Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 14:33:00 -0500 
Date:         Sun, 19 Jan 1997 14:33:00 -0500
Reply-To:     MARTIN TAI <martin.tai@w...>
Sender:       The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
              <SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From:         MARTIN TAI <martin.tai@W...>
Organization: Westonia Computer Systems of Canada
Subject:      Minox enlarger II
 
       Took the Minox enlarger II partially apart to do some cleaning
 
    The  following is a diagram  of the light path
 
 
 
    (                    | )                        | |     |-----|
    (        (bulb )     |  )                | |     |     |
    (                    | )                        | |     |-----|
 
                   condenser I              condensor II   lens
   reflector
 
 
 
       The  6 v 6 AMP lamp  has one single filament  offset to one side
of the lamp instead of at the center.
       The filament must face down, otherwise I find that the light
will be uneven.        The  position of the filament probably located at
the focal point of the reflector.
 
      This lamp  must be a special purpose lamp. Is new ones
 still available  ?
 
       The light from the bulb passes through first  condensor I,
it is  about one inch in diameter,  plano side face the lamp,
convex side facing the  lens.
 
       At other end this condensor barrel there is screw thread,
     ( I suspect  there might be  another  convex plano missing )
 
       The plano side of this condensor seems like frosted,
 ( the convex surface is clear ), hence this condensor is  opaque.
 
   I don't know is this the way it meant to be -- ie, an opaque
disk refered to by Peter in a previous post.
 
 
       I did not dismantle condensor II, so have no idea about
its construction. Looking down, there was a light layer of dirt, I
managed to clean it with a few pieces of Q tips moistened with Kodak
 lens cleaner.
 
     The enlarging lens barrel is metal, one end has a highly polished
film plane, which is slightly curved, like the one in Minox A.
 
     There is a red filter holder under the lens. No other holder for
other kinds of filter.
 
 
 
 
martin tai

 =========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:39:05 -0500
Reply-To: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: peter zimmerman <peterz@E...>
Subject: pro & con; the Minox enlarger
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I alternate between my Minox enlarger and my 23cII. It's easy to get above
5x7 but not to 8x10 with the 23cII, and I have a variable diaphragm on the
lens (not on the Minox), which is a Componon-S, so pretty good. Better than
100 lp/mm, I think. At 5x7 or, say 6x8, it is hard to see how one needs
more resolution in the film plane. It is hard, if not impossible to tell
the 2 enalrgers apart.

If I want to do anything between 6x8 and 12x15, the Minox enlarger is surely
preferred. the illumination system is more efficient, exposures are
shorter, and I am coming pretty close to the limit of the film.

BUT, to go above 12x15, I'm back to the 23cII with a fair 25mm lens designed
for half frame stuck into the enlarger. This lets me get to 45x
enlargement, and anything bigger is hard to handle. The tiny excerpt from
Delta 100 which I posted was done that way. I don't have wall projection
capability because a) I don't have the neat little first-surface mirror
Minox sold and b) it wouldn't fit anyway, having been designed to replace
the red filter on the model II. the Model III does not have the attachment
for the filter or mirror. If I can find a machinist to do the job later
this year, I may have one custom made.

The Minox enlarger is useless for color printing (unless you find a color
enlarger with the filter set intact. And if you do, let me know and I'll
buy it from you!), so that has to be on the 23cII.

Oh, I forgot to say. It is the relatively new model 23cII, with the built
in XL column. The regular 23cII is much more limited in its enlarging
capability. Yes. I have the long-discontinued Minox neg holder, but it's
no great design. In fact it took me several hours with a file to make it
minimally acceptable for use. You can do as well with the 'universal' glass
carrier masked off with black paper.

pete
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 22:20:20 +0100
Reply-To: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: Don Krehbiel <dkrehbie@S...>
Subject: Re: pro & con; the Minox enlarger
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm listening, or reading, with interest. Somewhere I remember that
longer than "normal" enlarger lenses provided better light distribution,
and lenses designed to cover larger negatives minimize "edge" problems.
Using a 4 x 5 enlarger for 35mm is supposed to be the good? Put more
simply, for equal lens quality, when enlarging a Minox negative,
shouldn't a 28mm lens designed for a 35mm negative provide better image
quality than a 15mm lens designed for a Minox negative?

--
Don
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 22:45:48 -0800
Reply-To: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <ramarren@A...>
Subject: Re: minox enlarger, pro & con
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

> I notice that the lens on enlarger II is not coated.

Hmm, my Minox enlarger (model II, #1161) lens is definitely coated.
You cannot turn the enlarger head around for floor projection as the
upright column is tilted forwards ... turning the enlarger head
around was meant to be used to install a bracket for the camera
so you could use it as a copy stand, the enlarger head is then
pointed at a somewhat skew angle to anything. I suppose you could
figure out the angle and prepare a projection mount to hold paper
for it.

I dunno ... I limit my wet lab printing to 5x7 at this point and
scan/manipulate the results on the computer. It's very very rare
that I print anything much bigger than that as 5x7 is a very nice
size to fit into a book for viewing ... I am not a picture hanger.

BTW, for those who've looked at my pictures on the Sub Club gallery,
I figured out what the weird striations in two/three of the pictures
are and have fixed the problem in my scanning software. The resulting
rescanned and printed images look much better now, with improved
sharpness and tonal scale.

Godfrey
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 05:46:00 -0500
Reply-To: MARTIN TAI <martin.tai@westonia.com>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: MARTIN TAI <martin.tai@W...>
Organization: Westonia Computer Systems of Canada
Subject: Re: minox enlarger, pro & con

-> > I notice that the lens on enlarger II is not coated.
->
-> Hmm, my Minox enlarger (model II, #1161) lens is definitely coated.
-> You cannot turn the enlarger head around for floor projection as the
-> upright column is tilted forwards ... turning the enlarger head
-> around was meant to be used to install a bracket for the camera so
-> you could use it as a copy stand, the enlarger head is then
-> pointed at a somewhat skew angle to anything. I suppose you could
-> figure out the angle and prepare a projection mount to hold paper for
-> it.

You need to tilt the stand with some books underneathe to use
the backward mounted Minox enlarger for large size enlargement. It
can be done.

->
-> I dunno ... I limit my wet lab printing to 5x7 at this point and
-> scan/manipulate the results on the computer. It's very very rare that
-> I print anything much bigger than that as 5x7 is a very nice size to
-> fit into a book for viewing ... I am not a picture hanger.

I don't think I will do Minox enlargements to 24 x 36 inches
as I did with Leica Miccro-Elmarit or Zeiss Distagon, but definite
will go for 8 x 10 for Minox.

martin
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:06:13 -0800
Reply-To: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: Joel Moskowitz <mathison@I...>
Subject: Re: pro & con; the Minox enlarger
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Don Krehbiel wrote:
>
> I'm listening, or reading, with interest. Somewhere I remember that
> longer than "normal" enlarger lenses provided better light distribution,
> and lenses designed to cover larger negatives minimize "edge" problems.
> Using a 4 x 5 enlarger for 35mm is supposed to be the good? Put more
> simply, for equal lens quality, when enlarging a Minox negative,
> shouldn't a 28mm lens designed for a 35mm negative provide better image
> quality than a 15mm lens designed for a Minox negative?
>
> --
> Don

I think you are correct with the following caveats:
The longer the lens the higher the column must be so with the longer
lens you functionally cannot do a 11x14 or even an 8x10 on a lot of
enlargers.
The Minox lens was designed to get the most out of a minox negative -
so it's a pretty good lens. You would need a lens of equal quality or
better to top it. Not a difficult thing to do these days with a
professional enlarger setup but I used a rental lab and a 40mm and the
Minox enlarger blew that setup away. OTOH I just had Duggal blow up some
minox ektar for me (and I once had them do some agfapan too) and their
results are fantastic - better than I can get with my minox enlarger
(which by the way needs serious help in fixing the light distribution).
Duggal I assume has absolutly top notch equipment and people who know
how to use it.
The Minox enlarger is probably the best choice for people like me if you
have no space and you want an enlarger that can do a decent to very good
job. Personally I would love to rebuilt the top part of the enlarger to
fix the alignment problem and also put a little filter drawer in there.
I also wish there was some precise method for positiioning a negative -
my enlarger is missing the guide. And it would make it easier to print
everything on a roll. Also the frame masking preculdes doing true full
frame.

Joel
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:46:00 -0500
Reply-To: MARTIN TAI <martin.tai@w...>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: MARTIN TAI <martin.tai@W...>
Organization: Westonia Computer Systems of Canada
Subject: Re: pro & con; the Minox enlarger

-> I'm listening, or reading, with interest. Somewhere I remember that
-> longer than "normal" enlarger lenses provided better light
-> distribution, and lenses designed to cover larger negatives minimize
-> "edge" problems. Using a 4 x 5 enlarger for 35mm is supposed to be
-> the good? Put more simply, for equal lens quality, when enlarging a
-> Minox negative, shouldn't a 28mm lens designed for a 35mm negative
-> provide better image quality than a 15mm lens designed for a Minox
-> negative?

With lens designed for 35mm and use it on Minox negative, I
suppose you will get even light.
But according to Heckmann, the Minox enlarger lens can cover
16mm negative as well.

mt
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:00:00 -0500
Reply-To: MARTIN TAI <martin.tai@w...>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: MARTIN TAI <martin.tai@W...>
Organization: Westonia Computer Systems of Canada
Subject: Re: pro & con; the Minox enlarger

Joel Moskowitz wrote:
-> The Minox enlarger is probably the best choice for people like me if
-> you have no space and you want an enlarger that can do a decent to
-> very good job. Personally I would love to rebuilt the top part of the
-> enlarger to fix the alignment problem and also put a little filter

Your enlarger may be OK, but with a wrong light bulb.
The two conductor wires connected to the tungsten filament
in a Minox enlarger light bulb are shape like the letter "L"

---------------
|
----------- |
| * *
|* <--- filament pointed down


After clean the recently acquired enlarger, I put the light bulb
the wrong way, -- point the filament up, and wow, such uneven
light distribution, I thought I skrewed up the alignment, until
I turn the light bulb around, and everything is OK.
If you have straight wires in you bulb, its the wrong one,
get a replacement from MPL, may help your light distribution.

Another thing, at the fat part of the enlarger, there is
one opaque condenser.

-> drawer in there. I also wish there was some precise method for
-> positiioning a negative - my enlarger is missing the guide. And it
-> would make it easier to print everything on a roll. Also the frame
-> masking preculdes doing true full frame.

Is your frame from the enlarger look like a square ?

The mask has two slots, one slot for 8 x 11 negatives
the other slot for 8 x 8 mm negatives. When put the lens back
I accidentally put it on the wrong slot and WHAT ? only partial
frame ? Then I took the lens down, and put it the right way back
full frame again.

martin
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:23:42 +0100
Reply-To: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: lui <luifri@A...>
Subject: Re: pro & con; the Minox enlarger
In-Reply-To: <32E2900E.5FE4@slonet.org>

> Using a 4 x 5 enlarger for 35mm is supposed to be the good?
Its better with 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 or a 75/80 to 105 lens; given the right
condensors. Its better with 35mm and 50mm with a coldlight head like
Aristo.

>Put more
simply, for equal lens quality, when enlarging a Minox negative,
shouldn't a 28mm lens designed for a 35mm negative provide better image
>quality than a 15mm lens designed for a Minox negative?
Yes. You also have more place for correcting the image manually
(do/burn)
Lui
Lui
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:13:05 -0500
Reply-To: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: peter zimmerman <peterz@E...>
Subject: Re: pro & con; the Minox enlarger
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 22:20 97/01/19 +0100, you wrote:
>I'm listening, or reading, with interest. Somewhere I remember that
>longer than "normal" enlarger lenses provided better light distribution,
>and lenses designed to cover larger negatives minimize "edge" problems.
>Using a 4 x 5 enlarger for 35mm is supposed to be the good? Put more
>simply, for equal lens quality, when enlarging a Minox negative,
>shouldn't a 28mm lens designed for a 35mm negative provide better image
>quality than a 15mm lens designed for a Minox negative?
>
>--
>Don

\/\/\/\/\/\/ These are all generalizations, all of which should be
prefaced: "all other things being equal..." they usually aren't.

* if i use the lamphouse in the 23cII (dichro) intended for 35mm (or set the
condensor for 35mm in the condensor model), then the light distribution over
the Minox neg is beautifully uniform. It requires no fiddling to achieve
that, but one must fiddle the lamp position in the Minox enlarger every time
one changes the lamp. This takes about 5 minutes. On the other hand, the
optical system of the Minox condensors puts a lot more light thru the
negative, making much, much shorter exposures. Without the opal plate of
the III, sometimes too short.

* a 28mm lens designed to cover the 35mm neg ought to show less *relative*
sharpness fall off, center to corner, when used with a Minox neg than it
would used with the much longer diagonal 35mm (or half frame) neg. But the
maximum resolution at the center of the lens designed for 35mm photography
will likely be less than the max resolution at the center of the Minox
enlarging lens. If the 28 mm lens has 150 lines at the center and falls to
90% of that at the edge of the Minox neg, 135 lp/mm, is that better than a
Minox lens which is 200 lp/mm at center and falls to 80% of that at the edge
(160 lp/mm) or even 70% (140 lp/mm)? And the question of resolving power vs
contrast enters too.

pete

=========================================================================