วีดีโอ

The same principles apply with enlargement factor being the key thing. If you start getting really really big, you will want to use the newer optimized enlarging lenses and make sure your set up is pretty well aligned and stable. I made 16x20s and the lowly Nikkor 50/2.8 did just fine!

@@northeastphotographic thanks. whenever i jump on the large format forums and start reading I feel like I need to get a phd in art history and metrology, but the old printer threads are a fascinating read- sometimes. Thank god for command shift 4. That said - assuming there is a cut and dried answer for this - what lenses do you recommend for 120, 4x5, and 8x10 enlargements if a3 is the max print size I would ever go for. Is there a standard cut off date, era wise, that you recommend? The forums are a mixed bag. Some people claim certain taking lenses on 4x5 or 8x10 can double up as enlargement lenses ( “because Ansel did …”) but wtf do I know. Have you tested any of the process lenses at all ? They seem fascinating. Sorry, long winded question almost over , I noticed that in astro photography they use these optical attachments called field flatteners- could these potentially come into play for using taking lenses as enlargers? Alright, thanks for running these interesting tests . Printing feels very much like an under appreciated dark art, and I think hat they know and do is just nect level stuff , but Im also looking to get my feet wet and pop my cherry. 🍒 have a good one!

@@Dstonephoto A3 is roughly 12x16 so any of the available 6 element designs from the last few decades are fantastic. Everyone has different opinions but the reality is for enlarging, there is not a lot of difference. I have a mix of Rodenstock, Schneider, and Nikkor lenses, all from their 'middle of the road' line up if they have one. I print a lot of 6x6 and some 35mm with the 80/4 Componon-S. If I need to make a bigger print the Nikkor 50/2.8 EL. For 4x5 the 150/5.6 Compnon-S. For 8x10 I often use a 240 from the same line...but I do have a 300 as well. The 240 is useful because you don't have to rack the enlarger up. The only reason to get a super modern APO enlarging lens is when you're making a mural. Even as a die hard analog person...if I'm going above 20x24 I am using inkjet.

@@MarkSperry Thank you for the recommendation. The more I learn about optical /analog printing methods the more I begin to get lost in how groundbreaking the processes and people behind them were in a league of their own. Conversely, Im equally impressed by the engineering of modern printers - not always the end results (though that’s a function of cost). Though sometimes I begin to wonder why we don’t have hybrid machines that combine the best of both worlds. Thanks for the lens recommendations!

They're not really a replacement for large format, but if there is a certain subject a large format photographer couldn't get with a view camera then maybe you could sub in this film. The images will still be grainless. Large format will likely have better definition however since you're not really stressing your lenses.

There are 11,000ppi drum scanners which would probably be a good match for this film. I tend to think this film does well with darkroom enlargement as well. Once you hit 11x14 from a darkroom print you're starting to notice how your images just have no grain. I still have a lot of it and I plan to shoot it...the thing that holds me back though is if I want grainless images, why not just use large format?

That is a good question. I'd say that even a properly executed and processed MF TMax 100 or even. Pan F would give you similar results with much better tonality and flexibility in processing, but we do like to mess around. This film really taxes a photographer's technique and equipment and sadly here most of today's photographers come short.

@@lensman5762 Honestly, the way to use this film IMHO is to buy it in 100' rolls and make 12 or 16 exposure lengths. The 36 exposure roll is what makes it impractical. On a tripod with a good lens it is a decent stand in for medium format but like you said, TMax 100 already gives grainless results in most normal enlargement sizes with much less fuss. I would even go further and say if you want that grainless look in smaller formats, even Pan-F is a waste of effort compared to the T-Grain stuff. But yes...what's the fun in all that practical thinking? I have a bunch of Adox and I shoot it! Heck, I have some frozen TechPan in 8x10!

Great question! Honestly I find the Noritsu pulls out all the useful detail on most 35mm films. In fact, the 6.5 megapixel scans are perfectly suitable for many camera and film combinations. Portra 160 and Ektar look great at the 30 megapixel size, or the medium and low speed B&W films. The available chrome films, tabular B&W films, possibly Ektar, and certainly CMS20II benefit from a higher resolution scan. To do this you could use an Imacon which for 35mm, will resolve 8000ppi. Some drum scanners exceed this. CMS20II will benefit from as much as a 12,000ppi scan, it's that good. That being said, once you meet the needs of a 44" printer, the utility of a higher resolution scan is somewhat academic. When customers order our largest print size, 24x36", we use an Eversmart Supreme II, and it's 5600ppi.

Rpx 25 is my actual best 35 mm film. Im thinking between cms 20 and Rpx25 but its seems Im stay at Rpx25. Why? Because the rpx25 quality is very good for this price and always on stock in europe. CMS 20 its a little unicorn, it would be better at sharpnes, and grany but it has oftenstocking and prodicting problem at adox. Moreover cms 20 developping more difficult than Rpx25, and cream on the top adox made a higher price in last mounth from 7 euros to 12 euros per p. Againts of this rpx is stay at 7 euros. So it would be a good stock but there are more disadvanteges as advantages. I scanning rpx25 and make an A3 printing its enough for me. The resulation defferents totally dont care because rpx25 is correct to A3. Moreover rollei contrast as total black and white is my taste almost IR film. I asked also fotoimpex about cms 20 future, i sent about 5-6 emails, but dint receive any information.

Do you mean, compare a scan to a print?

No sorry, I mean compare a darkroom silver print, to a inkjet print from a scan of the same negative. How close can the two processes get? Personally, I find the attention to small details, or the fine tone adjustment of individual tones in Photoshop to be very helpful. Yet I go weak at the knees when I see a beautiful silver print. :-)

@@Super.Quasar Yeah I could do that. Specifically once I set up our Piezography printer that might be fun to do. I find that silver prints have more presence and depth than archival pigment, whereas you can be very creative with paper choices when printing digital.

Thank you! Darkrooms are still where the magic happens.

@@northeastphotographic definitely!

Whoops! Fixed that link. I'm having issues with YT allowing me to post links in the video description. They are not accepting my verification for some reason. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I’m sorry you had such a negative experience with it! It’s definitely quirky but I found it to be interesting enough to order a 100ft bulk length. I’m not sure about other markets but here it’s a little less expensive than Kodak films like TMax. I also didn’t have any curling issues. I will say that Adox films do seem a lot more fragile than Ilford or Kodak. I touch on the relative merit of such a high resolving film in later videos, it’s a mixed bag for sure! I agree that in making normal print sizes, TMax or Delta 100 are going to be great and easier to work with.

Maybe you did something wrong? (But I can't tell what?). Yes it's hart to handle. But in comparison with other films like fp4, delta 100 its a huge difference. The resolution is mind blowing. For me it's the perfect film to use if you want to make big enlargements.

I will definitely cover different agitation styles in later videos. The Heiland TAS just simulates hand agitation though in a mechanical way. If you’re used to “Ilford standard” agitation, that will work just fine!

The TAS is a great processing tool. However, I was expecting you to use the Jobo before the TAS appeared. 😊

They also sell it in bulk, so it would be interesting to maybe load up some 12 exposure canisters for specific situations. I think the next time I buy it I'll buy a 100ft roll. Re Gold, I gravitate toward a cleaner look so maybe that's why I dig the 120 version so much.

Thank you!! 😁

That's a perfect use case if you can use a tripod or if you have sufficient light for those exposures. I haven't tried HR-50 yet but it's on my list.