Printing 4x5 smaller than film size

[dvornik]

I'm trying to figure out a way to print 4x5 negatives at smaller size than the actual film. It doesn't look like I can focus with regular lenses (we have 80, 135, 178 etc) if I reduce the projection size to below the film size. Basically I need ensmalling them, so to speak.

I remember seeing a customer in our darkroom making really tiny prints from 6x6 negatives and he mentioned using an inverted macro lens. I've only seen the final results so I didn't get to see his setup. Does anybody have any suggestions or links on the subject? Or maybe there's a way of going it with regular enlarger lenses and I'm doing something wrong?

Thank you.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think you'll need a lens longer that 150mm.

 

[dvornik]

I tried a 178. It seems to focus at just about film size with bellows extended all the way. I tried it on an omega but we have a couple of ilfords and beselers too, in case it makes any difference. It didn't look like extending the bellows further would help. It kind of looks close to focused with a 135 at smaller sizes but not if you check with a grain focuser.

 

[flavio81]

I'm trying to figure out a way to print 4x5 negatives at smaller size than the actual film. It doesn't look like I can focus with regular lenses (we have 80, 135, 178 etc) if I reduce the projection size to below the film size. Basically I need ensmalling them, so to speak.

I remember seeing a customer in our darkroom making really tiny prints from 6x6 negatives and he mentioned using an inverted macro lens. I've only seen the final results so I didn't get to see his setup. Does anybody have any suggestions or links on the subject? Or maybe there's a way of going it with regular enlarger lenses and I'm doing something wrong?

Thank you.

The inversion of the lens is not required but it is highly beneficial to make sure the lens performs best.
If your 'reduction' size is about 6x6cm then an inverted 6x6 enlarger lens would do. If your 'reduction size' is 24x36mm or less, an inverted 35mm enlarger lens will do and so on.

Of course i'm speaking just based on theory alone since i've never done optical reduction on an enlarger. (Should be called "reducer" in this case...)

 

[ic-racer]

I frequently make reductions. You will need a lens with a shorter focal length. For example if making reductions to the size of a 35mm negative, use a 50mm lens. Use the 'focal length = diagonal' of the proposed reduction size, not the original size.

When you are setup to the correct focal position, extending the bellows makes the image smaller. Some trial and error will get you to the size you want.

Theoretic optics might indicate you reverse the lens, but at common printing apertures (you will be stopped down all the way unless you have a variable intensity light source) you will likely find no benefit to lens reversal.

 

[dvornik]

Maybe I'm missing something really obvious. I just don't know enough about optics.

On a Beseler there are bellows both below and above the film plate. Playing with that and a Schneder 80 I could focus at almost half size but the light circle is not wide enough to cover 4x5. It would cover 6x6 though... And it only worked with the Schneder 80, I tried a bunch of other lenses.

 

[dvornik]

I posted before seeing the ic-racer's post. It's super helpful, I'll try to figure it out.

 

[flavio81]

Thank you very much, ic-racer. I'm memorizing this graphic for the future.

 

[ic-racer]

Not shown in the diagrams, you need to prop the easel on a box or something to get it very close to the lens. Extending the bellows and seeing the image get smaller is pretty amazing the first time you do it.

 

[dvornik]

Heh, just got it. Amazing - thank you so very much! Really appreciate that.

 

[ic-racer]

Looking back at some notes, I thought I had some barrel distortion doing a reduction once with an 80mm Componon, so I flipped the lensboard around for some testing. But, what a pain with the aperture ring now INSIDE the bellows.

 

[ic-racer]

Optics don't care which way the light travels, so all the above applies to high magnification (macro) photography with a view camera. Yes, use a 150mm lens on your 8x10 view camera if you subject is about 150mm tall.

 

[dvornik]

Actually i didn't quite get it. I can't control the size of the print properly. I can somewhat do it on Beselers by playing with both bellows but then I run into the size of the circle of light issues.

And I did get to appreciate the fact that on Beselers you can flip the lensboards.

 

[dvornik]

OK, I just reread the post, so 4x5 is around 160 mm diagonal, so I start from there. it's beginning to sink in.

 

[mshchem]

Isn't this analogous to close up photography? To make a 1:1 life size image of an object you need 2X the focal length of the lens in bellows extension . The longer the focal length the more working distance you have from the object you are photographing, thus a 200mm micro-nikkor on 35mm.

So if you want a small print from a large negative, wouldn't you use a shorter than normal lens? Maybe a 75mm on 4x5 get very close to the easel with massive bellows extension.

I know all the big old enlargers had huge long lens board cones for reductions.
Mike

 

[dvornik]

Got it! With a 100 componon I got the reduction ratio I was looking for! That was extremely educational!

 

[mshchem]

Actually i didn't quite get it. I can't control the size of the print properly. I can somewhat do it on Beselers by playing with both bellows but then I run into the size of the circle of light issues.

And I did get to appreciate the fact that on Beselers you can flip the lensboards.

I've had a 4x5 Beseler since 1973, never occurred to me to flip the board, nice!

 

[mshchem]

Got it! With a 100 componon I got the reduction ratio I was looking for! That was extremely educational!

Did you reverse the lens?

 

[dvornik]

No. It does not seem to make a difference if I do, at least to the naked eye. It's reversible on Beselers. Not on Omegas and Ilfords...

When it's reversed it's hard to stick a grain focuser under it...

 

[ac12]

Maybe I'm missing something really obvious. I just don't know enough about optics.

On a Beseler there are bellows both below and above the film plate. Playing with that and a Schneder 80 I could focus at almost half size but the light circle is not wide enough to cover 4x5. It would cover 6x6 though... And it only worked with the Schneder 80, I tried a bunch of other lenses.

Been a while since I worked with a Bessler.
In looking at the manual for the 23C, the top bellows is to adjust the image circle based on the film format.
The lower bellows is to focus the image.

 

[flavio81]

I've had a 4x5 Beseler since 1973, never occurred to me to flip the board, nice!

Neither had I. Thanks for this tip! (My durst allows to reverse the lens holder, as well. Or so i think.)

 

[Steve Smith]

You need an ensmaller!


Steve.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

FWIW, don't adjust the top bellows on your enlarger. It should be set so that the light source covers the negative area completely, so set it for the size negative you are enlarging (ensmalling) and leave it. It is the bottom bellows that determines the lens-to-negative distance and that's the one you should be adjusting for focus.

Tip: rack out your bottom bellows and then use the height adjustment to focus with. Change the bellows to change the size of the image (shorter = larger); change height to focus.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Mick Fagan]

Another option we used in a lab I worked in, was to have an extender, sort of like a top hat on a view camera to extend your bellows capability and run with a longer focal lens.

As Doremus suggests, get your reduction ratio correct, then move the whole shebang up or down to focus.

We called it, unlarging, even had that written on the job sheets.

If you are lucky enough to own a DeVere enlarger, then the bellows extension is about the longest in the business, amazing the reductions you can do with one of these enlargers. I regularly made post card prints using 4x5" negatives with the image area being slightly smaller than if I had used a contact print.

Mick.

 

[Ian Grant]

I made a small hand made book a few years ago and printed some 5x4 negatives about 2/3 the original size, I used my 135mm Componon. The main issue was the enlarger head wouldn't go low enough so I placed the easel on some books, it was very straight forward. It's highly unlikely it wouldn't have worked with a 150mm as I doubt I'd have had enough bellows extension on the enlarger I was using.

It would be very easy with my De Vere as Mick mentions as it has well over 600mm bellows extensions

Ian