Old-N-Feeble
Allowing Ads
...film sag...
Ian .. one person's "no problem" is another person's nightmare. He wants to make big precise prints. That's a game changer in required technique.
A glass carrier is necessary for a horizontal 4"x5" enlarger when a negative needs to be flattened to eliminate a warp, curl or bent. This is more noticeable when dealing with half [single] frame negatives and panorama negatives.
I am not familiar with the Beseler Negaflat, but will it work with 35mm film and 16mm film?
Five minutes is a LONG time. You're into serious recip failure territory, with the dog endlessly chasing its own tail. A true mural colorhead
would punch it in mere seconds, maybe too fast. But I have a custom industrial coldlight for 8x10 that would probably do it within 30 sec.
LED is still an adolescent option - a great concept, but still tentative in terms of track record. Serious enlarger like the true industrial Durst
models were made to accept many different options in terms of light sources, as well as take a wide range of carrier. There were also various aftermarket options made by others for them, due to their standardization. Or some of us with a bit of shop experience make our own custom gear. In this respect, 8x10 is a better option than 4x5 not only because of the greater amount of detail it will hold, but because it doesn't require as much magnification. But you need to think Durst or Devere if you want something already on the map. And no, that
Rodagon G isn't usable at f/5.6 except for general center focus. It needs to be two stops further down for edge to edge optimization.
With 8x10 film you'd have to be down past f/32 to have a serious problem with diffraction. A bigger problem will be just coming up with the
shots themselves that hold up to this scale. Lots of people want to make big prints but don't recognize all the logistical hurdles involved. Sure, there used to be franchises which had almost a big silo or tower alongside the building, which would take any neg from anyone and make an inexpensive mural for them. Garbage in/garbage out. A billboard company can do that. But doing precise large work is in a different league. One of the factors I failed to mention in the glass versus glassless debate is that sheet films differ one from another in stiffness. Some of the classic "thick emulsion" films were fairly stiff. Today not all are; and with color sheet film, the acetate based films are downright flimsy compared to polyester base products. I have no personal interest in big just for the sake of big. Nowadays that is more easily accomplished via inkjet anyway. But no matter what you do, at over 20X magnification nothing is going to look crisp close up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?