THE most important lens

Sat thinking about all of the different blogs around where different opinions were expressed over lenses. Back when my darkroom was active (circa 1990) regardless of the optic on the camera body, it was the enlarger lens that controlled the final image quality.

Yes or No :

Regards

Never had the joys of a darkroom, but I guess that the quality of the enlarger lens only controlled the image quality when it was inferior to the camera lens by quite a margin. The camera lens needs to put the image on the small area of film whereas the enlarger lens needs to put the image on the (comparatively) large area of paper. A 10th of a millimeter is 1/360 of the longer edge of film but only 1/1800 of a 13 x 18 cm print.

But there are quite a few parameters deciding the overall quality that this is a tricky one to answer and hands-on darkroom experience is required. I'm sure this is the right place for such experience, though, and will be interested in the answers to come...

Prieni

As I recall keeping the film flat in the carrier was pretty vital to final quality as well. I did invest in a decent enlarging lens to use on the shared university enlarger but I suspect it was just latent nerdiness.

I think that there are so many steps in the film process that you can't say any one of them was the controlling aspect to getting a quality image.

Prieni - no darkroom experience. For shame - it was great fun, nice warm room, locked door, slightly smelly chemicals. Peace and tranquillity.

Mike

And not to forget.......Dust. Fiddling around, making trials, final print output maybe two. After a whole evening hard work. Of course.......Only the next day you would be sure if you had nailed it. And of course than there always was some additional spotting to do.
Oh boy.....how I miss those days

Martin.

Dust - argh! I had forgotten and I was terrible at spotting. I never really got the hang of it. Scratches as well - how did they get there? Then the test strip to get the exposure right - there's a lot of good things about digital!

Mike

Sorry for making the assumption that all else was correct. As you say, the neg has to be flat. That practise I still use today when I scan negs & slides. I use a Minolta scanner and always had issues with neg/slide curvature. Then, remembering my glass carrier on my Durst, I now use a single Gepe glass mount for negs and slides. WHAT a difference in the results. Down side is the extra time and effort to scan a number of images.

Regards

Having gone digital I don't think I could ever face film in any guise again. Everything is a compromise and I'll take the digital road!

Mike

The enlarger lens was indeed an important element in producing quality prints. It had to extract fine detail of a small area of film and then project it at the full print size. Yes to be in the running for quality, you had to get an enlarging lens with 6 elements and of a reputable make. I believe that Pentax made enlarging lenses for Durst. I still have my Durst, Nikon and Meopta enlarging lenses and LPL Enlarger.
Other considerations for image quality was the light source, condensers or diffusers. Filtration to achieve Variable Contrast or Colour Balance was another element which could be applied above or below lens.
Then of course the make and age of the Chemicals was another variable which could effect image quality.
Other equipment for processing were Dishes, Rotary Processors and Deep Tanks.
Whilst the steps to produce a good darkroom print were laborious, I think we still spent as much time on the computer.

I can completely understand you there!

I'm still interested in film, as are many here. Though I'm a total newbie to film, which I think makes me very unusual and perhaps backward!

I'm happy mucking about with my MZ-60 and sending them off to get developed. Yes it is a compromise - I do miss the creative control that you have with digital, leaving it in the hands of a machine to decide what's best in the final image can be frustrating!

I still find it enjoyable however.

Of course the previous 'posters' come from the experience of developing shots yourself in a dark room, and I can really understand the frustration which that provided and a greater appreciation for digital you all have versus newcomers to photography like myself that do not have that point of reference.

But take that out of the equation like I do, and yes it's still a compromise, but one I can live with when you consider the alternatives in doing it yourself. For me that therefore means using film is kept at the right balance between enjoyment and frustration.

Plus it's handy having a second body with me in the field that is so amazingly light and has an uber-wide angle. Shooting on film for the odd wide angle shot I may be interested in for me is better than changing lenses. Plus it saves putting a second lens uncomfortably in a pocket somewhere.

Dont take this the wrong way - I'm not disagreeing with you at all Mike; just wanted to convey my thoughts on film.

Appologies for taking this slightly off topic!

Bob - no problem with any disagreement but if I were doing film I wouldn't trust anyone else with it! That was one reason I never got into colour when I did film 30 year ago (I then took what turned into a very long break).

Mike

I did D+P in my parents' kitchen when I was a teenager. It was fun.

What was tedious was taking all the blankets down from the windows when I had finished !

I was lucky I could use an attic although I started out with 120 contacts in the pantry. Damn cold in the winter though.

Mike

I'm just happy to be able to make images that are acceptable to others (commission work). I use one photo developer here in Qatar, a Fuji Lab. I only use them as they allow me to tell them my preferences. Whilst in Bahrain, I covered the Bahrain Open Golf comps officially. The first days shots required film as the next morning, each group got a group photo. I would never be able to precess the images after the days work and have them printed for 7:30 the next morning! Film and prints saved the day! The digital shots on day one were freelance stuff that went to the local paper. The second days shots were mainly digital with only the prize giving being on both. Finally, a DVD was produced.

I think that if we only had darkroom processing these days that there would be a lot less photographers. Digital re-invented photography for me but I can't let go of my roots in photography. (K1000 and HP4).

Regards

That's a very interesting point; doing b&w to elliminate some of the dissapointment which might occur if using colour.

Food for thought there, I'm with you on that.

K10D - It's interesting that you find the turnaround on film makes volume possible. I spoke to a guy who does motor sport events and he does all digital and has prints ready at the end of the day for competitors. His wife does the printing in the back of the car. He would say he couldn't manage without digital but I think his volume is much lower than yours.

You're right about the change to digital enabling far more people to take excellent photographs.

Mike