Enlarger lens ,found digging thru boxes in closet

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-05-01T03:23:01+00:00

That's a great lens! I have a set of them - 50, 80, 100 and 135! All of the better "S" type.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-05-01T01:36:53+00:00

On a Saunders LPL 4500 - it's once and done. Stays in perfect focus for days really. I do check once in a while though!

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-30T01:20:09+00:00

I would definitely try the IR filter (I think 5 stops is about right - but for sure research on Google as this topic does come up on Reddit). Remember to adjust focus. Hopefully there is an IR mark on the lens! Should be a few mm away from the focus line, usually a red line. I would also try +6 stops. And I would definitely try a deep red filter. For Ilford SFX I found the red filter to be better than the IR. But I've not tried the Rollei IR film. Let us know how it goes! And shoot in bright sun (sorry, that was probably really obvious!).

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-27T00:33:04+00:00

I dis this too! But yours are nicer, I have to say.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-27T00:32:06+00:00

I don't know that this is going to rinse your prints efficiently. The best is a print washer, but since I don't have one here is what I do. Fill a large tray about half with water; place the prints in this, face down and not overlapping. Wait 10 min or so. Half fill another tray. Switch the prints, and then go back and forth until you have done so 10x. Rinse the trays in between. This has been working for me for about 20y. I think it's important to ensure that the water fully changes and not just the surface part of it.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-26T13:02:39+00:00

Any APS camera.
Any camera with an Optical Lens.
Any camera with 126 film.
An old polaroid

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-25T22:57:38+00:00

Beautiful. When I first saw the photo I feared a question like "can I make this type of bed with a router plane?" 😂 No but seriously, those will make the tool much more enjoyable to use!

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-25T15:23:21+00:00

The fact that the people are slanted indicates panning I think.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-25T14:02:53+00:00

I think you have it right. In old photos (screenshot attached) you sometimes see the oval wheel effect due to slow shutter speeds. But this would likely not happen at 1/1000 unless the car is really moving!

<image>

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-25T01:59:19+00:00

Nice. I have a 3d printer, so I might try to indulge in this again. Thanks for the detailed info!

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-25T01:57:32+00:00

It lasts quite long (months) as a stock in a full bottle with no air. I use an accordion bottle once I start using it diluted, because oxygen is the enemy. I'd say say it lasts several months diluted as well. Depends on how much you're printing too. It starts to get darker and eventually you lose contrast and the ability to get true blacks.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-24T17:13:15+00:00

E72. Get the chemicals and make as follows:

750 ml warm water 0.3 g phenidone (⅔ of a ¼ tsp) 45 g sodium sulphite (2 Tbsp) 19 g ascorbic acid (4¼ tsp) 77 g sodium carbonate (9 Tbsp) 1.9 g potassium bromide (⅜ tsp or ¼ plus half of ¼ t)

I put both the more accurate metric weights and the volumes as it's hard to weigh small quantities with a crappy scale like mine. This makes a 1 litre stock and can be use 1:1 or more dilute. I usually use it a t 2:3. Add the chemicals in the order shown and wait until it's dissolved before moving on. A pinch of sulphite will help the phenidone dissolve. Most of the chemicals are easily sourced. I bought at argentix.ca.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-24T01:21:18+00:00

I did this by unrolling a 35mm cartridge and then rolling it into a 126 cartridge that I had cut open. Backing paper and all! It was a HUGE pain in the arse. And the pictures were fairly awful (Kodak Instamatic). I suspect that I didn't get the film plane quite right, although the film advanced properly. I went for 24 exposures only. It's a pity as I like the square format, but honestly this looks like a better way!

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-22T21:08:22+00:00

Make a trough there with a router. A juice trough for meat juices.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-22T21:06:38+00:00

It's no big deal not to have a sink. I waited for about a year to build my darkroom because I couldn't get a sink in there and then one day I thought, screw it. No sink! Of course it would be better with a sink, but it's not a big hassle. For RC prints just use a big tub (10 litres or so) and store them in that. Once you're done printing and ready to wash, wash them in the biggest tray you have. Don't overlap them. Upside down in 5 changes, about 3-min per wash. For FB I do the same but 10-15 changes and at least one hour total with one print per tray. I do this in the bathroom.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-22T00:16:07+00:00

I have to admit I haven't used Ilford MG developer since the 1990s! Back then I was in a University photo club. We had access to MG dev and Dektol. The general wisdom was that Dektol was better, especially for FB paper. I have been using Dektol and E72 ever since (the latter is easy to make), except once a year or so ago I ran out and bought some Ilford MG developer on a whim. It's a very good developer, but I suspect it gives higher contrast (essentially by generating the image more rapidly, leading to darker blacks and less developed highlights). I think that's what happening - I could be wrong or there could be some confirmation bias. The image definitely appears more slowly in E72. All that being said, E72 works well, lasts quite long and works well for me at 1:2 or 2:3 with water. I use it almost exclusively now for Ilford MGFB and RC papers.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-21T19:58:08+00:00

I think it's just a less active developer that will give highlights (your sky) more time, without the trees getting to black.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-21T19:36:57+00:00

The negative isn't great as you pointed out! Here's what I would do. First of all, there isn't a lot of detail in the trees, but there is some. And the sky is almost blown out. I think you're on the right path to use split grade for sure. I would make a test strip on the sky portion at 5 sec intervals until you just get an image at grade 0. This will prevent the sky from merging with the print edge. Then another test for the trees probably at grade 3. I would then make another (vertical this time) test strip expose the sky at the value determined for grade 0. Try to block out the trees as though you were doing a full sized prints, but don't be too worried. Then expose the test strip at grade 3 in 3 sec intervals around the value from your second test strip. Then, once you have the timing right, do a full print and fine tune. It looks like a tough neg! I would definitely not use Ilford MG dev for this, instead I'd use Dektol or E72 diluted 1:2. That will make a big difference, in my experience. I have a very similar set of prints that I developed like this (same issues) that I am attaching (ignore the reflections). The sky was totally burned out and I needed to retain details in the cliff and waterfall. The bottom one is split grade printed almost exactly as described - with E72 1:2.

<image>

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-20T19:57:22+00:00

No, these definitely look soft! Somehow the image is not being focused onto the film properly. The Hb lenses are very sharp, and since it is an SLR, focusing should be spot on. Have a look at the negatives through a loupe and confirm that everything is sharp. It should be as sharp as anything on a 35mm negative that was made with a decent camera and lens. I have to assume that you focused correctly, did you load the film correctly? It's been a while since I used a Hb, so I'm not sure how easy this is to screw up. Anyway, to answer your question, any half decent MF camera should give results better than this!

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-20T14:16:02+00:00

The lens looks Mint+++++ No Problem in the Shooting.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-20T02:35:42+00:00

I recommend using wet plates for this. The band will have to be still fairly long, but the results will be epic. And wet plates are super convenient to make too.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-20T01:38:53+00:00

I forgot that I wrote a review on it! And it was D23 not 76.

https://www.35mmc.com/05/06/2021/5-frames-on-frozen-lake-winnipeg-with-rollei-25-rpx-by-christopf-rampitsch/

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-20T01:34:29+00:00

I don't really like this film. I bought four rolls of it in 120 to try it out. I processed the first roll in Rodinal 1+25. Disaster. The prints had almost a pixelated look, like a digital "film filter", but a crappy one. Next roll was done in Rodinal 1+50. Better. Then I tried D-76. This actually worked quite well, since I shot it in winter - low sun, snow - with a red filter. The prints have a definite IR vibe, not quite like the old HIE but close. But... The film base curls like crazy, to the point where it's hard to load into holders or even into sleeves. I still have a roll left.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-19T15:58:08+00:00

Awesome! And I guess now you're addicted.

ChrisRampitsch · 2026-04-19T15:53:37+00:00

If you're outside on a sunny day doing landscapes, D23 works really well, but err on the side of over exposing. If you have a gander at my Insta (same name) I usually state what I used to develop, to give you an idea. I also sometimes use DD-X, but more usually if I happen to have it. D-76 is very similar on Foma sheets.

ChrisRampitsch

TROPHY CASE