Success! My first good print.

[dcy]

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.

 

[dcy]

It's here: https://galerie-photo.com/manuels/el-nikkor-enlarging-lenses.pdf

Thanks!

 

[snusmumriken]

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

The lower ones are over-developed, for sure.

Actually I would consider the top ones over-developed too, but that judgement depends on what works with your equipment and materials. After a while you will be able to review what contrast grade you find yourself routinely printing on, and adjust your standard film development to normalise that to G2 or 2.5.

 

[dcy]

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.

 

[snusmumriken]

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 think the challenge would be mounting that device to sit perpendicular to the baseboard. Can you think of a way? If you have a 3D printer it might be easy.

But anyway, the laser component itself costs less than $1. I’ve used them in other devices, and I did try to make a mount for use with my enlarger. But with hand tools only I found that too difficult. Anyway, with a test negative like I described above you can achieve what needs to be done adequately, IMHO.

There was a long thread about enlarger alignment here on Photrio a year or two back.

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[dcy]

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.

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.

 

[bernard_L]

I just thought I had something interesting to say. It was just conversation.

"First good print"
80 posts and counting

 

[dcy]

Anyway, with a test negative like I described above you can achieve what needs to be done adequately, IMHO.

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!

 

[dcy]

"First good print"
80 posts and counting

I apologize for the tangent.

 

[grain elevator]

I apologize for the tangent.

Tangents are exactly the style and appeal of this forum and the comment you're replying to was uncalled for.

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

+1 (and I'm starting to feel sorry I brought up enlarger alignment...)

dcy, you seem to want to solve all possible problems at once—sometimes even before knowing that there actually is a problem. As koraks said, at this point, most of your energy should be spent on getting reasonably good negatives from a reasonably good camera with a reasonably good film in it. The negative is the foundation of it all. From a reasonably good negative, you'll always get a reasonably good print, even with a cheap (and possibly slightly misaligned) enlarger, as long as it has a reasonably good lens on it. It's that simple.

The rest—type of paper, paper developer, toner, enlarger alignment, type of grain focuser, etc.—is, at this point, all fine tuning and just distracts from going out there and learning how to get reasonably good negatives.

OK, I'll stop writing "reasonably" now .

 

[dcy]

What I'm saying is that I have the strong impression you're massively overthinking this, and things in general.

Can't argue with that. To a large extent this is a personality trait and not something specific to what I'm doing right now. 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. But rest assured, I had exactly zero intention of grabbing a laser. The test with the scratched negative revealed that my easel really was significantly tilted --- a piece of metal on the 8x10 side was bent and was making the whole thing tilt appreciably. I do not regret the short test that I did that uncovered that and I enjoyed the tinkering.

Having said that:

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.

Yeah. Fair enough.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

And? Italian or Spanish?

 

[snusmumriken]

I'd like to encourage you to try and keep things much more simple

Astronomers are not known for keeping things simple! 🫤

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

If I ever get to the point where I have to chose between buying film and a good bottle of olive oil, well, I don't know what I'll do...

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[GregY]

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....

 

[Bill Burk]

I thought we all concluded it was due to the Spiratone 3-element 35mm enlarging lens.

Spiratone did a little of everything.

 

[khh]

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....

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.

 

[dcy]

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 make no claim as to how much this affected the image, but putting a bubble level on the easel showed unmistakably that it was not level compared to everything else. I ended up making one of the legs perhaps 2 mm longer to make it level.

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.

Well, I did not notice any lack of sharpness in my prints until the eagle-eyed members of this forum pointed them out.

 

[dcy]

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.

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!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.'

Yup, my bad.

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!

This is the DNA every photography forum has in common.

Thing is, after a while, you've tried so many things, and you know so much more, that your brain naturally starts filtering out the suggestions that don't really matter to you.