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.
Half Frame Enlarging
-
A
- Thread starter NortheastPhotographic
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Sinar Depth of Field Scales
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Lot of Five (5) 4"x5" Sheet Film Holders - $20+S/H
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Mamiya N 65mm (For Mamiya 7 / Mamiya 7II)
- Started by RoboRepublic
Forum statistics
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,771
- Format
- 35mm
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.
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.
Some of us think that 11x14" is just the start.
www.photrio.com
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
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.
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.
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
Moderator
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.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |