Small prints from 35mm negatives

[Robert Dunn]

I recently purchased a Leitz Focomat 1C enlarger with 50mm and 75mm Nikon lenses. I would like to make small prints, perhaps as small as 3 1/5 x 5" from 35mm negatives. Would another longer lens serve me well? Please comment.
Bob

 

[frank]

You'd be okay with what you've got.

 

[markbarendt]

75mm is plenty

 

[Fr. Mark]

Using that exact enlarger I've made crops of most of negatives that small with the leitz 50mm that came with it.

 

[Loren Sattler]

No need for anything other than the 50mm lens that came with the enlarger when new. Great enlarger....you will enjoy using it.

 

[Luis-F-S]

Wow, someone actually admitting to making small enlargements from small negatives! Bravo! You'll do just fine with what you have. I have a Valoy II with the 50 Focotar lens which is great!

 

[Sirius Glass]

75mm is plenty

For small prints the 50mm lens may be too close to the easel to be comfortable to use, so the 75mm lens will do the job.

 

[summicron1]

i make 3 by 3 inch stereo prints all the time with mine and a 50mm nikor.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You can go smaller than that but you may have trouble opening the easel. I don't have any issues with 3.5x5s with a Focomat 1a. I wouldn't bother changing lenses if I were you. You might find that you won't have anywhere near enough helical/bellows draw with a 75mm. You could use an extension tube with it though, but again more of a headache than it is worth and Leica extension tubes can be pricey.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm clueless on Leica enlargers. I have cheap Vivitar and 50 Nikkor lens does the job on the mentioned size. Printed this week. But I'm using cheap, hardware store dimmer, to have 10-25 seconds at f5.6.
And why it is so big deal for some here. Small negative, small print. It is normal. I even have universal darkroom easel with frames for three sizes. 8x10, 5x7 and same as OP asked.

 

[Hilo]

I agree with the other posters: stick to the 50mm. The 75mm will totally throw off the automatic focus and probably make it impossible to focus at all.

Your enlarger should come with the 17675 extension tube Patrick mentions, regardless of the size you print. That tube lowers the lens by about about 1cm (0,39 inch), which is the standard operating position.

If you don't know this tube, unscrew the lens: it may sit on the rear of the lens, or inside the helical. If it is the latter you can unscrew it by turning anti clockwise (I think?). It can be difficult to get it out, you have little space to get hold of it. Leitz made metal coloured wrenches for the column bolts of the Ic and IIc. Most of these wrenches (but not all) have two little parts sticking out that fit two grooves inside the 17675 tube. That will do the trick!

Should you not be able to go so small, you could add a second 17675 tube, or one that's double its size.

 

[Robert Dunn]

Thanks for the info. I have a 17675 extension tube coming in the mail from England next week (there wasn't one on the enlarger when I set it up). Can I stack them if I have more than one? Will this effectively increase focal length?
I reread your post, Hilo, and I see you have answered the question. I may get a second tube, then.

 

[Steve Roberts]

Hi Robert,
For a project I'm currently working on, I'm making prints of 3" x 2". The reason for this is that I have several old photo albums dating from the 1920s and 1930s which consist entirely of contact prints of approximately that size. The albums depict a slice of life of a family who are unknown to me (beyond captions such as "Ted at Chagrford" etc.) but even without (or perhaps especially without) knowing the people concerned, the albums represent a fascinating look back in time. I thought it might be fun to produce something similar of places, people, etc that relate to my life today. I've adopted a similar format, i.e. black paper, prints stuck on and labelled by hand in white ink. Printing the photos was an interesting exercise in that I found that I needed to print with considerably lower contrast than I normally like to see in order to give a pleasing result. I considered sepia toning but thought that was perhaps a bridge too far.
One of the pictures in the original albums shows two men and is captioned "Ted with Jack Payne". The figures are a little distant, but I'm trying to decide whether the Jack Payne in question is the British bandleader of that name. The timeframe is right and the family lived in a very posh house in the most upmarket area of Tavistock, so it's not impossible that they would have moved in the same circles as London society. Also, the listing of the surname suggests that this was a person of note rather than simply 'Fred', etc..
Best wishes,
Steve

 

[Roger Cole]

I make prints that small from 35mm sometimes. I do use a longer lens though (one of my medium format ones, the 75 or the 105) because my Omega D2 head does not go low enough with the 50. But that's a peculiarity of using a large 4x5 enlarger for such small prints. As long as the head goes close enough to the easel it's fine.

EDIT: Ah, now I get it after reading - peculiarities of this autofocus enlarger. I think you have your answers.

 

[removed account4]

I recently purchased a Leitz Focomat 1C enlarger with 50mm and 75mm Nikon lenses. I would like to make small prints, perhaps as small as 3 1/5 x 5" from 35mm negatives. Would another longer lens serve me well? Please comment.
Bob

hi robert

does/did leitz make a accessory bellows for making reduction prints for your enlarger ?
(sorry i have durst and omegas, no leitz in my stable so i am leitz clueless )
i have an omega ( actually a couple of them ) and a couple of these bellows. they make making
jewel prints, reduction prints, wallet sized prints & other small-stuff a breeze.
im not sure if you have decreased the focus distance by printing ontop of something tht is closer to the enlarger lens ( like a box ).
that might be another thing to consider.

 

[Hilo]

Thanks for the info. I have a 17675 extension tube coming in the mail from England next week (there wasn't one on the enlarger when I set it up). Can I stack them if I have more than one? Will this effectively increase focal length?

To be honest I don't know what happens exactly when you'd stack two of these rings. I am not good in things like that, I need to see what happens. Tomorrow I will have a look, also re your size. Like some others I think you will be fine with the 50mm. And indeed it may be more likely that opening the easel will be your problem . . . If that is so, you may consider not using an easel at all and just project the image on the paper. The 1c has this nice black border, try it !

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have a generic 10mm extension in place of the SCOOBYDOO (or whatever it is called) on my 1a. I threw it on there attached to a Fuji 50mm and it worked so I left it. If you want to use the 75mm lens you will have to focus it yourself and you will need at least 25mm of extension more than what you need with the 50mm, but probably even more than that if you want to do small prints. It just isn't worth it IMO.

I also have a Saunders 4550XL and whenever I do small prints from 35mm with that I use a 135mm lens so I don't whack my head on the enlarger bending over to look in the magnifier. With the Focomat I don't have to worry about that at all (and neither do you) since I don't have to check the focus after having carefully set it up. +1 for the Focomat.

 

[John Koehrer]

I'd use the 75 because it will give more working distance under the head AND a slightly longer exposure time.
Manual focus is no problem, turn the helical. It's got a detent that pops into a notch when you go back to the 50.

 

[Ian Grant]

Small prints are wonderful, if you see original pre-WWII contemporary prints by Kertesz they were all small even though shot with larger formats than 35mm. They have a jewel like quality.

I've made a small hand made book where I made reduction prints from 5x4 negatives, I'd echo John Koehrer about using the 75mm lens. I struggled because the minimum height I could lower my enlarger to still meant to large an image, back then I had no longer FL enlarger lens.

Make it easier for yourself use the longer lens for all the reasons others have mentioned.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

For small prints the 50mm lens may be too close to the easel to be comfortable to use, so the 75mm lens will do the job.

75mm is plenty

I make prints that small from 35mm sometimes. I do use a longer lens though (one of my medium format ones, the 75 or the 105) because my Omega D2 head does not go low enough with the 50. But that's a peculiarity of using a large 4x5 enlarger for such small prints. As long as the head goes close enough to the easel it's fine.

EDIT: Ah, now I get it after reading - peculiarities of this autofocus enlarger. I think you have your answers.

I'd use the 75 because it will give more working distance under the head AND a slightly longer exposure time.
Manual focus is no problem, turn the helical. It's got a detent that pops into a notch when you go back to the 50.

We have some consensus here: the 75mm lens should work and allow the easel to have the room to open and close, while the 50mm will be have the enlarger head too close.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Small prints are wonderful, if you see original pre-WWII contemporary prints by Kertesz they were all small even though shot with larger formats than 35mm. They have a jewel like quality.

I've made a small hand made book where I made reduction prints from 5x4 negatives, I'd echo John Koehrer about using the 75mm lens. I struggled because the minimum height I could lower my enlarger to still meant to large an image, back then I had no longer FL enlarger lens.

Make it easier for yourself use the longer lens for all the reasons others have mentioned.

Ian

Small 35mm prints are almost like contact prints for larger formats.

 

[Robert Dunn]

This has been a wonderful conversation! Thank you all for contributing. I think I my first trial will be with the 75mm lens for all the above mentioned reasons (but I will also try the 50mm). My missing enlarger bits will be here next week, so as soon as I make some prints, I will report back.
Bob

 

[Hilo]

Bob,

I just checked your question, with my Ic.

With the Focotar 50mm you won't have any problem to go down to 3 1/5 X 5 (which is about 8X12cm, right?). I checked with a Leitz easel which is 3 cm thick (1.18 inch) and the Focotar 50mm with the 17675 tube. All was fine, the automatic focus stayed in focus and there's enough space to open the easel far enough . . .

Doubling the tube by using a 16615J tube (2cm) made it impossible to focus correctly. Using an 80mm proved even more impossible.

I am sorry, had I realised the actual cm size of your prints, I could have told you from the start it would be fine using the 50mm. Long ago I printed about half your size and managed somehow . . .

Good luck, Michael

 

[Robert Dunn]

Thanks Michael,
Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I'll be OK with what I have, then.
Bob

 

[Robert Dunn]

Hello all,
I received the missing parts last week, and I have installed them, and fine-tuned the autofocus. With the Nikon 50mm lens and the DOORX extension tube, the enlarger will make a 3" x 4 1/2" print with the scale set at 2 1/2 times magnification. This leaves about 8" space between the front of the lens and the easel. At 2 times magnification (which is the minimum) with the same lens, the print measures 2 1/4" x 3 1/2", with 6" between the lens and easel. There is plenty of room to fiddle with paper and check with the focus finder (even though the autofocus is spot on).
I didn't experiment with the 75mm lens.
Thanks to all who contributed.
Bob