Why is nothing standard in dark room equipment?

[gone]

Just slipped a 6x9 negative from an old Bessa RF w/ Heliar lens into my Federal enlarger, which is supposed to enlarge 6x9 negs. What the hell? The negative carrier is far from 6x9. It crops off a lot of the image on the sides. Figuring it might not be too bad, I turned it on and looked at the image on the baseboard. Nope, it ruins the composition.

The aggravating thing is that this enlarger has a glass negative carrier w/ lots of room on the glass for a full image, but the metal part is considerably smaller. I have a file, but why do they do this? On my Beselers, they couldn't even make a 35mm carrier that I didn't have to file out.

Then there's enlarger lens thread variations. They must do this on purpose. I had 3 lenses, all w/ different size threads. Bought 2 better lenses, and now I have 5 lenses w/ 5 different size threads between 25mm and 39mm! I made my own baseboards and jam nuts, but this is ridiculous. Why make them smaller than 39mm? No enlarger lens board is smaller than that, so they didn't do it for space considerations. And it has nothing to do w/ lens design, as they can make the threads any old size (and do). I won't even go into safelights that aren't safe, developers that are supposed to last months and don't (D76), lenses that are supposed to cover certain formats but vignette the corners, and on and on. I can't think of any other profession of hobby that is so unstructured and laissez faire when it comes to common sense standards.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It's the same reason Microsoft never builds applications that are 100% compliant with internet standards. They can sell you more shit to make other stuff play nice with what you've already bought.

 

[mehguy]

This is a very good question. Many other industries have standards (especially electronics) but I guess nobody thought of really adopting a common standard between manufacturers.

 

[jeffreythree]

And then throw in all the different camera makers ideas of what 6x9 actually was, including the 2x3 format the same equipment handled as well. It was not just the darkroom equipment makers that did not standardize.

 

[paul ron]

at least every film company makes films to the same standard sizes n iso ratings.

at least every camera manufacturer makes their cameras fit the standard film sizes.

at least all manufacturers calibrate their shutters to be the same regardless of brand.

at least all lens manufacturers calibrate their lenses to focus at infinity regardless of focal length.

at least all the light meter manufactuers calibrate their meters to the same standards.

at least all photographers have the same complaints.

at least all hassy users love their cameras.

at least we have apug to complain about everything!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Things have become manufacturer-specific because it generates sales and profits for the manufacturer and serves to lock customers into the manufacturer's system.

At one time the M42 screw mount was used by a great many manufacturers. When bayonet mount became popular, each manufacturer went their own way.

 

[David Brown]

On my Beselers, they couldn't even make a 35mm carrier that I didn't have to file out.

Then there's enlarger lens thread variations. They must do this on purpose. I had 3 lenses, all w/ different size threads. Bought 2 better lenses, and now I have 5 lenses w/ 5 different size threads between 25mm and 39mm!

I'm sorry that you are having so much trouble, but maybe you are just buying the wrong stuff.

For the record, Beseler did indeed make a "full frame" 35mm carrier, I have one, as well as the standard that you apparently have.

I also have more enlarging lenses than I can count up without looking, and they are all 39mm.

YMMV ...

 

[ic-racer]

which is supposed to enlarge 6x9

Really?

Federal = USA = inch, foot etc.

Opening of your carrier is likely 2.25" by 3.25". Does it really indicate "6x9" on it? Do the specifications in the owner's manual indicate any metric measurements?

 

[pentaxuser]

Really?

Federal = USA = inch, foot etc.

Opening of your carrier is likely 2.25" by 3.25". Does it really indicate "6x9" on it? Do the specifications in the owner's manual indicate any metric measurements?

Does that mean that neg sizes have always been metric but neg carriers have not? If so was there a period when negs were 2.25 x 3.25 so that the neg carrier did accommodate the negative or is it that the neg carrier was never meant for the 6x9 negs that some 120 cameras produced and the 2.25 by 3.25 was a sheet film size?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[gone]

I found a manual online for my enlarger. It states quite clearly that for a negative format of 2 1/4 X 3 1/4, the opening in the plate is 2 x 3! Go figure. Guess they decided that extra bit of negative wasn't necessary. Makes no sense at all, and it reminds me of the movie Steve Martin is in where he is tearing off hot 4 dog buns on every package in a store and says;

"I'll tell you what I'm doing. I want to buy eight hot dogs and eight hot dog buns to go with them. But no one sells eight hot dog buns. They only sell twelve hot dog buns. So I end up paying for four buns I don't need. So I am removing the superfluous buns. Yeah. And you want to know why? Because some big-shot over at the wiener company got together with some big-shot over at the bun company and decided to rip off the American public".

So maybe some big-shot in the film company got together w/ some big-shot over in the enlarger company and said "Hey! Let's make the negative carriers smaller than the negatives. Never mind why. Just because. The photographers will have to re shoot their shots, and we'll sell more film. Oh, I almost forgot. I have this crazy idea for enlarger thread sizes too, but it's so wacky and stupid I don't think we can get away w/ it. But you never know. These are photographers, right?"

 

[ic-racer]

The extra 1/8 inch is for the overlap on the blades of the easel. Viewfinder would not show that area.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I have three 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 carriers for my Omega B-8. One for cut film, one for roll film and one for film packs. They are all slightly different. Cut film being the smallest and film pack being the largest.

 

[BetterSense]

I was thinking this exact thing today, about how for some reason it's acceptable for enlargers to leak light all over the place, even though it's pretty obvious they will be used in a darkroom. Like they don't even try to make them light-tight, just like how the 35mm aspect ratio fits exactly zero paper and frame sizes. None! And the format is almost 100 years old. I concluded this is because this stuff was cooked up by people who were more artist than engineer.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

All my enlarging lenses except one is 39mm.

I enlarge my 6x9 negatives by masking off a glass 4x5 neg carrier, but see how it would be annoying to use an enlarger for 6x9 only to find out the neg carrier is for about 5.7x8.3. My Omega 6x9 neg carrier also crops the long dimension of 6x9 film frames.

 

[Arklatexian]

Really?

Federal = USA = inch, foot etc.

Opening of your carrier is likely 2.25" by 3.25". Does it really indicate "6x9" on it? Do the specifications in the owner's manual indicate any metric measurements?

May I ask:which 2.25" x 3.25"? Most enlarger manufacturers (including Federal) had to make at least 3 negative carriers to accomidate the 3 that most camera manufacturers made in that size in MF photography. The sheet film size which I think you may have. Then a film-pack size which was much larger even though still known as 2.25 x 3.25. The third was the 2.25" x 3.25" roll film size which, in size, was between the other two. The answer: try to find a roll film negative carrier for your Federal. Film Packs are no longer around. Federal (and the other enlarger manufacturers) were simply trying to supply everyone's needs at the time your enlarger was made. Also should you start shooting a 2 1/4 x 3 1/3 Graphic (or similar) using sheet film, your enlarger is ready to go with the carrier that you now own....Believe it or not you have discovered one of the few things in photography that was/is standard.........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

I was thinking this exact thing today, about how for some reason it's acceptable for enlargers to leak light all over the place, even though it's pretty obvious they will be used in a darkroom. Like they don't even try to make them light-tight, just like how the 35mm aspect ratio fits exactly zero paper and frame sizes. None! And the format is almost 100 years old. I concluded this is because this stuff was cooked up by people who were more artist than engineer.

The answer may be that our paper sizes came to us from the English (and most sizes are far older than 100 yrs. and are not metric) while 35mm came to us from Germany and were, and always have been metric. Back when every mid-sized town in Germany had a camera store, I went into one and tried to buy a frame for an 8" x 10" print. There weren't any until the store owner reached under a counter and pulled one out. It was marked (in German) "for American size prints"..........Regards!

 

[ac12]

About the lens mount thread. Well that is one of the things you look at when you buy the lens.
I have and use 39mm threaded lens boards.
- If I see the lens has a 25mm thread, I don't buy it.
- If I see the lens has a 32mm thread, I don't buy it.
So you the buyer have control over the lens thread situation, by buy only lenses with 39mm threads.
If you find a lens with an odd size thread, ie 32mm, you don't have to buy it, you have the option of looking for one with a 39mm thread.

As I understand, the 25mm thread was for older lenses where the max aperture was smaller, so the lens did not have to be made as big.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

In the time I've taken to read this thread, I could have likely filed a negative carrier out to the desired size... Just saying...

 

[Mark Tate]

Is there a chance that the neg carrier is in fact a 6x8 ? Sounds like that is what it is.
All I had was a 6x8 for my Omega D so I just filed it to fit 6x9, I do not shoot 6x8 so I will not miss it.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I made a carrier out of cardboard and packing tape for a similar reason. Took about an hour. All it has to do is hold the film without scratching and have the proper sized hole.

I was thinking this exact thing today, about how for some reason it's acceptable for enlargers to leak light all over the place, even though it's pretty obvious they will be used in a darkroom. Like they don't even try to make them light-tight, just like how the 35mm aspect ratio fits exactly zero paper and frame sizes. None! And the format is almost 100 years old. I concluded this is because this stuff was cooked up by people who were more artist than engineer.

There is probably a lot of truth to that

 

[ac12]

I was thinking this exact thing today, about how for some reason it's acceptable for enlargers to leak light all over the place, even though it's pretty obvious they will be used in a darkroom. Like they don't even try to make them light-tight, . . . I concluded this is because this stuff was cooked up by people who were more artist than engineer.

+1
Could also be an engineer who does not do wet printing.
Or the reverse phrase "function follow form."
Rather irritating how we have to lightproof the enlarger, 'after the fact.'

 

[John Koehrer]

I just bought a VW cylinder head & it doesn't fit my Studebaker. Why do they do this?

 

[fpoint]

Been in the industry for 30 years. Few enlarger manufacturers realize that we want to enlarge the entire image!!!. Used to make big bucks making custom carriers to fix their stupidity.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Buy a Minolta enlarger. ..all precision

 

[StoneNYC]

FWIW...

The D2 made a 6x7 carrier, 6x8 carrier, 6x9 carrier, and a 2.25x3.25 which were all different frames, I have them all.

A sheet of 2.25x3.25 film FALLS THROUGH the hole of the roll film holders. It took a while to find an official 2.25x3.25 Carrier, but they definitely are a separate thing.

Also keep in mind that not all photographers keep their film in STRIPS, some use individual frames, so the cutout had to have enough area to hold the frame without it falling through. This means cutting into the frame enough to avoid that, so, you lose a bit of it.

Furthermore many 35mm and other cameras' viewfinders don't actually show the full frame, there's a crop factor, so when people shoot, they might not realize there's more outside their viewable frame, so when they took their film to a printing lab to print, they would get back framed images closer to their original shot, not wider.

Those are just a few things that might help understand why they chose to cut into the frame a little bit.