It would be interesting to see where dcy ends up in his lightsource lamp search. 25sec exposure time for a 5x7" print either indicates that the lightsource is weak or the negative is far too dense.
They do look dense (which isn't to say that the light source isn't weak; it feels weak).
Here's a comparison. The top roll was shot with my P17 for my film comparison test and I'm using it as a prototype for what a negative should look like. The bottom one was shot last year with my Olympus PEN is that I've been trying to print this week.
View attachment 402157
If you do go down the path of checking the alignment of your enlarger, The Naked Photographer has a pretty good series on en larger alignment. But he doesn't have your spesific enlarger, unfortunately.
I am about to go check the alignment of my enlarger and I just watched the video.
Something about his last method --- the "laser" method: He says that the laser required can be expensive and difficult to find... BUT... this laser he's using here is basically just a standard laser collimator. A cheap and common tool among amateur astronomers. They use them to align the mirrors of their telescopes. They cost $20.
Can you think of any reason why a laser collimator wouldn't do exactly what he is trying to do? Or is it just that film photographers don't overlap with backyard astronomers so they don't know about this tool?
EDIT: I bought one years ago. No idea where I put it.
I am about to go check the alignment of my enlarger
This is getting totally out of hand. You don't need a laser collimator to make some prints. Just do some prints with your known-good enlarger lens and see how that goes.
"First good print"I just thought I had something interesting to say. It was just conversation.
Anyway, with a test negative like I described above you can achieve what needs to be done adequately, IMHO.
"First good print"
80 posts and counting
Tangents are exactly the style and appeal of this forum and the comment you're replying to was uncalled for.I apologize for the tangent.
I understand. What I'm saying is that I have the strong impression you're massively overthinking this, and things in general. I'd like to encourage you to try and keep things much more simple, mostly because in my experience that tends to make the whole process a lot more enjoyable. All the time spent on tinkering with laser alignment etc. you're not out there capturing images or producing satisfying prints. It's all too easy to get sidetracked by the tech stuff. That's interesting in its own right, but it tends to stand in the way of getting some photography done.You misunderstood me. I did not say I need or want a laser collimator. I just thought I had something interesting to say. It was just conversation.
I understand. What I'm saying is that I have the strong impression you're massively overthinking this, and things in general. I'd like to encourage you to try and keep things much more simple, mostly because in my experience that tends to make the whole process a lot more enjoyable. All the time spent on tinkering with laser alignment etc. you're not out there capturing images or producing satisfying prints. It's all too easy to get sidetracked by the tech stuff. That's interesting in its own right, but it tends to stand in the way of getting some photography done.
What I'm saying is that I have the strong impression you're massively overthinking this, and things in general.
It's all too easy to get sidetracked by the tech stuff. That's interesting in its own right, but it tends to stand in the way of getting some photography done.
I'm the kind of person that did a double-blind taste testing at home to decide which brand of olive oil he likes best.
I'd like to encourage you to try and keep things much more simple
I know in our case the answer turned out to be "the least expensive one" followed by "let's replace it wherever we can with something more economical like sunseed oil." Olive oil prices have hiked and will explode in the following years due to (a) increasing demand and (b) olive trees dying at a massive scale.And? Italian or Spanish?
I know in our case the answer turned out to be "the least expensive one" followed by "let's replace it wherever we can with something more economical like sunseed oil." Olive oil prices have hiked and will explode in the following years due to (a) increasing demand and (b) olive trees dying at a massive scale.
Indeed!
I have an update: I used the test negative and a couple of the tests in the video and found that the problem was either all or mostly the easel. It was not sitting parallel to everything else. I made one of the legs of the easel a little bit larger and I think that corrected most of the problem. I think one of the scratches might still be slightly out of focus, but I'm not sure. I take that to mean that I've done what I can at this point.
Thanks again!
That must have been a seriously un-level easel!
Normally, small differences in the position of the easel have very little affect on image sharpness. Most of the consequence is to the shape and squareness of the image.
It is a much different situation with respect to the position of the lens board or the negative carrier.
But I would otherwise agree with the suggestion - try first to print a bit more, and think less about the refinements.
I have worked with enlargers on movable carts for years. They have always been subject to a bit of alignment variation, due to the fact that they get moved around. Unless I had a bunch of photos of brick walls with important details right out to the very corners of the images, I don't think I would have ever had occasion to worry about it.
Matt, too dcy's credit he was led down the rabbit hole back in posts 25-28 where the question was asked about why the lower part of the image was 'fuzzy.'
The series of questions posed by dcy have led to a wide range of potential pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey answers.... It is the light source, the negative, the developer, .....pretty much any question about basic darkroom work has been asked....
That must have been a seriously un-level easel!
Normally, small differences in the position of the easel have very little affect on image sharpness.
I have worked with enlargers on movable carts for years. They have always been subject to a bit of alignment variation, due to the fact that they get moved around. Unless I had a bunch of photos of brick walls with important details right out to the very corners of the images, I don't think I would have ever had occasion to worry about it.
Yeah, it can be dangerous to engage too much with a community like this one. You get a true wealth of information and options, and you can pursue pretty much any rabbit hole. But you much more rarely get pointed in the direction of good enough is good enough.
Matt, too dcy's credit he was led down the rabbit hole back in posts 25-28 where the question was asked about why the lower part of the image was 'fuzzy.'
Yeah.
Person 1: Here's something you should try.
Person 2: Here's something else you should try.
Person 3: Here's another thing you really should try.
Person 4: Here's another idea you could try.
Person 2: Stop going down this rabbit hole and get out and shoot!
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?