large format printing - 4x5

MarcoGiardini

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
93
Location
Milano - Ita
Format
Multi Format
Finally i have got my durst 1200 laborator for printing large format (4x5) sheet.
What focal lenght do I need for printing?
May i use the 80mm used for my 6x6 / 6x9 ?
Thanks

marco
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,286
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
A 135 Componon or Componon S is designed for 5x4, and this focal length can often be a little more practical than a 150mm.

I was surprised at the image circle of my 80mm Componon S it almost covers 5x4 but vignettes the corners.

Ian
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
IF it doesn't vignette, the shorter focal length will make it hard to do dodging and burning because it will bring the enlarger head too close to the paper for a comfortable working distance. But most likely it will vignette and produce uneven illumination across the image area it does cover.
 

Marco B

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
2,736
Location
The Netherla
Format
Multi Format
MarcoGiardini said:
what happens if i use a shorter lens? Vignetting?
Click to expand...

In addition to what the FlyingCamera said (or a variation upon it), with the wrong lens attached to it, you may find you can not focus the projected image at the enlargement size you want to achieve.

Regular uses of lenses are:

35mm: 50mm lens
MF: 105mm
LF: 150mm

At least, that is the set of lenses I have with mine...

Congratulations with your L1200 by the way! It is a great machine to work with.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,286
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Marco, a 105mm is rather long for 6x45 and 6x6, it's great for 6x9 but quite impractical for the others, on a bench mounted enlarger.

I made the mistake of fitting my 105mm to my Durst last week and couldn't understand why I needed full column height to make a relatively small (for me) enlargement, mine looks identical to my 80mm Componon S

Ian
 

fschifano

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
3,196
Location
Valley Strea
Format
Multi Format
The 80 mm lens is good for 6x6, and some of the 80 mm lenses are god for 6x7. None are good for 4x5. For that you need a 135 or 150 mm lens. The larger the negative, the longer the lens you need to provide adequate coverage without vignetting and with good sharpness. That's just the way it is.
 

Rick A

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,966
Location
Laurel Highlands
Format
8x10 Format
I have both a 150mm and 135mm for printing 4x5 negs on my Omega ProLab 4x5, prefer the 135. The 150 works well for smaller prints, but anything above 11x14 I switch to the 135, that way I dont have to raise my enlarger head so very high and makes for easier adjustments without having to stretch. I have a Wollensak 90mm enlarging Raptar that was designed for 6x9, it covers extremely well with no fall-off in the corners, I use it for 6x6 and 6x9 negatives.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
If you need a recommendation of a high-quality yet affordable enlarging lens for 4x5, The El-Nikkor 135 f5.6 is a terrific lens. I picked up one new-in-box on Ebay a while back for $100 (I think). Although you're not likely to find that good a deal anytime soon, they're still a fair bit cheaper than the Schneider and/or Rodenstock lenses.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,286
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
If you go round asking (pro labs who have downsized) you may be lucky and find a turret or two full of lenses from older roll head printers. I was given two turrets full of Compons about 4 or 5 years ago, every thing from 50mm to 135mm. I donated the spares to a school and a workshop facility as well members at the time via APUG.

Ian
 

Marco B

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
2,736
Location
The Netherla
Format
Multi Format

Ah well, you may well be right. To be honest, I still haven't used my L1200 for MF, because I also still need to get a MF camera

However, the L1200 came with, besides other stuff for 35mm and 4x5, a 105mm lens and a MF mixing box, so I always assumed it was for MF since the 150mm worked with 4x5 for most normal purposes... Well, have to have a closer look in the box of unused parts, maybe there is an 80mm lens in there too.
 

fschifano

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
3,196
Location
Valley Strea
Format
Multi Format

...and I can vouch for that. I've had a 135 El-Nikkor for a while and it is a fine lens. I've absolutely no complaints with it. Recently, I picked up a 135 Schneider Componon-S and decided to do some comparisons between the two. Bottom line? No difference that I can see on the print. They're both fantastic lenses.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,686
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format

That's my experience with the 50 and 80mm comparisons too.
 

fschifano

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
3,196
Location
Valley Strea
Format
Multi Format
RalphLambrecht said:
That's my experience with the 50 and 80mm comparisons too.
Click to expand...

I should run the comparison between my 50 mm f/2.8 El-Nikkor and another 50 mm f/2.8 Schneider Componon-S that I have too. But I'm not terribly fond of the 50 mm Schneider. The click stops for the aperture don't have a very positive detent, and this is an earlier lens without the preset stop down lever. That makes it difficult to set the aperture as precisely as I'd like. I have used it on a new to me Beseler 45MXT and found nothing lacking optically with this lens either. If you stick to the big three, Nikon, Schneider, and Rodenstock, you can't really go wrong. Only the obsessively compulsive would worry about having a matched set.
 

23mjm

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
450
Location
Rocklin, Cal
Format
Medium Format
As stated by a few above--the Nikon 135mm works wonderfully and I haven't noticed any issues with dodging n burning. Plenty of room.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,686
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format

Exactly right, and I have to admit to belong to that group.
 

NikoSperi

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
575
Location
Italy
Format
Multi Format
Ciao Marco,
I just got back here from a long absence.
A few years back I recovered a Laborator from a closing lab. It was in pieces and is a huge piece of rusting junk.
But...
I did also get some lenses and have a Schneider 150mm which I even had serviced. Not being able to use the enlarger, I can give you the lense...
As we're neighbours, should be easy if you're still looking.
PM me if interested.
 

darkroom_rookie

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
386
Format
Medium Format
Just out of curiosity, what is the required distance between the lens and the paper if one were to use a 210mm lens for very large prints - 60" and up - from 4x5? I'm guessing around 12-15 feet. Anyone tried/done that?

Thanks
d_rookie
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
I don't know about the actual distance, but it would be counterproductive as it would increase the distance between the film and the paper significantly, which would require an exponentially brighter light source to yield acceptable enlarging times - you'd be looking at possibly having to compute reciprocity for your enlarging paper if you were trying to print anything other than wide open. Just to give you an idea, a 4x5 enlarger typically takes a 250-300 watt bulb. An 8x10 enlarger often uses a combined 500 - 1000 watts using one or more bulbs.
 

darkroom_rookie

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
386
Format
Medium Format
Could you expand on the reciprocity problem? If it can help, the paper is Ultra Endura N, I'm using a 210mm Rodagon-G lens and only wide open (5.6) and the bulb is a 200 watt one. Enlargement ratio would be around 15x. I haven't decided on the film yet, but I can easily re-shoot. And I can have it processed very well, pulled if necessary, to reduce contrast.

d_rookie
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,686
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
darkroom_rookie said:
Just out of curiosity, what is the required distance between the lens and the paper if one were to use a 210mm lens for very large prints - 60" and up - from 4x5? I'm guessing around 12-15 feet. Anyone tried/done that?

Thanks
d_rookie
Click to expand...

The required distance (u) between the paper and the nodal point of the lens (assume the lens center for simplicity) calculates as follows:

u = f*(m+1)

where 'f' is the focal length and 'm' is the negative magnification.

By the way, if you are doing test strips, reciprocity failure is never an issue! Also, reciprocity failure is not something that magically shows up starting with a certain exposure time. For most papers, assume 1/16 stop speed loss per f/stop of exposure change, or 1/3 stop loss per 5 f/stop difference in exposure. But again, that's not unique to what you're doing. We all have to deal with it (or ignore it when doing test strips).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,286
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Before minilabs and particularly minilabs were the norm pro labs printing colour would set their roll head printers to give exactly the same exposure regardless of the enlargement. Remember that apart from hand prints enlargements were fixed sizes. This was done to eliminate reciprocity failure which with colour can effect the colour balance. With B&W and some papers it can affect the contrast.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…