Omega Enlarger Alignment Tool

[David A. Goldfarb]

Following up on Greg Davis’s great video on aligning the Omega D2, I thought I’d post a photo of the Omega Enlarger Alignment Tool, so folks can recognize it. Laser alignment tools are also popular for this purpose or reference negatives. This tool can be used with any enlarger or copy equipment, etc. that requires alignment. It’s the sort of mysterious object that might show up in a box of miscellaneous darkroom equipment for a couple of bucks when you’re not particularly thinking about it, but if you are actually looking for one, KHB Photographix sells them for a pretty penny—

http://store.khbphotografix.com/Omega-Enlarger-Alignment-Tool.html

The way it works is you set it on your reference surface, like your baseboard or easel, and adjust the knurled knob until the bubble is centered. Then you can compare it to the surface you want to align, like the lens or the negative stage, along the same axis as you calibrated it to (fore and aft or left and right). Do the same for the other axis and the other plane(s) you need to align.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Just like a torpedo level, only easier to lose or break and much more expensive, is that what you're saying?

 

[ic-racer]

Or you can firmly affix a laser pointer to a base with 3 adjustable feet. Rotate the base and observe the reflected beam. If the reflected beam forms a circle (C and D), the beam is not perpendicular to the baseboard, so feet need to be adjusted. You can align the laser that way, without first needing a perpendicular mirror surface.

If you rotate the base and the beam stays in the center, the beam is perpendicular to both the baseboard and the reflecting surface (A).

If you rotate the base and the beam always points to the same place, off center, the beam is perpendicular to the baseboard and the reflecting surface is not parallel (B).

 

[PFGS]

Just like a torpedo level, only easier to lose or break and much more expensive, is that what you're saying?

Except, if I read this right, you can compensate for a baseboard that's not level and isn't going to be, perhaps because like mine, it rides on an old AV cart...

 

[MattKing]

Just like a torpedo level, only easier to lose or break and much more expensive, is that what you're saying?

A torpedo level attached to a long bar in a way that the level helps you align that which comes in contact with the bar - including negative stages, lens plates, baseboards, light source mounts .....

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Except, if I read this right, you can compensate for a baseboard that's not level and isn't going to be, perhaps because like mine, it rides on an old AV cart...

Yes, exactly, you can calibrate this one to the baseboard by turning the knurled knob, so you can level all parts of the enlarger, even if the table isn't level underneath it.

My enlarger is on a counter that's fixed to the wall, so I have no way of leveling that, though I suppose I could shim the baseboard, if I needed it to be level, and I used to use an old rolling typewriter cart that wasn't easily leveled.

Indeed, this level is much more sensitive than a typical construction level.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Following up on Greg Davis’s great video on aligning the Omega D2, I thought I’d post a photo of the Omega Enlarger Alignment Tool, so folks can recognize it. Laser alignment tools are also popular for this purpose or reference negatives. This tool can be used with any enlarger or copy equipment, etc. that requires alignment. It’s the sort of mysterious object that might show up in a box of miscellaneous darkroom equipment for a couple of bucks when you’re not particularly thinking about it, but if you are actually looking for one, KHB Photographix sells them for a pretty penny—

http://store.khbphotografix.com/Omega-Enlarger-Alignment-Tool.html

The way it works is you set it on your reference surface, like your baseboard or easel, and adjust the knurled knob until the bubble is centered. Then you can compare it to the surface you want to align, like the lens or the negative stage, along the same axis as you calibrated it to (fore and aft or left and right). Do the same for the other axis and the other plane(s) you need to align. View attachment 257385

This can work OK, but as adjusting each axis is separate, when one is "done" gong to the other will majority of times take the former out of alignment again. By how much is a matter of several things and how the actual adjustment of negative or lens stage is done makes a big difference.

An accurate circular bubble is a far better choice as it shows movement in all axis' around all the time. Then, how enlarger allows for alignment is another matter. Negative stage must be parallel to base board AND lens axis must be perpendicular to them. Not always it is possible to deal with both easily. Zone VI had a lens board with 3 point adjustment, in theory the easiest set up to deal with alignment, used in virtually all classic Theodolites (that also had a circular level of very high accuracy built in).

I suppose what I am saying, if one can have this for a couple, OK. But trying to get it for more is not worth it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

There are a number of smart phone apps that can do this, as well, with similar sensitivity and the ability to recalibrate on command. Down side is, many/most modern phone models have a bump on the back side for the camera, so they don't lie flat on a flat surface. This is correctable with a piece of thin plywood etc. cut to clear the camera bump.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Beseler solved that problem by using two bubbles, one on each axis independently adjustable.

Except the assumption must be that when mounted lens is factory square on axis to negative stage. Is it? Despite all the praise Beseler had been riding on for all their good years I never thought that assembly on the MX/MXT model was all that reassuring. Of course I still think that it is largely splitting lab level hairs by not trusting factory assembly to begin with, unless there is a suspicion system got knocked out of alignment. At same time it is one of those things, if one can get all pieces as exactly as possible aligned, he should.

 

[ic-racer]

I have found most non-adjustable enlargers can be adjusted with shims on either the lensboard or negative stage. The column can be adjusted with a false baseboard with 4 corner adjustable feet.

 

[David Reynolds]

I used a standard bubble level and a turn buckle attached to the top of the chassis to align my D2V and D5. Never failed over 25 years.

 

[Old_Dick]

David, could we have a photo?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I used a standard bubble level and a turn buckle attached to the top of the chassis to align my D2V and D5. Never failed over 25 years.

That's only one alignment, not a true alignment process.

 

[David Reynolds]

David, could we have a photo?

Sorry retired and disassembled darkroom a couple years ago so I cannot photograph.. Donated and sold the two enlargers.
If you are interested in the turnbuckle attachment. It was just attached by braided metallic wire from the top of the chassis to the wall opposite with a turnbuckle attached between the two wires. The turnbuckle was tightened or loosened to level the negative carrier and checked with a spirit level in one direction. The enlarger was seated on a level platform attached to the wall (not on its supplied baseboard so I could project all the way to the floor and create very large prints)in the other direction and was checked for its level.

That's only one alignment, not a true alignment process.

I believe those two level directions created all the alignment that was needed.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I believe those two level directions created all the alignment that was needed.

@David Reynolds IMO most adjustments of a taken care of enlarger are hair splitting affairs anyways, but in theory a 3-axis alignment is needed to nail it all and while 2-level approach sort of works, a high precision circular level or laser target (with equally precise laser beam) make things a lot easier and one can see right away which way he needs to go. Having said that, spending a life on trying to nail it is no different than arguing how much better a photograph is from 26 mpx sensor vs. 100 mpx one., which directly depends on where that "improved quality" starts to matter.

So in the end I agree what you've used is beyond sufficient

 

[David Reynolds]

@David Reynolds IMO most adjustments of a taken care of enlarger are hair splitting affairs anyways, but in theory a 3-axis alignment is needed to nail it all and while 2-level approach sort of works, a high precision circular level or laser target (with equally precise laser beam) make things a lot easier and one can see right away which way he needs to go. Having said that, spending a life on trying to nail it is no different than arguing how much better a photograph is from 26 mpx sensor vs. 100 mpx one., which directly depends on where that "improved quality" starts to matter.

So in the end I agree what you've used is beyond sufficient

When I built my darkroom(S) (A total of 4 over 50 years ago. The last one 30 years ago.) Laser levels etc were mostly fantasy devices. So one used a spirit level and what ever mechanical devices were available and luckily it worked for me. Today if I had to do it all over again I would be eager to use a laser guided level and even confirm the third axis was right on. I also thank the photo gods that once I had focused my D2V or D5 they stayed focused.

 

[Kilgallb]

I scratched a 4x5 negative with a perfect square. Then I set the enlarger to project a 10” square on the base board. Adjust everything until you get a perfect square. As a bonus, you an adjust the lens plane to get perfect focus.
Has anyone else tried this? I keep thinking there must be something wrong as it is easy and cheap.

 

[jvo]

I scratched a 4x5 negative with a perfect square. Then I set the enlarger to project a 10” square on the base board. Adjust everything until you get a perfect square. As a bonus, you an adjust the lens plane to get perfect focus.
Has anyone else tried this? I keep thinking there must be something wrong as it is easy and cheap.

too easy - too cheap...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's not an unreasonable approach. I've scratched a black negative with an "X" corner to corner, and checked that the corners and the center are in focus to confirm alignment.

 

[Donald Qualls]

the reference negative is actually one of the methods Greg Davis (The Naked Photographer on YouTube) went over in his first enlarger alignment video, where he explained the tools, independent of the actual specific enlargers. Given you're using what amounts to movements (film plane and lens plane, relative to subject -- in this case, the baseboard), it's possible when using only the reference negative to get a wonky setup that's "square" only at one magnification and focus setting -- but fairly unlikely for that to be really bad. Better if you combine this with a level on the negative carrier; if that's level to the baseboard, getting the reference negative square and in focus will mean the lens board is also level to the baseboard.

That is, the reference negative is a very good double check on any other method.

 

[M Carter]

If ya ask me (I know, you didn't) biting the bullet for a Versalab Parallel? Worth every penny. I can't imagine anything being more fast and accurate (unless you can DIY your own laser aligner).

I have an MXT with the square bellows, not much adjustment at the lens stage. The neg stage is completely adjustable though, and I've made DIY "Besalign" boards for each lens. I can print 20x24 lith prints wide open, sharp sharp sharp, corner-to-corner. Freaking love that thing.