ZEISS Super Enlarger!!

[chip j]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/222723879306

 

[AgX]

Vertical enlargers of this type were common in aerial surveying photography.

Keep in mind that 8x10 vertical enlargers are quite similar except for the mechanics.


This one is from Oberkochen, the model from Jena is even more impressive..

 

[AgX]

These enlargers were also used in mobile darkrooms mounted on a truck chassis.
At least in one constellation the enlarger was hung up in a steel-tubes cradle by means of coil springs.

 

[AgX]

A important point I should add, as typically overlooked, is the film format.

Before WWII the german (european) standard has grown to 30x30cm resp. 12x12".
After that in the West, under US influence, that was reduced to 23x23cm, resp. 9x9", whereas in Eastern Europe one stuck to the older format. Thus the cameras and enlargers from Jena were bigger so to say.
Thus Super Duper...

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'd buy that baby in an instant, but it wouldn't fit in my bathroom. Plus, it's a couple of dollars more than I can afford. I guess I'll have to stick with my Focomat 1C and omega D2's for now. Sure would be fun to play with and see just how good it might be. You can tell there were no corners cut on making that thing. I'll just jot it down on my wish list for Christmas and I'm sure Mama Santa will fill my stocking. Ya, right!

 

[AgX]

Concerning your bathroom, it will not only be a matter of dimensions, but also of floor load. The latest model from Jena weighs 1000kg.

But in contrast to the western model it would fit better your bathroom furniture and is much, much better to wipe off...

 

[ic-racer]

I think that has been posted before, the listing is from last November.

Of course all 8x10 enlarger lenses would have those specifications if that resolution was needed for sharp prints. Printing paper fine-art photographers use has poor resolution compared to film. But as Zeiss knew, not all enlargers are made for making fine-art prints. Many Technical applications might require the highest resolution capable with a visible light source.

I just glanced at the description but realize that a 180mm lens at f8 has a diffracting aperture of 22mm which would be the same 22mm as a 300mm lens at f13. The blue light source would reduce diffraction effects by the same amount in both lenses. In terms of corner resolution, indeed, the 300mm Componon-S would get sharper in the corners as stopped down to F22, where as, if we believe the specs, the 180mm Zeiss lens would get worse stopped down to f22 (the definition of 'diffraction limited')

 

[ic-racer]

Great thing for photographers using conventional enlarging papers, a $25 'junk-bin' process lens can exceed the resolution of the printing paper (if magnification ratio is not too great and the lens is not stopped down beyond f22).

Realize that if this lens is used wide open the diffracting aperture is a massive 33mm! Diffraction with a conventional halogen lamp light source would be undetectable at any print size that fits on the enlarger baseboard (40")

 

[AgX]

The idea behind these enlargers not only is high resolutiom and eveness of lighting.
But stability and rectification. In fact they are not even called enlargers, but rectifiers. The with great effort yielded precision in mounting lens and film in a photogrammetric camera must not be lost at the rectifying stage.

 

[John51]

What applications need that machine rather than a regular lf enlarger?

 

[AgX]

Needed, of course...

Making rectified copies of photogrammetric exposures, especially in aerial surveying.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Applications like mapmaking and aerial surveillance requires an entirely different league of precision across the entire image than casual photography. But John, if overweight Santa can fit down your chimney, maybe a tall vertical enlarger would fit inside it the other direction. You could pay a chimneysweep to change the bulbs from time to time.