marty_german

Jain Mann ... I recall a YouTube video from Sweetwater, showing off their photography setup. I've searched for it to post

here but, it must have been about a broader topic. Can you find out the url for it and post it here, for everyone, please?

<p>Hi Paul!</p>

<p>I'll see if I can locate my Ilford book to add it's exact title and publishing details but it covers some very clever advantages to using two exposures (one for hard and one for soft) in varying combinations to control both global and local contrast.</p>

<p>The effect can be superior to anything you've seen, before! One trick I remember was to produce a checkered board test strip, first varying the exposure of one of the extreme contrast filters in one direction and then over the same paper, making your other test strip with the opposite filter. When you pick the both the best exposure AND contrast square, you have your two exposures.</p>

<p>Another thing was that you could then use dodging and burning to both control the density AND the contrast of local areas in the photo. I used to use this to get very dramatic clouds and sky that would have blown out under normal printing of the landscape.</p>

<p>When you use this technique, it will amaze you how simple it is and yet how amazing the resulting prints are. Suddenly, 'impossible' to print negatives can produce amazing looking prints.</p>

<p>I've begun doing some serious prints using my Zone VI Type II enlarger with my sensor modified and Zone VI stabilized Aristo cold light plus 40Y filter and beneath the lens Ilford filters. I've got a series of 4x5 negatives that I will work with to produce the best prints I can using each of the three enlargers. Only then will I make my selection.</p>

<p>Let me know how the split contrast printing goes! I'll try to locate my book and post the details. Thanks again for your input.</p>

<p>Thank you both for your information!</p>

<p>It's a very exciting time for me, having all three setup side by side so that I can work with all three of them!</p>

<p>I know that if I contemplated working full 5x7 negatives the Type II would be the best choice but as I said, my largest works are in 4x5 so, all three are equally suited on that score in that they will each handle 4x5 and smaller printing.</p>

<p>I do like the fact that the Aristo 5x6 cold light head I have has both the yellow 40 filter (suggested by Aristo to balance it's spectrum for VC filters to work correctly) as well as the add on sensor and Zone VI stabilizer to balance it's luminance output. So, Paul's suggestion about preferring the stabilized cold light makes good sense to me, too!</p>

<p>But, I could also easily make adapters to use this rectangular head to work on any of the three enlargers with only slight modification to the Beseler (which would need some cutting to enlarge the lamp support area to accept the larger rectangular cold light head!).</p>

<p>I made some prototype carrier adapters for the Beseler Negaflat, and Negatrans carriers and Andrew was correct about the 35mm not 'fitting' into the optical center of the Type II enlarger. It does fit the Type I (just barely) due to the smaller frame opening (5x7 on the type I instead of 6x8 on the type II). The upper and lower parts of the knob protrude and just clear the lamphousing's edge and the carrier's support.</p>

<p>So, this kind of leaves me looking more closely at the Type I versus the 45 MX II.</p>

<p>One thing that I've discovered about the Beseler is that the knob on the front of the elevation motor also serves as a very fine focus adjustment! I wish that there was something similar on the Zone VI enlarger. It makes precise grain focusing much easier ... first roughly focusing with the normal focus knob and then using the knob on the elevation motor and a grain magnifier to fine tune the focus.</p>

<p>One thing about both the Zone VI enlargers that I like is that they were designed to be wall mounted, too. I have them both wall mounted and if I needed (very occasionally) to make larger photos than allowed by the baseboard, I can roll out my bench, away from the wall and focus onto the floor. And the wall mounting makes them both rock solid, much more so than the Beseler is.</p>

<p>Of course, with the Beseler, I could tilt the head back and use it's hook to turn it into a horizontal enlarger but, unfortunately, my used model didn't come with the hook and I have no idea where I'd find one or what it's dimensions were to fabricate one.</p>

<p>One other thing I must consider is that there seems to be little interest (and lots of them for sale!) in Besseler MX II enlargers on ebay! If I decide to regain my investment, it appears it would be easier to sell both of my Zone VI enlargers!</p>

<p>Or, do I try to sell the Beseler with it's round Aristo D2 cold light housing and one of the Zone VI enlargers? It's a real quandary!</p>

<p>If I had the room, I'd keep all three of them! Did I mention that I also have a fourth enlarger? It has sentimental value as it was my grandfather's Kodak Precision enlarger to which I've added a Zone VI cold light head and stabilizer. It's still quite sturdy but only can be used for up to 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 negatives and that's why I'm trying to find the best 4x5 that I can!</p>

<p>As it stands, the easiest enlarger for me to keep would be the Type I, but only IF I can sell the Beseler and recoup my investment, first?</p>

<p>BTW Andrew, I will have to measure but I think the 1/2" clearance would work ok for the Negaflat carrier plus my adapter which total about 3/16" but might be just too little for the Negatrans for 120 and 35mm as they are already 1/2" without my 1/16th" adapter! Thanks for saving me big hassles!</p>

<p>Recently, I've bought parts for two Zone VI enlargers ... a Type I and a Type II and a Beseler 45 MX II, complete with around D2 Aristo head with a Beseler adapter ring for it.<br>

 <br>

I've already made my own lead counter weights and wall mounts for both of the Zone VI enlargers.<br>

 <br>

I've also managed to buy a couple of original lensboards for the Type II and plan to make several more of my own for the Type I.<br>

 <br>

I've mounted an Aristo 6"x8" cold light head for the Type II and made a mounting for an Aristo 5" x 6" cold light head for the Type I (which I plan to use only for 4x5 and smaller negatives). I've got an array of lenses ... 50mm Apo Rodenstock; 80mm, 100mm, 135mm Compon-S and a 150mm Nikkor. That's the good news. The bad news is that I need to make lens boards with three different diameter lens openings for each enlarger.<br>

 <br>

I've also built a mounting for my Beseler Digtial Dichro 45 color head for 4x5 color printing. It just barely covers the 4x5 with a lot of fall off in the corners.<br>

 <br>

The Aristo 5" x 6" head covers the 4x5 black and white films so much more evenly than the Beseler!<br>

 <br>

My plan is to design an adapter plate for using Beseler Negatrans & Negaflat carriers (I have all 3 sizes) for either of my Zone VI enlargers.<br>

 <br>

<strong><em>What I wanted to find out from somebody with an 'official' Type I and Type II head is, how much clearance you have between the plate the negative carrier rests on and the bottom of the Zone VI cold light head?</em></strong><br>

 <br>

I want to design my cold light head mounts conform to the standard negative carrier gap distances so that I can test my adapter designs to see if they will work with standard Zone VI cold light heads.<br>

 <br>

My concern is that I hope to eventually upgrade to  Zone VI VC cold light heads made for these enlargers. The negative carrier/adapter machining is expensive. I hope to design it correctly the first time so that I only pay for machining it only once!<br>

 <br>

The problem is that the Beseler Negatrans are quite thick themselves! Add to them the thickness of the adapter plate and I don't know if there will be a clearance problem. I wouldn't want to scratch the opal plastic of my cold light heads when I insert the negative carrier/adapter plate into the enlargers.<br>

 <br>

I've already been aligned both of my 'Rube Goldberg' Zone VI enlargers using my prototype templates (currently out of hand finished, soft aluminum) and they work fine, mainly because I mounted the Aristo heads, myself so I could control the clearance over the negative carrier/adapters.<br>

 <br>

They work so well that I now plan to order a more permanent adapter from a local machine shop but I wanted to check to see what you see for clearance on a 'normal' Zone VI enlarger with an official Zone VI light head.<br>

 <br>

Currently, I have both of these enlargers standing beside my Besler 45 MX !!. It's quite a site to behold! I may soon sell two of them but I won't know which two until I have my adapter and can test each of them!<br>

 <br>

I'm leaning towards keeping the Type I since I only due up to 4x5 negs. and some 2 1/4 and some 35mm work. My adapter on the type I will let me use a 35mm negatrans that won't fit onto the Type II. Also, the Aristo 5x6 cold light (which I'm using on the Type I) is the latest version and works well with VC filters and it's modified with a Zone VI sensor and stabilizer.<br>

 <br>

The Type II is much larger than either the Type I or the Beseler! I just don't think that I'd ever need more than 4x5?<br>

 <br>

I'd also be interested in your opinions as to which enlarger I should hang on to and why?<br>

 <br>

Thanks in advance for your help with this project.</p>

It is always interesting to read about the various technical parameters that come into

play in any lens system.

It is also a simple matter to photograph using your particular body/lens/subject using a

range of apertures and exposures and then comparing the results to discover which

combination works the best with you camera.

One other thing worth considering are the lens aberrations which are also effected by

the aperture and zoom level on non-prime lenses.

Ultimately, this situation is so complex that it makes more sense to make actual

photographs and use the results to determine your optimum settings.

The problem with small apertures reducing sharpness is created by a phenomena called

diffraction. Ken Rockwell recently wrote an excellent and practical article that will help

you to determine the 'sharpest' aperture yielding the maximum depth of field for your

shooting situation. The article is freely available, here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm

BTW Using other focal length enlarging lenses will change both the magnification and the

working distance. For example, the 50 mm Componon-S and the 100 mm Componon-S

enlarging lenses fit the same lens ring and provide both more and less magnification.

You could build your own excellent (or better) lens that is engineered to work well in

extreme close-up situations with greater than 1:1 ... you will need to buy a body cap to

mount the lens on; a quality enlarging lens (the one illustrated here is an 80 mm

Componon-s which cost $25 used); and a set of close up extension tubes. The lens

can also be from an old film movie cameras (used reversed, they were designed to

focus very closely). Your D200 can be setup to use a non-linked lens (see your user's

manual) and (as in all extreme macro photography) you will focus by moving the

camera and lens farther or nearer to the subject. The focus indicator in your viewfinder

will still work, aiding you at the best focus. With the 80 mm lens and 65 mm of

extension tubes you'll have a useful working distance so that you can use the

camera's flash. Step one is to carefully cut the center of the body cap out using a

sheet rock style knife. It takes about 15 minutes of patient, steady cutting. Then, using

a hot melt glue gun, attach the lens ring that normally accompanies the enlarging lens

to the body cap. Finally, mount the lens to this new adapter and mount that onto the

extension tubes. All of this took less than a half an hour and cost about $50. The

resulting lens was engineered for optimum quality at these high magnifications and

outperforms other lenses that were optimized for infinity focus. See the photos I

uploaded of this rig and the sample 1:1 photo.<div></div>

I bought my 50-300 f/4.5 on ebay. The aperture ring threads on and the kits I've found for

it don't work this way. I used one of the kits to mark and then filed down the original

aperture ring and this worked! Unfortunately, when I reconnected the aperture ring on the

lens, it no longer connects to the diaphragm ... can anyone help me with the procedure

to connect the aperture ring to the diaphragm in the lens??? The diaphragm is currently

stopped down and the lever opens it up full (normal for focusing, etc.). A diagram of the

mechanism may also help me to figure out how to reconnect it. Thanks in advance!

I've owned both the unmodified Pentax Digital Spot meter as well as the Zone VI modified

version of it. My experience is that the Zone VI modified version is so superior that I

wouldn't even consider it to be the same meter! The replacement sensor, new baffles and

special filters take a 'ho-hum' meter that is easily fooled and turn it into a precise and accurate meter. I have no axe to grind, here. The 'cut off' measuring light that falls outside

of the 1 degree circle is crisp and instant on the modified version. On the original

unmodified this was a slow and gradual change, even when the subject was not. And the

accuracy of the readings in the Zone VI model is dead on, every time! It cost more to get

this accuracy but when you consider what you are paying for everything else, it's a no

brainer! Don't waste your money on anything, less!

I'd like to pass on a caution about third party iTTL flashes ... in particular, one third party

flash made by Sigma and advertised for the D70 ... the EF-500 DG Super. The warning is,

that it comes in two flavors, one of which (designated by the letters NA) isn't compatible

with the D70 and the other (designated by the letters NA i-TTL) which is compatible. This

can be a problem because many of the incompatible NA flashes are incorrectly advertised

that they work with the D70 (and they don't!). I found this out the hard way! Good luck

with your D70 ... it is, without question, the finest camera that I have used in 40 years!<div></div>

I have an older Calumet 4x5 that uses the 4x4 lensboards and some very clever lens

boards, they are ... one (# 29935 on underside) is a Calumet recessed lensboard

which is recessed approximately 3/4". The other is an adapter (# 105822 on its

underside) that accepts 3 1/3" x 3 1/8" lensboards. Both are beautifully machined.

Unfortunately, my Calumet, lens board to ground glass, close focusing is 3" (or

75mm) and even with the 3/4" recessed lensboard this is 2 1/4" (about 58mm) which

is still too much for infinity focus, unless, maybe if you stop it down a lot.

My experience with the 47mm was on a baby Linhof ... it had a special 15 degree

drop away rail (because of the extreme angle of view) and the rail that holds the lens

is then pushed back into the camera with the front tilted back 15 degrees (bringing

the lens parallel to the film. Even then, there was a helical focuser, built into the

lensboard for micro focusing (you will be amazed by the depth of field of that lens!).

I've recently switched to the Nikon Coolpix digital camera that has a 'fisheye' that is

the equivalent of a 14mm but the camera's electronics will stretch it out to fill the

frame with a 181 degree view!

I hope the numbers help you find and identify the correct Calumet board.<div></div>