Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] new to darkroom

Subject: Re: [OM] new to darkroom
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:03:58 -0500
Peter,

I didn't notice when I first read your post, but, looking back, 
you do seem to have them backwards.

So I don't add to the confusion by getting something wrong, this 
is from Ansel Adams' "The Print":

"...some enlargers, known as the diffusion type, interpose between 
lamp and negative a sheet of cloudy glass that spreads light 
uniformly.  This diffusion system causes some loss of light; 
however, it scatters light rays in many directions and much of the 
light, consequently, never reaches the enlarger lens.  It also 
gives a gently diffused appearance to the print.  Many 
photographers like this effect, particularly for portraits, but 
such softening of detail may be objectionable when small negatives 
must be greatly enlarged.

"Most enlargers designed for 35mm and other small film sizes 
commonly used by amateurs spread light uniformly over the negative 
with "condenser" lenses (and are called condenser enlargers).  
Between lamp and negative are two saucer-shaped lenses that 
concentrate the lamp's light so that it passes straight through 
the negative.  Most of the light reaches the lens, increasing 
efficiency.  The straight-line passage also yields crisp detail, 
since light rays from different points in the negative do not 
overlap one another."

Walt

__________________________________________________________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it 
from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal, theologian


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: petertje@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:  Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:29:36 +0200

>
>Hi Walt,
>
>>Actually, it's exactly the opposite.  Condenser enlargers are 
>>generally sharper and contrastier.  Diffusion enlargers 
>>minimize the effects of dust and scratches on the negative.
>
>Did I just mix up the two types entirely (giving them just the 
wrong names), or did I explain them correctly but was my 
conclusion about the sharpness wrong ?
>
>
>
>Peter.
>
 


 
                   

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz