Getting into 6x9 but my enlarger can't handle that size

[88E30M50]

Title kind of says it all. I've recently begun shooting 6x9 on 120. My enlarger is a Beseler 67C, so I'll need to find something else if I want to do prints with 6x9. From what I've read, a Beseler 23C would work.

What's a good setup for doing 6x9 on 120? My max print size would be 11x14. Part of me is thinking that it makes more sense to upgrade my scanner and just print up to what I need on my Pixma 100 Pro. That will do close to 14x19 and does beautiful work. Still, if it's not too expensive to get into print enlargement in the darkroom, I'd rather go that route.

For those working in 6x9, what enlarger/lens are you using?

 

[MattKing]

A Beseler 23C would be a good option. It doesn't share many accessories though with your Beseler 67C.
You may find that a home-made 6x9 matboard carrier will permit you to enlarge most of a 6x9 negative using the 67C - particularly if you have a colour/diffusion light source on it.
My LPL 7700 works with 6x9 (well, 6x8.5 at least) after I performed a simple and reversible modification to the Universal glass carrier.
There are lots of other options, but the Beseler 23C series is probably the easiest to find in the USA.

 

[btaylor]

Yes, Beseler 23c. A most common enlarger here in the US. I have a 105mm El Nikkor on mine.

 

[Rick A]

If you're up for a road trip.....

For Sale - Beseler 23 Cii Enlarger Kit

Well kept 23c enlarger for 35mm up to 6x9cm negatives. includes everything you see, timer, trays, neg carriers for 35mm, 2x2 mounted slide, 6x9 , 50mm and 105mm Schneider lenses on lensboards, owners manual, contrast filters, extra light bulbs. Enlarger has filter drawer, heat absorbing glass...

www.photrio.com

 

[Mark J]

I've used a Meopta Magnifax for years, very affordable and worked great , but may not be so cheap in the US.
It's not a luxury build quality but served me well for 25 years until I went a bit crazy and bought a Durst 138S .

 

[xkaes]

You should be able to find a 23C (there were several models) for next to nothing. A couple of months ago, the camera shop down the street was offering a Beseler 45 (a bigger version of the 23C) for $25. I was tempted, but I already have one.

And if you have room, you can keep your 67 -- and split the work. For example, the 67 for smaller format, color work, one diffusion, the other condenser, etc. Having two enlargers can be handy.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

Printing 6x9 onto 11x14 paper (likely) means you won’t be printing the whole negative, so maybe you can just position the negative in the 6x7 carrier of your current enlarger.

I loved my Beseler 23C and only sold it because I needed an enlarger that could handle 4x5 negatives and my micro-darkroom couldn’t fit two enlargers.

 

[GregY]

Printing 6x9 onto 11x14 paper (likely) means you won’t be printing the whole negative, so maybe you can just position the negative in the 6x7 carrier of your current enlarger.

I loved my Beseler 23C and only sold it because I needed an enlarger that could handle 4x5 negatives and my micro-darkroom couldn’t fit two enlargers.

Steve, I'd bet most photographers using 6x9, print to full frame negative proportions, rather than cropping to fit standard paper sizes.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Title kind of says it all. I've recently begun shooting 6x9 on 120. My enlarger is a Beseler 67C, so I'll need to find something else if I want to do prints with 6x9. From what I've read, a Beseler 23C would work.

What's a good setup for doing 6x9 on 120? My max print size would be 11x14. Part of me is thinking that it makes more sense to upgrade my scanner and just print up to what I need on my Pixma 100 Pro. That will do close to 14x19 and does beautiful work. Still, if it's not too expensive to get into print enlargement in the darkroom, I'd rather go that route.

For those working in 6x9, what enlarger/lens are you using?

I use a 4x5 enlarger and a 105mm lens for 6x9 on 120.

 

[xkaes]

Steve, I'd bet most photographers using 6x9, print to full frame negative proportions, rather than cropping to fit standard paper sizes.

And let's not forget panoramas. With 6x9 it's tempting to chop it in half and go 3x9 (AKA 6x18), etc. -- very impressive.

 

[Paul Howell]

As noted you can 3d print or matt cut a negative carrier for your 6X7, or even file the 6X7 carrier out to 6X9. The 23c is very common, a heavy well built enlarger popular in high schools and college darkrooms. You can find 23c somewhat cheap, that is if it is local, shipping drives the price up. Like Raphlabrecht I use my D3, a 4X5 with a 105 or 90mm lens for 6X9. With a 90mm I can enlarge up to 16X20 on the baseboard and larger when shooting to the floor. D2s are common as are most the lens boards, cones, and negative carriers, the Beseler 45 is another great enlarger. The only question how much room do have, by room I mean the footprint. The base board of my Meopta 6X6 is only 2inch narrower and 4 inches shallower in depth than my D3. If you go with a Omega or Beseler 4X5 you have the option of moving up to LF.

 

[MattKing]

As noted you can 3d print or matt cut a negative carrier for your 6X7, or even file the 6X7 carrier out to 6X9.

Try the mat board before filing anything out. The 67C negative holders for 6x7 don't have much metal outside the standard opening.
The light path is also close to "maxed out" at 6x7, so 6x9 may be a bit too much.
Here is an image of the carrier:

The housing it slides into and the light path above and below isn't much bigger than the opening.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Steve, I'd bet most photographers using 6x9, print to full frame negative proportions, rather than cropping to fit standard paper sizes.

Exactly, and even with the black negative borders...

 

[88E30M50]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'll start looking for a 23C locally. There is a ton of great info here to get me going.

 

[Don_ih]

Forget the 6x9 enlarger. Get a 4x5 enlarger. Assume you'll end up with a 4x5 camera at some point and want to make enlargements. And you'll need at least a 100mm lens for that size negative.

 

[ic-racer]

As Donih mentions, I'd also recommend a 4x5" enlarger.

 

[guangong]

During the heyday of 6x9 cameras, most likely simple contact prints were the norm.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

A long while ago a member here (konakoa) figured out a way to modify the Beseler 23C to handle 4x5 negatives. This would give you the best of both worlds. I only wish I'd known of this before I sold my 23C to get a 45MX-II.

The enlarger needed some permanent physical modification to accept an Omega 4x5 carrier. Presumably you could use Omega carriers for smaller formats (like 6x9) as well. I don't know if the modified enlarger would still accept Beseler carriers, he didn't say in his web page and I never thought to ask. He also built his own LED light source for b&w on variable contrast paper.

The web page describing this is long gone but I have the files. Happy to send to anyone providing an email address. Please do so via PM, the mods and common sense dictate that you shouldn't post it publicly.

 

[88E30M50]

I have been thinking about 4x5 in the future. It would make sense to think about too before I pick up a 2nd enlarger.

 

[MattKing]

The only caution I would share about going straight to a 4x5 enlarger is that some of them are a bit harder to use with 35mm or smaller negatives, or at least with the shorter focal length lenses that are normally used with smaller negatives.
With my Omega D6, I ended up using a 60mm lens for 35mm negatives. The extended column height of the D6, and the fact that my enlarger sat on a lower cart, made that easy to do.

 

[images39]

I use an LPL 4500 enlarger for 6 x 9, which is the largest negative I'll ever use. It's a very well-designed enlarger, but it's usually pretty costly and a bit harder to find. I agree that the Beseler 23C is very common and inexpensive. I often see them listed locally, and sometimes they are practically being given away.

Dale

 

[Don_ih]

The only caution I would share about going straight to a 4x5 enlarger is that some of them are a bit harder to use with 35mm or smaller negatives

He has a Beseler 67C for 6x7 and smaller. So, unless he gets a good trade-in allowance....

But, yes - my Omega D2 would be ridiculous to use for 35mm - even though I have a holder.

 

[loccdor]

Yes, Beseler 23c. A most common enlarger here in the US. I have a 105mm El Nikkor on mine.

This was my exact setup for my 3x3ft darkroom closet that I had set up for a year. It fit. I'm not sure how well a 4x5 enlarger would fit in a small space, if that's a concern. I personally feel medium format has as much detail as I would practically need and there are some cameras with all the movements that take a roll film back.

 

[Paul Howell]

He has a Beseler 67C for 6x7 and smaller. So, unless he gets a good trade-in allowance....

But, yes - my Omega D2 would be ridiculous to use for 35mm - even though I have a holder.

Not really, the D line was designed for negatives from 1/2 frame, 110 to 4X5, pros wanted camera that could handle all formats. The Air Force used Ds, we had D5 later replaced after I left with D6 pro with color heads. We shot 35mm, 6X6, 6X7, even had a baby speed in 6X9 and 4X5, lens matched to focusing arms for AF. With the EX column 35mm to 4X5 to 16X20 no problem. I have a D3 and a Metopa 6X6 which I use for 35mm and 6X6 only becuase when working I like to work on 2 negatives at a time. While test strips and prints are drying I can work on another negative. If I decided to give up an enlarger I would keep the D3.

 

[Don_ih]

Not really

Compared to using a proper 35mm enlarger? You can use a shovel to put coffee grounds in your filter in the morning, but it would be absurd to do so if you have a spoon.