A frosted bulb generates heat. The glass is to absorb heat to prevent the negative from buckling.
Just got a D2 Enlarger!
-
A
- Thread starter kfed1984
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Trade For Trade, Nikon D750 DSLR for Leica lllf
- Started by dankapsner
-
For Sale Yashica GSN Rangefinder -- $100 shipped CONUS (read)
- Started by Kino
-
For Sale 220 Film - Kodak/Fujifilm
- Started by corposant
Forum statistics
A frosted bulb generates heat. The glass is to absorb heat to prevent the negative from buckling.
OP
OP
yes but if you have a frosted/matte LED bulb, big round one, it should not produce any heat at all.
OP
OP
How about this one, 6.5" diameter, should fit into the condenser lens tray. Just not as expensive as other ones.
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
The condensers and the rest of the light path are designed with the shape of the bulb and the position of the light source (filament) within the bulb considered. Changing to an LED bulb may affect the evenness of the illumination. In addition, LED bulbs deliver light with a more or less discontinuous spectrum, so the effect of multigrade filtration may be less predictable.
With my LPL enlarger, the closest LED substitution for the halogen bulb it was designed for puts out less light as well.
With my LPL enlarger, the closest LED substitution for the halogen bulb it was designed for puts out less light as well.
Measure first. I believe the condenser tray is only 5” wide. But then again the seller states diameter and the item looks rectangular. The Omega glass is about 1/2 the thickness too, if the seller got that one right, could be the box size.
One of the advantages of the Omega enlarges is that these are so easy for DIY modifications, mine was an autofocus but I haden't the right lenses...
And at the cones can be worked too...
And at the cones can be worked too...
I use a regular-size LED bulb. Nothing gets hot but it does boost contrast. Illumination is even for 4x5.
You may as well try it. Spending $4 on a bulb and seeing for yourself is faster than reading spurious opinions online.
Not sure you'll get to use the 190 and 210 without an added 2-3 inches on your cone.
See what I had to do to fit the 150mm, this was a cone for a 105mm...
OP
OP
Yes, did you manage to keep the lens alignment this way? It's a homebuilt modification, with carbon fiber or what is it? I now have a couple of lens cones, one of them is quite long, so hopefully I won't need this for my 190/210mm.
Last edited:
OP
OP
I now have one of these long cones you showed earlier, lets see if it works. I think my lens arrived at home today, just got a notification.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Mind sharing the details of the LED bulb make/size?
OP
OP
also can you share some details of that focusing know mod? I have to put my face near the easel on the grain finder while holding up my arm if the weirdest manner. It makes for a good stretching exercise but not for fine darkroom work.
Why would you need a 190/210mm, the D2 is a 4"x5" format enlarger for which you only need a 150mm?
As you can see, for the 150mm, I used a threaded rod to mount the lens flange on the cone, by this I could carefully trim the distance by less than a mm.
Then I cut a pice of PVC evacuation tube, trimmed it with sand paper, blackened, and put is in between the flange and the cone...
The other one, for the 80mm, is made of black Acrylic glass, because it was what I had at hand and is so easy to be worked on, and is sturdy enough!
The lens flange is mounted with threaded rods too, to keep it simple...
I had to put something in between the 50mm lens and the plate as that lens stack out too far and so I couldn't slide it in the lens holder. Again I used Acrylic glass, a threaded rod and some washers to trim...
Be aware: a caliper comes in very handy, actually, it's paramount!
Just a regular LED bulb that looks like a white light bulb.
I don't know, but by the time you get a 210 lens on the enlarger and focus the 4x5 negative with the enlarger head at the top of the mast, I think your projection will be something less than 8x10 inches.
That's a good solution. That's probably about as long as you could make your extension without losing coverage.
OP
OP
Well I'm thinking of making 8x10 color contact prints. But also I'm thinking 4x5 negatives enlarged to 8x10 or so may be just as sharp as 8x10 contacts and less expensive, as color 8x10 film is like $30/sheet. A longer focal length lens should be less susceptible to film buckling issues, enlarger misalignment, and be more sharp across the field. The smaller the angle, the easier it is to make a sharp image as I understand. Also dust should be a lesser issue, as dust particles are not being enlarged as much.
A contact print will always be sharper than an enlarged one, given the same film and processing. The advantage of a longer focal lens is you will only be using the sweet spot and not the edges, so the enlarged image should be sharper and more even edge to edge. The downside is you won't be able to enlarge it as much. The lens has absolutely nothing to do with film buckling, that is due to the flatness of the negative. A cold light source such as an LED that emits the proper spectrum (not a cold light head that needs diffusion and will not produce as sharp an image) or better yet, a glass negative carrier should deal with that. Dust is dust and if I understand you are comparing an 8x10 negative contact print to an 8x10 enlargement from 4x5 film, the lens once again has nothing to do with it, the 4x5 dust will be larger, but there is more chance the 8x10 will have the possibility of more dust, just because of the relative surface area. Try to work in a dust-free environment and clean your film carefully and well, and dust will be less of an issue.
I use the standard 4 element Wollenask 162 for 5X7 and 8X10, for 11X14 and larger I use the 6 element version. I also have a Vivitar anasgimat 150 F 4.5 which is early 6 element design, made in Germany, not sure who made it for Vivitar, pretty good lens but not as sharp as my Wollensake's. Other decent option for not much money is the Kodak Enlarging Ektanon 161 which is a 4 element tessar type. If I were to consider an upgrade it would a Nikon 6 element 150.
OP
OP
Contact print may be sharper, but the idea is that 4x5 to 8x10 enlargement with a very good setup is the closest to a true 8x10 contact print. Enlargement from 4x5 to 8x10 paper should make the dust less prominent than from 35mm to 8x10. On 35mm it's a problem because a small speck that you didn't catch will be enlarged by a lot. There's not much enlargement from 4x5 to 8x10, and even if there's more area to gather dust, it will not be magnified as much. I think micro dust specks are not really an issue, kind of like on contact prints from a dusty negative, since there's no magnification and you have to peer really hard to see the dust specks. Regarding the film buckling; enlarging from 4x5 to 8x10 using lets say 135mm lens should be a bit more sensitive to film buckling than enlarging with 210mm lens to 8x10. The shorter the focal length the more impact of the uneven negative.
35mm was never mentioned, this seems to have become just a theoretical discussion for the sake of it. And please explain why a 135mm lens would be more sensitive to the effects of film buckling than a much longer 210mm? Are you sure you will be able to make an 8x10 enlargement using a 210mm lens that the enlarger was never designed to be equipped with?
OP
OP
Regarding the film buckling, I came up with this little diagram just now. For 135mm lens (f/8 lets say) the ratio d/f1 is larger than d/f2 for 210mm lens with same f-number. This is just a schematic. I am thinking that for the shorter focal length the effect of film shifting out of the focal plane has a greater relative blurring effect than for longer focal length lenses when all are enlarged to 8x10 paper. Also I didn't take into account that 210mm lens has to be positioned a lot farther from the negative than 135mm lens, possibly making this effect stronger. This is just a theory, needs to be tested still.
OP
OP
I used the 35mm lens as an exaggerated example. Saying that enlarging from 35mm to 8x10 may be less problematic in terms of dust and film bucking than from 4x5 to 8x10. The best 8x10 print is a contact print no doubt.
I doubt that the enlarger will project 8x10 with a 210 - it may make it with a 190.
Film buckling is just as significant with any focal length. If you set up the enlarger with any lens and focus a negative, you will find the slightest adjustment to the focus makes the grain blurry. Stopping down the lens can will deepen the field of focus a little.
Glass negative carriers are the way to deal with potential film buckling.
Film buckling is just as significant with any focal length. If you set up the enlarger with any lens and focus a negative, you will find the slightest adjustment to the focus makes the grain blurry. Stopping down the lens can will deepen the field of focus a little.
Glass negative carriers are the way to deal with potential film buckling.
It really all seems like it could lead to nowhere. I just hope you enjoy the experiment you are embarking on. So many factors affect image sharpness, from the basics of lens quality and design, f-stop used, negative stage/lens/baseboard alignment and enlarger stability, cleanliness of negative, use of a glass carrier, alignment of the light source to the condensers and the use of a grain/focusing magnifier. None of those (beyond cleanliness) will affect a contact print, so the comparison doesn't really need to be done. The main factors that might hamper the 8x10 film vs 4x5 or even medium format is that lens quality might not be as good, as well as the flatness and alignment of the film in the camera. Also, 8x10 film exposures tend to be longer because of slower lenses and that could introduce softness.
I agree with Don Heisz, doubt a D2 or any Omega D will take a 210, or if you made a cone you have to turn the enlarger around to project to the floor to print an 8X10 from 4X5. I use standard LED bulbs, I buy GE, 1055 Lumens which seems to cover 4X5 with my 162mm lens. My negatives are scaled to print grade 2, at grade 2 or 3 I dont have any issues with contrast. If I have negative that needs to printed grade 4 I switch back to a standard tungsten bulb. Other option is to find a cold light head, they pop up on Ebay for not too much money. Have no idea was a LED head costs.
| 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:  |