Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/02/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I used 105mm on MF and 63mm for 35mm (360mm for 10"x8" and enlarged contact prints). The Kamm went when I got out of photography in 1997/8 (not developed a fim or print since then :-(). Yes a 8' column plus the height of the head requires high ceilings - mine was used in the corner of a studio which was in an old building (12' ceilings I think) in Clerkenwell (London). john ________________________________________ Hi John, Large format enlargers aren't the best for MF film. "Well aligned" across a 250+mm holder is inevitably less precise than across a >100mm one. That plus a diffusion head might be enough alone to lose that very top 5-10% of resolution that would show you the difference between the lenses. The APO El-Nikkors were always special order items with breathtaking prices. The 105 is perfect for 6x6, although I found the Zeiss Orthoplanar-S 60mm was better for 35mm film. Do you still have/have access to the Kamm? I bought a Durst 10x10 enlarger in 2010, but haven't used it yet. I need a higher ceiling [not joking]. Marty On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > I don't remember APO in its name anyhow ;-) My negs were dry in glass > carriers (spotting in PhotoShop (or LR) is much preferable!) and it took > up 10"x10", mine had a diffuser (not cold cathode) head. > > john > ________________________________________ > > > Interesting. The Apo El-Nikkors were available from at least the > 1970s, maybe earlier. The two biggest factors I found in improving > silver prints from MF and LF negatives was a really good lens and > oil/wet mounting the negs - even if you're not using a physical > unsharp mask. Oil mounting is a total pain, but if you need to get > all the detail that's on the neg onto the print, it's the only way to > go. But the light source needs to be matched to the negs - with a > diffusion source it's not really worth bothering. I have only heard > of/read about the Kamm enlargers, I've never used one - but do know > that they came with lots of different light sources). > > I don't print like that anymore, but for my own prints I prefer > tonality to resolution and detail, and more than anything my time is > limited. > > Marty > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:58 AM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> > wrote: >> 20"x24" with El-Nikkor (I don't think APO lenses were out when I last >> printed in 1997) on Oriental Seagull with a 13" Kamm (well adjusted). >> >> john >> ________________________________________ >> >> >> My guess is that you never noticed much difference when wet printing >> either because you didn't enlarge enough, or your enlarging system had >> enough factors to degrade the image quality (lens, alignment, >> stability) to a point where they were about equivalent. >> >> _______________________________________________