Factor for enlarger head height adjustment?

Discussion in 'Enlarging' started by declark, Dec 11, 2008.

  1. Lee L

    Lee L Member

    Messages:
    3,290
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Just another thought that came to me. There are rulers printed on clear plastic (C-Thru makes nice ones in the US) that could be substituted for the negative at both degrees of enlargement, then magnification changes could be easily calculated against a ruler on the easel. Might be quick enough for those without an enlarging meter.

    Lee

    I may have pre-answered Dan's simultaneous post. :smile:
     
  2. dancqu

    dancqu Member

    Messages:
    3,655
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Willamette V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    M&m; magnification. And how are the values for
    the two established? I see that a ratio of squares
    is involved. I'm suspicious. A "...correct conclusion."
    is at stake. Dan
     
  3. David Brown

    David Brown Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    3,848
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Location:
    Earth
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    OMG! :surprised:

    Make another test strip ...
     
  4. Nicholas Lindan

    Nicholas Lindan Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    2,383
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    Cleveland, O
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I just made and evaluated a test strip and it took 4 minutes, 45 seconds, 2 minutes of that time were in the developer.

    Using the ruler took 30 seconds. Used no chemicals, paper or electricity.

    Add 15 seconds if you don't have an f-stop timer and need to use a chart.

    Saves yer money - saves yer time - takes yer choice.

    A note on using Darkroom Automation's stops<->seconds chart: If you are only applying a stops correction to a time you can simply multiply your present exposure time by the number in the chart.

    As an example:
    1. your present exposure is 5 seconds and you want to add 1.4 stops
    2. look up 1.4 stops in the chart and find 2.6
    3. multiply 5 seconds by 2.6 => 13 seconds is the new time
     
  5. Jean Noire

    Jean Noire Member

    Messages:
    587
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have been following this thread with interest and thanks for posting.
    I may have missed something but you are talking here of images in millimetre sizes and this seems really small, can you elaborate please?
    Regards
    John
     
  6. Nicholas Lindan

    Nicholas Lindan Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    2,383
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    Cleveland, O
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Emmm, hrrrr, hummphh....

    centimeters, it's centimeters -- change the 'mm' to 'cm'.
     
  7. David Brown

    David Brown Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    3,848
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Location:
    Earth
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    OK, I realize that I am in the minority here, but I have made a choice and simply stated my opinion (just like everyone else) :rolleyes:

    I own and have used:

    The old Kodak "computer" in their B&W dataguide.
    Mr. Linden's ruler
    an Ilford EM10
    the enlarging attachment for a Gossen Luna pro
    the algebra formula being discussed.

    All of these got me close. "Close!" I still had to fine tune, and - in my experience - a test strip and/or a "work print" or two ended up being made anyway. Starting with a test strip is, for me, the quickest, cheapest and most efficient method.

    YMMV
     
  8. uwphotoer

    uwphotoer Member

    Messages:
    59
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Location:
    Piedmont, NC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Even with the EM-10 I still do a test strip...... have you priced cibachrome materials.... I would never just toss in a bigger sheet of paper and run a print like it would be a final.....
     
  9. FilmIs4Ever

    FilmIs4Ever Member

    Messages:
    377
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Location:
    Cleveland, O
    It should be possible to tweak the formula to be "spot on" at any enlarger height.

    Things that probably aren't being taken into account are paper reciprocity, actual lens-to-print distance (not the hypotenuse of lens-to-print distance and chassis stalk angle), and the aforementioned contrast loss due to light scatter with increase in magnification factor.
     
  10. Nicholas Lindan

    Nicholas Lindan Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    2,383
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    Cleveland, O
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Time for a real world test ...

    Conditions: Beseler 45MX, condenser light source, Stouffer 4x5 31-step tablet, 150mm Rodagon, Ilford MGIV RC glossy, #2 1/2 filter, D-72 70F 2 min

    Prints were made at 4x5 (1:1), 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20.

    In each case the #1 step was metered with the Darkroom Automation meter. Time was controlled with a DA f-Stop timer. A total of 10 stops of exposure (meter reading + timer setting = 10) was given in each case.

    The results are as consistent as I could ever do with test strips. All the prints were made with the same contrast filtration - results would be a bit closer if contrast were tweaked.

    [​IMG]

    Time to find new exposure and set it into the timer after changing magnification - less than 5 seconds.
     
  11. OP
    OP
    declark

    declark Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    246
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    So. Cal
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Why am I not surprised to find such thorough and thoughtful insight on such a niche APUG forum topic. There's a lot here that I need to still digest. It looks like making a test strip is probably the best bet, but at least the calculations will be useful to even get in the ballpark on the test strip. I find that sometimes I am way off base especially if proper exposure time goes from say 12s to 45s or so, the usual 3s test strip just isn't going to work at the longer exposure, so I will now know where to start with a certain base exposure.
     
  12. Nicholas Lindan

    Nicholas Lindan Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    2,383
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    Cleveland, O
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Comparison of methods for determining the exposure correction required for magnification changes using a 50mm lens, Beseler 45 enlarger and condenser lamphousing

    [​IMG]

    The ruler and the magnification formula provide the same result - the previous difugalty was due to not correctly locating the lens nodal point. In this case the point is 1.1" back from the front flange of a 50mm f2.8 El-Nikkor, FWIW.

    However, although they agree, they both provide the wrong exposure correction - enough to create a shift of about 1/3 of a Zone in some cases. Intriguingly the error doesn't seem to follow any sort of pattern.

    The error doesn't seem to be due to the variation in the distance from the lens to the condenser. Changing the distance by 1", a bit more than the lens travel in the above test, changes the light intensity by less than 0.005 stops. It might be interesting to repeat the test with a diffuse light source.

    So far, it seems only a good meter will provide accurate compensation.
     
  13. Curt

    Curt Member

    Messages:
    4,623
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Nort
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    A lot is/has been said about Kodak but the Data guides both BW and Color have probably helped more people than can be counted. In fact the data from the papers you could order were invaluable.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. 2F/2F

    2F/2F Member

    Messages:
    8,071
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    In all practicality, you are fine with an estimate. You will never be spot on via formula anyhow, so will end up wasting a full test print, when you could have just done a test strip. Going from one standard print size to the next (say from 8x10 to 11x14), I would add one stop of exposure as a general adjustment. Going to 16x20? Add two stops versus the 8x10. This is making the quite general estimate that each standard size contains twice as much surface area as the next smallest. This is not exactly true, but it is close enough to make a good test strip. One thing that is true is that when going from 4x5 to 8x10, or from 8x10 to 16x20, you exactly quadruple the surface area, therefore you end up with only one quarter the light. This means that you can theoretically compensate by increasing the amount of light by a factor of four, also known as adding exactly two stops of exposure.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 14, 2008
  16. Mike Crawford

    Mike Crawford Member

    Messages:
    530
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Location:
    London, UK
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    That's really interesting and something I had never realised. However, trust us pesky Europeans to come along with our 12 x 16 paper and ruin the sequence!!
     
  17. Keith Tapscott.

    Keith Tapscott. Member

    Messages:
    1,431
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Location:
    Plymouth. UK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    9.5 x 12 inches and A4 also to be included.:confused::D
     
  18. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    8,722
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Fantastic!
     
  19. Nicholas Lindan

    Nicholas Lindan Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    2,383
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    Cleveland, O
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The flies over this well flogged dead horse get thicker and thicker and the horse keeps twitching.

    For making moderately cropped 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and 11x14 prints from 35mm and 4x5 negatives, the exposure correction factors for changes in magnification follow no discernible pattern. The geometric methods [either the DA correction ruler or the (M+1)^2/(m+1)^2 method] can result in answers that range from exact to 0.2 stops off from the metered values. The previous tests show the metered values are the correct values. All the meter readings and correction values are in stops.

    Also included are test results with an opal diffuser over the negative. The results with the diffuser are close to identical to those with the normal Beseler condenser lamp housing. The conclusion is that the same behavior will be exhibited by diffusion, cold-light and dichroic enlargers.

    [​IMG]

    The cropping is for the central 2/3's of the negative to be enlarged to the full size of the print - the central 1" for 35mm, the central 3" for 4x5.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 14, 2008
  20. dancqu

    dancqu Member

    Messages:
    3,655
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Willamette V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    My quick study of this matter a few years ago had
    me turn my attention to the purchase of an OM-10.
    A more thorough study this pass confirms the
    equation you use to be THE one to use. Print
    size divided by negative size is specified
    to be the method for deriving M&m.


    Although a + 1 in each term appears to compensate
    for aperture changes and the equation is described
    as being accurate, I've not encountered any claims
    of it being exact. So I wonder if the equation is
    the last word?

    Without the + 1s results will equal those of the
    equation Nt = Ot x Ne^2/Oe^2; where the terms
    are Old, New, time, and edge.

    For more information on this subject and derivation
    of other exposure related variables search Google
    for, exposure enlargement calculations . Dan
     
  21. dancqu

    dancqu Member

    Messages:
    3,655
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Willamette V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Pardon me. That should be EM-10. I think Darkroom
    Automation's combination Enlarging Meter/Densitometer
    a good value. I'd have one except for it's appearance of
    being bulky and lacking a narrow up front sensor; good
    for metering small prints and any size print's corners.

    Any chance of a redesign Mr. Lindan? Dan
     
  22. Nicholas Lindan

    Nicholas Lindan Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    2,383
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    Cleveland, O
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It is 1" shorter and a 1/2" wider than an EM-10, with the same thickness. It is the size of a slightly long pack of 100's cigarettes (an obsolete unit of measure, I know).

    Its silicon-blue photodiode sensor is 0.008 sq in, a bit less than 3/32" on a side, comparable in size to the EM-10's CdS cell. Spots much smaller than that probably aren't important metering tones and a very small sensor is noisy because it starts to pick up grain and very fine image detail.

    It comes with a 30 day money back guarantee, if it fails to satisfy then send it back.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 16, 2008
  23. Nicholas Lindan

    Nicholas Lindan Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    2,383
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    Cleveland, O
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sanity and grace ...

    After a somewhat sleepless night, and a distracted day, I went over the magnification exposure correction calculations and measurements and found a pair of dumb errors that caused the results to get skewed.

    The (M+1)^2/(m+1)^2 formula and the metered values all agree within a few hundredths of a stop -- which is what they are supposed to do.

    [​IMG]

    The 'square law', beloved of all 7th grade science students, does still work. The law doesn't work on magnification but on distance from the light source to the screen. In this case the light source is the illuminated aperture of the lens and the screen is a point on the photographic paper (or you can turn it around, projecting a point on the paper onto the area of the aperture). The DA magnification exposure correction ruler works on this principle. An error in it's use can arise if the position of the lens' apparent aperture isn't located properly.

    The geometric forms - the ruler and (M+1)... formula - are based on thin lens formulations. The actual light fall off will deviate slightly as the size of the front entrance pupil - the effective aperture - changes a bit with lens to paper distance. You can see this by looking into a wide-open lens at several distances. In practical terms this slight error can be ignored.

    The meter has one great advantage - no math and transcription errors.

    The horse is finally dead, the flies have gone.
     
  24. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    8,722
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks for spending the time on this!
     
  25. Jimpix

    Jimpix Member

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Location:
    London
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Hi boys & girls.
    I'm new here & checked out the original question about print exposures & formulas etc....
    then came to this last page to see how long it went on for. mmmmm?
    So, just in case no-one has mentioned this method. Read on.

    I haven't done any printing for a couple of years now. But I have always used the guide told to me by my darkroom manager when I was a young lad starting in BW photo-printing.
    Based on knowing the correct exposure for an SS print (e.g. 5x4 neg to 5x4 print).
    If you measure the length of the print for a 10x8 - 10 inches (twice as long as 5 inches).
    You just open up the lens 1 f-stop. Giving twice the light strength.
    Then with the same neg do a 20x16 print (20 inches long = 4 x the original length) you open up 3 stops from original exposure.
    For example: SS exposure of 5x4 neg to 5x4 print is, say 10 sec @ f32,
    So 5x4 to 10x8 = 10 sec @ f22, & @ 15 inches long = F16 & 20 inches long = f11 @ 10 sec.
    When you run out of f-stops, you then increase the time comparable to f-stops to suit the magnification.(open up 1 stop for every 5 inches) (that's what she said?).
    This method flies in the face of the Inverse Square Law. However, it does work. I have used it since 1976 & it is usually on the button or within a 1/4 of a stop on massive blowups. But it is a very easy quick guide to save time. It also takes the 'Brain Damage' out of the job.
    BTW. 5x4 to 20x16 I open up 3 stops (equal to 8 times the illumination. Whereas Inverse Square Law would say the area is 16 times as big as the original 5x4. Thus indicating a 4 stop difference. So anyone who would like to try that little experiment & see how it pans out, please do. sometimes it can be that simple. Honest.
    Like a 10x8 neg to 15x12 print in this instance would be either 10 sec @ f22.1/2 or 15 sec @ f32 (same thing).
    And so on throughout all the percentage ranges.
    So a 10x8 neg printing to 5x4 (50% print size) would need to shut down 1 stop to f45 ( or 5 sec @ f32).
    Remember though. Start with a really good neg to form your basis. Then you can up or down the corrective exposures for heavy or thin negs accordingly.
    I think i've been quite thorough there.

    Happy printing.

    Jim
     
  26. hoffy

    hoffy Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    2,873
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Location:
    Adelaide, Au
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I read this thread last night and decided to put this theory in practice.

    While I don't agree with your example(!?), I found that the formula worked fine. Well, fine enough to be a pretty good starting point (I always test strip regardless).

    I also found this one elsewhere on the net. Same formula in essence:

    (ot/oh^2)*nh^2=nt, (old time divided by square of old height) times square of new height equals new time.

    So, thanks to this thread, I am now saving a lot more time in the darkroom!!

    Cheers
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. If you have a Photrio account, please log in (and select 'stay logged in') to prevent recurrence of this notice.