What I mainly look for in an enlarger is reliability and consistency. Particularly on a print run I need to have consistency with exposure and grade. That the negative will remain perfectly flat in the negative carrier regardless of exposure time.
Which enlarger do you use?
...and ergonomic reasons one enlarger might
be preferred to another,
Things that, in my opinion, are important for enlarger design:
1. even illumination
2. adequate cooling (to prevent negative buckling)
3. adequate brightness (not too much, not too little)
4. ease and precision of of alignment
5. alignment stays put when set
6. ease of focusing (smooth focusing without backlash)
7. ease of head height change
8. head height does slip when set
9. ease of condenser change or repositioning (for a condenser head)
10. adequate baseboard area and height for the maximum print size anticipated
11. filter holders ideally both above the negative and below the lens
12. availability of negative carriers, lensboards, cold-light head, color head, etc. on e-bay
12. inexpensive
What a hassel. I've had to completely dismantle
my glass negative carrier in order to clean the carrier
and two glass plates. Tweezer size machine screws
and lock washers to match. So, which enlarger has
the easiest to clean glass negative carriers?
That's the brand to buy. Dan
I use Ilford films in 35mm and 120, but switched to Kodak 100TMX for the convenience of the single sheet ReadyLoad holder.Hi Keith,
I use films like T-Max which have a rather shiny emulsion and are prone to Newton rings when useing just a plain lower glass.
Regards,
Trevor.
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?