Half Frame Enlarging

[xkaes]

I think the limiting factor is space between the lens and photo paper.

And it depends on what size prints you might make. A 50mm will work fine on half-frame -- and you'll only be using the central part of the enlargers glass which is usually the sharpest. But if you want to make larger prints, like me, you can easily run out of enlarger column -- depending on the enlarger, of course. A 50mm gives you much more space between the lens and the paper which can be nice when making smaller prints. There are pros and cons. Since enlarging lenses are so inexpensive, I use a 28mm f4.

 

[xkaes]

Here are frame sizes:

10mm x 14mm Original Minolta 16

12mm x 17mm Minolta MG/MGS 16mm frames

13mm x 17mm 110 Film negative size

18mm x 24mm 1/2 Half frame 35mm film size

17.3 mm x 13 mm Four Thirds/Micro Four Thirds sensor size

A minor correction and some additions.

All of the Minolta 16mm cameras have a 10x14mm image except the MGs and the QT which have a 12x17mm image. The original MG -- one of my favorites -- is 10x14mm.

The Kiev Vega models (based on the Minolta 16, but with a focusing lens) have a 10x14mm format, while their later 30, 30M & 303 models have a 13x17mm format (but require unperforated 16mm film).

Then there are the HIT-type cameras that used 17.5mm film and have a 14x14mm image, and Minox of course, with an 8x11mm image.

There's a wide variety of submini format sizes. Fortunately, there are a wide variety of submini enlarging lenses from 15mm to 38mm. What works for half-frame will create problems for Minox.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've used a 50 and it worked fine. Am I missing out on something?

To a 11X14? I have a standard D3, with an XL column,might have gotten to 11X14, with my standard I would by shooting to the floor.
8X10 seemed to be max for a 50mm.

 

[MattKing]

What would they be used for now? Who would still be making them?

For example, Schneider Kreuznach:

 

[Cholentpot]

To a 11X14? I have a standard D3, with an XL column,might have gotten to 11X14, with my standard I would by shooting to the floor.
8X10 seemed to be max for a 50mm.

I've not tried to go larger than 8x10 with half-frame.

 

[xkaes]

I've not tried to go larger than 8x10 with half-frame.

You don't know what you're missing.

 

[dcy]

I've not tried to go larger than 8x10 with half-frame.

You don't know what you're missing.

That's nothing. I haven't enlarged anything to 8x10 yet.

I have 8x10 paper. Had it for a while. But I haven't yet had a print that I felt was worth enlarging beyond 5x7. I put 5x7 enlargements in a photo album. If I enlarged to 8x10, it'd be something I'd want to hang on the wall.

 

[Paul Howell]

That's nothing. I haven't enlarged anything to 8x10 yet.

I have 8x10 paper. Had it for a while. But I haven't yet had a print that I felt was worth enlarging beyond 5x7. I put 5x7 enlargements in a photo album. If I enlarged to 8x10, it'd be something I'd want to hang on the wall.

With a computer designed lens, tripod, remote, Tmax 100 acuance type developer I think you could go to 11X14. In the 60s and 70s there were a number of articles in Modern and Pop Photography magazines about getting 11X14 with Pen F and fine grain film of the day like Panatomic X, tripod and cable release. So make space on your wall.

 

[xkaes]

Some of us think that 11x14" is just the start.

Olympus Pen F Lens Performance Analysis

Adapted from this magazine article from 1969, I made a spreadsheet comparing 9 of the half frame lenses. As we know, these numbers can be more important when talking about small formats. A resolution of 80 was the maximum the test could determine. Values of 90 imply it was above their...

www.photrio.com

 

[Paul Howell]

My Pen F is a 1.4 is in the database, when I shot a few rolls with either plusX or panX, maybe Agfa 25 I could print a 8X10, with modern film and a modern lens a 11X14 will be possible, larger, Tmax 100 grain will not be an issue, it's just that a 1/2 Frame 35mm negative will have the detail of a full frame 35mm, at point will lack of detail become the issue.

 

[MTGseattle]

I vaguely remember trying to sort small enlarging lenses out quite a few years back. My Dad had a Minolta 16mg and I have the stash of negatives from that camera. I have a Rodenstock 28mm ( Omegaron I think) that I got really cheap that should work, but I have never experimented with any of it.

 

[dcy]

If half-frame is good for 11x14" prints (assuming modern lens + modern film), I really don't get why some people rag on half-frame. I've lost count of how many times I've heard that I can't expect good prints from my little half frames, or that I really should get at least a full frame camera.

 

[MattKing]

If half-frame is good for 11x14" prints (assuming modern lens + modern film), I really don't get why some people rag on half-frame. I've lost count of how many times I've heard that I can't expect good prints from my little half frames, or that I really should get at least a full frame camera.

Most likely some of that is coming from the same sort of people - myself included - who prefer printing from medium format or large format over 35mm.
Note that I use the word "prefer".
Part of that preference relates to how the rendering of images changes when using longer focal length "standard, moderate wide angle or moderate telephoto lenses, as the size of formats increase.
Some of the preference probably also relates to how concerns with dust and handling damage are magnified with smaller formats.
And finally, many of us have legacy experience with older film emulsions and 35mm full and half frame cameras that influences our opinions, despite our objective knowledge about more modern improvements.
Back when they were current, I think I put one or two rolls of Tri-X through my high school's Olympus Pen cameras, and it was a lot less satisfying than when I got to print the negatives from the (borrowed) full frame 35mm and medium format cameras I also had access to at the time. And when I got my new OM-1, and shortly thereafter my C330, the difference was even more striking.

 

[Paul Howell]

If half-frame is good for 11x14" prints (assuming modern lens + modern film), I really don't get why some people rag on half-frame. I've lost count of how many times I've heard that I can't expect good prints from my little half frames, or that I really should get at least a full frame camera.

For me, it about the amount of detail, assuming that a lens can resolve Tmax at 200LPM, given the same angle of view, 35mm full frame has double LPM, more detail. But, it all depends on the subject and if the subject screams out of detail. To see what works for you, you need to find a subject with lots of detail and shoot it then print as large as your enlarger will allow, see how it grabs you.

 

[xkaes]

If half-frame is good for 11x14" prints (assuming modern lens + modern film), I really don't get why some people rag on half-frame. I've lost count of how many times I've heard that I can't expect good prints from my little half frames, or that I really should get at least a full frame camera.

People that shoot 120 (medium) format often "look down" on 35mm format users -- just like large format camera users often have disparaging words about any smaller format. But there are lots of people that love the BIG prints from their Minox (8x11mm) cameras -- like this:

 

[grain elevator]

There even are people who use paintbrushes that cannot even resolve 10 lp/mm. Crazy.

 

[Paul Howell]

People that shoot 120 (medium) format often "look down" on 35mm format users -- just like large format camera users often have disparaging words about any smaller format. But there are lots of people that love the BIG prints from their Minox (8x11mm) cameras -- like this:

View attachment 406897

Great example of a small negative that can be printed big as fine detail is not needed to capture the emotion of the shot.

 

[dcy]

Great example of a small negative that can be printed big as fine detail is not needed to capture the emotion of the shot.

+1

 

[xkaes]

The smaller the camera, the easier it is to capture the decisive moment -- often without the subject knowing their picture is being taken.

 

[Paul Howell]

Eugene Smith did a series of add for the PenF, saying that the PenF was the same size a Leica III F, the photo illustration showed a Pen F fitting into a shoe. I don't recall ever seeing a photo taken by Smith with Pen.

 

[aoresteen]

I make 11x14 prints from my Minolta 16 MGs negatives and my Pentax Auto 110 negatives. The size limitation is driven by the photographer not the camera/negative.

 

[brbo]

The size limitation is driven by the photographer not the camera/negative.

Sounds like something a guy with a Leica, Hasselblad, Rolleiflex and other LF cameras would say*.

Seriously though, you will never match (ceteris paribus) a larger piece of film. And this is not an opinion, it's physics.


* full disclosure: this is coming from a guy with Leica, Hasselblad, LF and other fine cameras

 

[xkaes]

Seriously though, you will never match (ceteris paribus) a larger piece of film. And this is not an opinion, it's physics.

Larger format lenses don't resolve as much as smaller format lenses. That's one of the reasons that Minox users can get such amazing results from a tiny 8x11mm image. Many a Minox has been used by many a spy to record documents with high definition under horrible lighting conditions. But much depends -- as with any format -- on the film being used and the techniques of the photographer. Even a large format user can end up with poor results -- I read about it every day in the LARGE FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM.

 

[Paul Howell]

Other reason for LF performance is the ability to use movements to compensate (increase) for shallow depth of field, most LF is shot on a tripod with cable release, larger format allows for larger prints without gain becoming an issue, developers can be used for edge effect. Although some LF lens may not resolve as many LPM as 35mm or 1/2 frame, the increased number of lines make up for any issues with lower lens resolution. And larger negative show fewer defects, dust, pin hole and the like. That not LF is better than smaller formates, I genearlly shoot 6X9 rather than 4X5 as modern films such as Tmax which reslove 200LPM and with fine grain I can use acuance developers, I tend to only use 4X5 for movement.

 

[aoresteen]

Sounds like something a guy with a Leica, Hasselblad, Rolleiflex and other LF cameras would say*.

Seriously though, you will never match (ceteris paribus) a larger piece of film. And this is not an opinion, it's physics.


* full disclosure: this is coming from a guy with Leica, Hasselblad, LF and other fine cameras

Maybe. You are assuming that the larger film has been properly exposed & developed.

I have used a 5x7 view camera & a 4x5 view camera with varying results over the years. I now use my Cambo SF23 with rollbacks & sheet film. I understand the physics you refer to. I have made plenty of 4x5 & 5x7 negatives that were over exposed & over developed and the results were horrible and worse than my 120, 35mm, & 16mm negatives. It was my fault - not the camera's or the lens's. And I have plenty of negatives from my Minolta MGs using Panatomic-X & Microdol-X that I make very nice 11x14 prints from. The negatives were properly exposed & developed. My bad large format negatives ARE worse than my miniature good negatives.

And yes, I have acquired nice equipment since I started taking photos in 1964 with a British 127 Kodak Brownie 8 exposure camera. I still make mistakes. but the fault lies with me, not the gear. My first "decent" 120 film camera was a 1955 Hasselblad 1000F & 80mm Ektar lens that I bought in late 1976. I got rid of it because at 1/60 & below the mirror slap caused blurred images even when on a tripod. And it had been overhauled by the Hasselblad factory in 1977 but the blur remained. My 1969 500C is far better than the 1000F. As are my Hasselblad 2000FC/M cameras. I buy nice gear because they are more reliable.

Ansel Adams made very good negatives from 35mm & 120 film. And he made the case for smaller cameras in certain situations.

So I stand by my statement "The (print) size limitation is driven by the photographer not the camera/negative."