wider horizontal image.

Of course, you could mount your enlarger on a different baseboard.

 

[gijsbert]

Like this one: https://www.secondhanddarkroom.co.u...lumn_extension_arm/?k=:::6548187:0:2:16409::0 (for Durst)

...

Didn't know that existed, interesting. I couldn't quickly find a manual, but it kinda looks like it would make the column taller not put the head/lens further away from the column. Not sure, I would love to know more... Cheers, Gijsbert

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Ok. You'll maybe need to learn about cropping... or you can adapt. You should be able to learn how to deal with your issue on your own. Be creative and inventive. Or better yet, just cut and rotate the freaking negatives. If you really insist on using your 16x20 easel in its present orientation because you cannot rotate it due to the physical constraints of your setup... then you need to freaking re-orient the negative. I realize you're not a rocket scientist but come on man, use the brains you have. Adapt.

 

[Arklatexian]

I'm finding negatives produced by medium format cameras which run the film vertically through their backs (Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Bronica SQ etc.) very annoying to enlarge. Are they really a PITA, or am I missing something?

Let me explain...

I'm using a Durst M707 colour enlarger, an RR Beard 16x12" easel and usually print on 16x12" paper. All fairly standard equipment and materials. When I insert a strip of negatives from my Mamiya 6 or Pentax 67, everything's fine: I stand in front of the enlarger, work on the image, print 16x12" images (less a tiny margin) and everything's fine with the world. However, when I insert a strip of negatives from my Hasselblad, the image is rotated 90 degrees to the baseboard which makes composition and cropping very awkward. Luckily my enlarger sits on the corner of the bench, so I can move around the left side and at least see the image the right way up. It's not a very comfortable position, as the enlarger column is close to my left arm, which makes things awkward when moving around, but it's workable. Then I run into the main problem: I can no longer make 16x12" landscape prints. When I turn my easel 90 degrees, the left edge hits the enlarger column so the projected image isn't centred on the easel. The best I can do is print around 11x11" square, or around 11x8" if I want to keep the same aspect ratio of the prints.

Yes, I realise I could cut my film into single negatives, and place them the right way around in the carrier. That's certainly an option for a few one-off photos, but isn't something I would relish doing for everything I print. My negative files would be a huge mess.

Are there any other obvious solutions I'm missing, apart from buying a massive large format enlarger (which isn't an option in my tiny darkroom)? Or is this simply a limitation of cameras which run their film vertically?...not something anyone ever mentions when it comes to buying medium format cameras.

Thanks,

J

Some enlargers are designed for 35mm and others are designed for medium format. but can be made to use other formats. In your case, I don't think I would even consider getting rid of either a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex in order to keep using your Durst enlarger. Used Medium Format enlargers are much less expensive than either of those cameras. You need to trade enlargers and get one you are not forced to "fight"..........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

Some enlargers are designed for 35mm and others are designed for medium format. but can be made to use other formats. In your case, I don't think I would even consider getting rid of either a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex in order to keep using your Durst enlarger. Used Medium Format enlargers are much less expensive than either of those cameras. You need to trade enlargers and get one you are not forced to "fight"..........Regards!

Just looked the M707 Color enlarger. That enlarger should certainly handle 6x6cm negatives with no problems as it seems to have been designed to handle 6x9. On both of your cameras, try shooting them of vertical subjects. With 6x6, you are not even forced to turn your camera on its side. Just pick a vertical subject and then your negative would be orientated with the long dimension across the base and the short dimension near the column........Regards, Again!

 

[BMbikerider]

I no longer use 120 film but when I last had a medium format camera - a Bronica ETRSi, I used to make a proof print of the full roll so I could see what there was and what was printable. I then cut the negatives into strips and put them into individual glassine envelopes.The proof print was stored in a folder. Each of the negative envelopes was numbered with the appropriate frame number visible on the proof print and then the envelopes were stapled together as one set. These are stored in a custom made box for quick selection. That way I can find any negative I want and place the selected image in the right orientation for printing. This is actually easier than looking at uncut frames in a storage sheet

 

[Svenedin]

Didn't know that existed, interesting. I couldn't quickly find a manual, but it kinda looks like it would make the column taller not put the head/lens further away from the column. Not sure, I would love to know more... Cheers, Gijsbert

Well you are in the U.K. so why not give Paul Petterson at Second Hand Darkroom a ring? He’s very knowledgeable. Paul will know and he will also know whether the Kaiser part mentioned earlier would fit your Durst.

 

[FujiLove]

Perhaps you can make an easil with smaller borders, perhaps using magnetic strios?

Yes, this is something I've been looking at, and it would give me a couple of inches extra room on the left edge. I need to get in the darkroom and measure it properly, but I think I would still be short of around 1" compared to being 'the right way around'.

 

[choiliefan]

It won’t help your size printing issue (easel hitting the column) but if you like composing with the image the right way up just rotate the whole enlarger and baseboard 90 degrees so that the negatives feed front to back rather than side to side.

Bingo!

 

[FujiLove]

And is there a part for your enlarger that extends the distance between the head and the column?

Such as this (which is for a Kaiser enlarger): https://www.thedarkroom.co.uk/4455-extension-arm.html

Thanks - this is exactly what I need. I'll investigate whether the bolt is the same size as my Durst.

FYI, I had a look at the Durst Sirioar mentioned above, but that extends the column height, rather than moving the head out from the column.

 

[FujiLove]

It won’t help your size printing issue (easel hitting the column) but if you like composing with the image the right way up just rotate the whole enlarger and baseboard 90 degrees so that the negatives feed front to back rather than side to side.

That's not something I want to do regularly as I only have one enlarger and print multiple formats (35mm, Xpan, 6x6 and 6x7). I have other equipment, such as a RH analyser and the transformer packed tightly behind the enlarger, so moving everything around isn't a quick and easy task.

 

[FujiLove]

Thanks for all the suggestions here. I had a look through my negative files and the comment above about not printing a lot of images at 16x12" is sort of right. I mostly print one or maybe two at that size from a roll, although I have a roll of 6x6 from Venice which has five keepers to print. This means cutting individual frames is probably the way to go as a short-term measure, and I'll add the Kaiser extension arm later if it fits the enlarger head.

So this leads me to another question that I should go and look up: Is it okay for negatives to overlap in the sleeves? For some reason, I have it in my head that the emulsion could end up being damaged if they overlap and stick together (though I may have just dreamed that up!)

Edit: I remembered why I think this...I dug out a packet of old prints a couple of years ago to scan the strip of negatives and discovered they were stuck together. In fairness, I suspect they were badly stored in my parent's loft.

 

[Neil Grant]

..I think you're saying you've got two problems. FIrst it's difficult to judge image composition with it 'on-it's-side'. I'm sure that's true and because of your square cameras, a lot of photos could give you that problem. It's like that with my '645' stuff and it's just a pain.
The other matter is your image runnning into the column. You really need to get the head further from the column because although 'wall' projection is possible it's not really for the faint hearted. Consider alignment difficulties. Personally I would think of another enlarger. The footprint of my large format 'bench top' De Vere 504 is is hardly any greater than the LPL 7700 I have. It' column is taller (so put it on a lower surface) and it weighs rather more - but once it's installed that's it.

 

[AgX]

Rollei themselves made a 6x7 enlarger. It would be interesting to now how they tackled the issue.

I got one in parts, salvaged some parts, so I do not know anymore...

 

[Svenedin]

That's not something I want to do regularly as I only have one enlarger and print multiple formats (35mm, Xpan, 6x6 and 6x7). I have other equipment, such as a RH analyser and the transformer packed tightly behind the enlarger, so moving everything around isn't a quick and easy task.

Just rotating the enlarger is surely not that difficult? I also have the equipment you mention. My darkroom has no running water (prints go in a bucket of water until I take them to the bathroom for washing) and is too small for trays so I use a slot processor.

 

[Luis-F-S]

Suggest you go back to 135 then you won't have the "problem".

 

[FujiLove]

Suggest you go back to 135 then you won't have the "problem".

Given your ostentatious signature, I'm a little surprised you're encouraging minimalisation and smaller gear.

But thanks for chipping in again with the useful advice

 

[FujiLove]

Just rotating the enlarger is surely not that difficult? I also have the equipment you mention. My darkroom has no running water (prints go in a bucket of water until I take them to the bathroom for washing) and is too small for trays so I use a slot processor.

There's no need for me to rotate the enlarger because it sits on a corner bench, so I can stand in front or on the side. The image being on it's side is a minor problem which just makes it a little awkward operating the enlarger. For instance, the handles to raise and lower the head are on the right side, so I have to reach right around the machine to focus. It's fine for smaller enlargements, but hard or impossible to reach when the head's higher.

The main problem is the limited enlargement size. If it wasn't for the Xpan, which I've been using a lot recently, I'd probably settle for a smaller standard paper/mount/frame size. But I really like panoramic shots printed large, and 16" width gives the minimum image height that I'm happy with (Xpan prints end up only around 5.5" high on that paper). I like to swap my hung prints around frequently, so I need to standardise as much as possible so I can quickly swap a photo shot on 6x7 out for one shot on the Xpan. I like to window mount my best photos so they can quickly be dropped into a frame.

Anyway, I'm just going to cut the buggers up for now and get on with life! Easiest thing for now.

 

[Mark Fisher]

I ended up making a custom masking easel to deal with this problem so I can get the paper right up to the column mount. What I used to do is compose on the baseboard (or countertop in my case), mark the corners of where my paper needs to be, turn off the enlarger, tape the paper down, and enlarge away. I dry mount my images so I don't care about not having a perfectly crisp edge at the border.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I too have a 4"x5" enlarger and the rotation does not bother me. If I had a smaller enlarger, it still would not bother me. When I use a 4"x5" camera the composition is inverted. The paper size is problem, just comes with the territory.

 

[Eric Rose]

The issue with composing the image 90 degrees on the baseboard isn't the biggest problem; it's the limit it imposes on the print size that's most annoying.

It's a square negative, how would the orientation of the negative effect things. I guess if you crop the image to a horizontal then that would have an impact. But nothing more than the max for the neg if printed full frame.

Maybe you should consider buying a 6x4.5 back.

 

[Bill Burk]

Makes me feel lucky I shoot 6x9 most often when I'm shooting 120.

 

[FujiLove]

It's a square negative, how would the orientation of the negative effect things.

Then I run into the main problem: I can no longer make 16x12" landscape prints. When I turn my easel 90 degrees, the left edge hits the enlarger column so the projected image isn't centred on the easel. The best I can do is print around 11x11" square, or around 11x8" if I want to keep the same aspect ratio of the prints.