How large can I enlarge?

My Minox enlarger was stolen several years ago, and the replacement

needs a new bulb so I can't check this for myself. How large can I

make on the baseboard from a full frame?

Depends upon the model of Minox enlarger. It seems that the Model 3 enlargers with the COMPLAN-like mechanical curvature can do 30x40 cm onto the baseboard but the models with the flat plates can't. Thoughout the development life of the MINOX enlargers it seems the masks got smaller and smaller.

I check the Minox enlarger Manual at Gerald McMullon site

http://www.submin.com/8x11/manuals/minox/minox_enlarger/enlarger_5510_2.jpg

<p> The largest enlargement on base board with enlarger II is

9.5" x 12"<p>

An accessory 45 degree mirror permit enlargement much larger than

9.5 x 12"

An Australian Minoxer told me that he used his Minox color enlarger to enlarger 8x10", and used his HP 24 projector to enlarger Minox

negative to 20x 30"

Minox first surface mirror actually is a good choice<p>

Using "reverse mount" to project image on wall is more easy to say that do. Because the Minox enlarger colume is slanted. When the lamp

house is reverse mounted, Minox only wanted it to get out of the way

for mounting copy attachement, not for enlargement at awkward angle.

( I tried it)

<p> First surface mirror not necessarily deteriorate image, it all

depends on whether the mirror is polished to optically flat and well

silvered. Otherwise, how can astromomy reflector telescope makes

astro photographs.

<p> Minox was not the only one who made first surface mirror as

acessory for making large size enlargements. Omega enlarger also

has such first surface mirror attachment.

<p> One advantage of first surface mirror is convenience.

<p> BTW, not all enlargers can be reverse mounted ( including Minox enlargers) In that case first surface mirror is the only allternative.<p>

<p> That said, Minox first surface mirror is hard to come by, it is

a collector item.

Ed, some enlarger just cannot be reverse mounted<p>

As for vibration, it it the same whether you use reverse mount or

mirror, as long as the magnification is large, it magnifies tiny

vibration, all the same.

Martin commented "Ed, some enlarger just cannot be reverse mounted"

 

But we are talking about the MINOX Model II/3 enlargers and they

can be reverse mounted. Even the last series that did away with the

mounting points for the ill-fated copy adapter allows for this--- really the same castings just without the bores.

 

Martin "As for vibration, it it the same whether you use reverse mount or mirror, as long as the magnification is large, it magnifies tiny vibration, all the same."

 

I was not arguing that its less an issue but was only relaying MINOX GmbH's experience as I've heard which don't speak too much for their mirror accessory.... That said.. mounting titled on the floor (my proposed solution) or a front surface mirror projected onto an easel suspended from the ceiling do pose different sets of vibration inputs.

Ed,

None of reverse mount or using mirror of Minox enlarger are practical solution.<p>

The reason is simple, even with 6v6a lamp, the light intensity is

just to low for large size projection<p>

That is why people who have done it used Minox slide projector

such as HP 24 instead. The projector lens and bulb are much more brighter for large size projection.

Martin "even with 6v6a lamp, the light intensity is just to low for large size projection"

 

Depends upon the model. It has been empirically observed that the early model II enlargers don't produce as much light as the modell II/3, whence perhaps the shift from 6A to 3A as standard and not just, as we have speculated, a consideration of the dominance of small enlargements and the increased speed of paper.

 

I have an extraordinary 30x40cm enlargement of a Copex/Nanospeed negative that was done using a model II/3 enlarger with curved COMPLAN type optics (type 2203 with 6A bulb). I have shown this picture and it has passed under expert eyes as an extraordinary 35mm enlargement. Now if 30x40cm (11x16") can be good.. why should not 40x50 cm (16x20") be possible?

 

Well the same wizard of 8x11film that did the 30x40cm demonstration enlargement has developed a novel low-cost prototype extension tube to raise the head for 40x50 cm so the proof is perhaps not too far off.. and what did Marcus report.... 40x50cm position projected onto TT/Speed Grade 2 30x40cm paper.. 8 seconds at high lamp intensity.

William White and Joseph Cooper both mentioned in their books that

the largest enlargement from Minox 8x11 negatives they seen were garage door

size murals.

<p> The supply of high resolution microfilm and specialty developer

come and go. Several decades ago there was HW Control developer

which combined with a high resolution microfilm made mural size enlargement from Minox 8x11 possible <p> HW Control

disappeared from the market, and so mural size enlargment from Minox

went with it.

<p> Some Minoxer thinks that the new SPUR developer might be a new

incarnation of the former HW Control developer.

<p>

Martin: "William White and Joseph Cooper both mentioned in their

books that the largest enlargement from Minox 8x11 negatives they

seen were garage door size murals.

 

I suspect those were done with projection and grain was probably

well part of the image just as some of the films I've seen where

Super-8 and 8mm footage using Tri-X, was used as technique.

 

Martin: "The supply of high resolution microfilm and specialty developer

come and go."

 

The supply of microfilm has been relatively good. Microfilm and fiche

are still appropriate technologies for long term archival applications.

While 1000 lp/mm Copex is perhaps no longer available the 600 lp/mm

is more than sufficent and for pictoral photography makes hardly much

a difference in the final resolution--- recall we are not doing 1000:1

contrast and one needs to also factor in the resolution of the rest of

system such as the camera---- but with a more than significant lack of

speed, whence appropriateness for our application.

 

And developers? My 1974 edition of "Dokumentenfotographie für Amateure"

(Document photography for Amateurs) published by Agfa-Gevert discusses

at the end of the book portrait use of Agfaortho 25 document film and

provides two developers:

 

------

 

Two bath developer:

 

Solution A:

- Metol 5g

- Natriumsulfit sicc. (Sodium Sulfite) 100g

disolved in 800ml of water and diluted to provide 1000 ml of

solution.

 

Solution B:

- Natriumtetraborat (Borax) 10g

- Natriumcarbonat sicc (Soda) 0.5g

also disolved in 800ml of water and then diluted to provide 1 liter

of final solution.

 

 

Development:

3 min. in Solution A with agitation every 30 secs.

Empty and fill with Solution B. 3 min with agitiation every

30 secs.

The rest, watering, fixing, washing etc. "as always"

 

----------

 

The other devloper? Oh surprize, surprize...

Agfa Rodinal 1+200 with 1% Natriumcarbonat (Soda) !

Continuous agitation for 6 min.

 

-----------

 

According to the Afga book the two solution works significantly better...

 

And in my copy of Willi Beutler's "Meine Dunklekammer Praxis" what do

I find on page 64? A discussion of the use of document film for

landscape photograhy.. And what developer... Neofin Blue as one might

have guessed.. Diluted to half its "normal" concentration and then

12-15 minutes.

 

And what did Willie write... Yes.. that one could make enlargements

using 35mm that are in 18x24 cm enlargement hardly distinguishable

from those taken with a 9x12 camera.

 

The problem for "general" purpose of these document films is that

they are orthochromatic.... But COPEX is panochromatic!

 

Martin "Some Minoxer thinks that the new SPUR developer might be a new

incarnation of the former HW Control developer."

 

Well... Martin you have gotten some sample film and developer from

8x11film.com .. What has been your findings?

Edward, the "B" developer sounds a lot like Diafine. My own experiments using (35mm) Technical Pan film in a highly dilute first developer of Diafine have produced the sharpest negatives that I've ever seen. The grain, of course, is virtually absent, but there is still an unresolved problem with totally controlling the contrast.

<h3> Minox Mural </h3>

 

The largest Minox enlargement on record was probably the 15 foot

Cincinnati sky line mural made from four Minox 8x11mm negatives by Minox master photographer Joe J. Marx

of Sarasota, Florida in the 60s. <p>

Ed wrote: "Well... Martin you have gotten some sample film and developer from 8x11film.com .. What has been your findings?"

 

<P>I am way behind my Minox darkroom job. <p>

I am only starting to develop the Minox BW film taken at June during

Mediterranean cruise. And I haven't even enlarge any Minox 8x11

taken during last year's trip to Eastern Canada yet.. <P>

 

<p> Any how, this coming weekend I may go to Niagara Falls

with my Minox loaded with Agfa Copex.

 

<p> I am also planning to re do a COMPLAN/MINOX lens test with

COPEX + SPUR.

My mistake, Diafine uses HQ not Metol.

AFaik, Minox also made extension tube for Minox enlargers. However

these Minox made Minox enlarger extension tube is quite scarce.

re: Spur developer. It is apparently not the H&W Control formula reincarnated. I have worked extensively with H&W Control and Spur's processing times and agitation are very different. So is film speed if I remember correctly. H&W was formulated in the late 1960's and there has been much work done since then. I think we can take the Spur people's word for it that their product is an invention of their own, an outgrowth of their work on traffic surveillance problems.

 

(also, it is clear to me that Gigabit is different from H&W Control, since it requires signifacantly more exposure.)

 

David Foy

The European paper size 24x30 cm fits the Minox enlarger<p>

 

<a href="http://www.banse-grohmann.de/wephota/papierix.htm">Banse & Grohmann/Wephota papers </a><p>

 

Note, Banse & Grohmann/Wephota is the new incarnation of former

ORWO of Germany

<a href="http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/deutsch/technische_informationen/technische_bildbeispiele/technische_bildbeispiele.htm">gigabitfilm </a>

 

 

There is one 1000x enlargement from gigabit film

Here are picture samples(by Marcus ) from

 

<a href="http://www.8x11film.com/spur/engbilder.html">8x11film.com</a>

 

<p> The pictures from Agfa Copex Rapid + Spur looks very different

from gigabitfilm <p>

 

If gigabitfilm is not based on Agfa Copex Rapid, then what is gigabitfilm ?

Why the two films look so different ?

Edz wrote"Gigabit is NOT 900 lpmm. Its NOT even 600 lpmm.. Nor even 400 lpmm"

 

Well, here is the gigabit spec, it clearlys stated that its 35mm ISO 40 film is 700 lpmm

and its 4x5" ISO 25 sheet film is 900 lpmm.

 

 

<a href="http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/deutsch/produkte.htm">gigabit products </a>

Beside gigabit, Agfa Copex, there is another high resolution film

on the market

<a href="http://www.bluefire.ca/">Bluefire.ca Police Surveillance film</a>

 

I am wondering what this Police film is ( Agfa Copex ? or something else ?)<p>

The Bluefire developer seems to be some sort of H & W Control formula

Edz wrote:"H&W Control was a developer for............ drumroll..............

C-O-P-E-X. That's right there was NEVER a H&W control film"<p>

 

FYI: The original film that went along with H & W Control developer

was Kodak High Contrast panchromatic VTE film, with ASA tungsten rating of 64, when used with H & W Control, the rating became 25.

 

<p> Later, H & W Control Company of St Johnsbury, Vermont distributed

their own film for H & W Control developer, that film was called

H & W Control VTE Pan film, made for them by Agfa- Gevaert to

H & W Control's specification, with a rating of ASA 80. It was

NOT Copex.

There are several version of Copex.

SPUR uses Copex Rapid.

Gigabit is not Copex Rapid. Because

 

<ul><li> Gigabit offers 4x5" sheet film

Copex Rapid only comes in 16mm and 35mm never sheet film.

<li> Copex Rapid 600 lpmm. Gigabit 700 to 900 lpmm, Cannot be

Copex Rapid

<li> If Gigabitfilm is Copex, the more likely candidate would be

Agfa Copex High Definition Pan film :Copex HDP EHDKT : with stated

resolution of 800 lpmm( closer to gigabit 700-900 lpmm figure ) and available in 105x 148 mm size.

<p> Agfa Copex HDP film could be the formerly made for H & W Control

H & W Control VTE pan film. Both has stated ASA 80.

 

</UL>

In summary, imo, gigabilt definitely NOT Copex Rapid AHU, more likely Copex HDP.