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...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 .....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...
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.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
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.Beseler solved that problem by using two bubbles, one on each axis independently adjustable.
That's only one alignment, not a true alignment process.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.
Sorry retired and disassembled darkroom a couple years ago so I cannot photograph.. Donated and sold the two enlargers.David, could we have a photo?
I believe those two level directions created all the alignment that was needed.That's only one alignment, not a true alignment process.
I believe those two level directions created all the alignment that was needed.
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.@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
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.
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?