Juan Valdenebro
Allowing Ads
I agreeJuan, I would not suggest using a low contrast enlarging lens. Instead I would suggest using a good lens, and variable contrast printing paper.
Hi, this story comes from a previous thread... Yes, I use VC paper... I want a lower contrast lens after using VC paper with a condenser enlarger and well pushed film for many years... As others think, I can print my pushed negatives better with a bit less contrasty projected image... Thanks.Juan, I would not suggest using a low contrast enlarging lens. Instead I would suggest using a good lens, and variable contrast printing paper.
Hi, this story comes from a previous thread... Yes, I use VC paper... I want a lower contrast lens after using VC paper with a condenser enlarger and well pushed film for many years... As others think, I can print my pushed negatives better with a bit less contrasty projected image... Thanks.Juan, I would not suggest using a low contrast enlarging lens. Instead I would suggest using a good lens, and variable contrast printing paper.
Hi, I don't want soft images. Thanks.If you want soft images why buy a condenser enlarger? A condenser will give you an inherently more contrasty image, hence sharp grain prints. You may have been better off buying a diffuser enlarger for what you are trying to achieve.
+1 Yes, so do I. A good and clear lens, unless mushy images are your goal.I agree
... Rather than crippling your equipment by using a lower quality lens, try using a softer working print developer such as Selectol-Soft.
That appearance of lower contrast may be due to a number of factors, and may not represent an actual difference in contrast.Interesting... When I enlarged MF with my Rodenstock 80 (I don't remember which model: it's inside a big moving box yet) I got less contrasty prints (same enlarger, same paper, same filter, same developer and same complete paper development) than when I enlarged same contrast 35mm negatives with my Nikkor 50.
Hello Matt, perhaps magnification... When I compared both of them, both were films I had calibrated already: exposed and developed (kodak´s gray card included in the frames) for the same negative contrast... I thought the difference in contrast on prints was because my MF Rodenstock lens wasn´t as contrasty as my Nikkor... But maybe magnification was relevant...That appearance of lower contrast may be due to a number of factors, and may not represent an actual difference in contrast.
Different cameras, different lenses, different films, different development and different magnification.
Hello Svenedin, sure it sounds well designed... Thanks for the information and link...
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?