|
|
 | | Author | |
|
| | Date | |
|
|
|
|
Eino Lilback |
13:38 23 Sep 02 |
|
|
Phil Davis |
18:18 23 Sep 02 |
|
|
phil sweeney |
11:50 16 Sep 02 |
|
|
Phil Davis |
20:30 16 Sep 02 |
|
|
phil sweeney |
13:15 23 Sep 02 |
|
|
Phil Davis |
18:25 23 Sep 02 |
|
|
David Rude |
22:18 8 Sep 02 |
|
|
Phil |
8:39 9 Sep 02 |
|
  |
Film testing with Zone VI cold-light enlarger |
|
David Rude |
20:59 8 Sep 02 |
 |
So I tried to do a bit of film testing for a friend today. We weren’t exactly successful due to the fact that I could not get my Zone VI cold-light enlarger light to be bright enough for the test. We were attempting to test the new 100 TMax 35mm which was a chore in itself. Once we figured out how to get everything to line up in the contact frame, the remaining problem was the light source.
I found that in order to get an EV reading of 4 I had to use f5.6, the largest aperture on my 150mm lens and the enlarger had to be so close that it only cast an area of light that was maybe 8” across. Now it’s a cold-light diffusion enlarger so I figured that it may be even enough so we gave it a try. We got data but it looked like we were underexposed by about 1/2 stop (I had 3-4 clear steps instead of 2). In order to get the light meter reading to read an EV of ~4.5 the enlarger was so close that it barely cast an area of light 4x5”. Just barely large enough to cover a 4x5 step tablet.
We tried using a 35mm enlarger lens, one that had a larger aperture range but we had no luck as the difference in the enlarger height necessary nullified any gain in aperture settings. I am already using a 1/2 second exposure time so there’s nothing to play with there either.
Even if I solve this for 100 ISO film it looks like I’m totally hosed if I ever wanted to test something slower.
I really like this enlarger for printing but it seems it may not be the best choice for film testing. The cold-light head just does not seem bright enough.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil |
21:01 8 Sep 02 |
|
