Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
I am getting a 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar (it's on an enlarger arriving soon).
Never heard of such. Has anyone some information on that specific lens?
I am getting a 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar (it's on an enlarger arriving soon).
Never heard of such. Has anyone some information on that specific lens?
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
<jjs> wrote in message
news:13tl7oitj9s7a68@news.supernews,com ...
>I am getting a 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar (it's on an enlarger
>arriving soon).
>
> Never heard of such. Has anyone some information on that
> specific lens?
The Apochromatic Artar is a very famous lens. These were
made by Goerz from the early 'teens and continued by
Schneider after they bought out Goerz American Optical in
the mid 1970's. I am not sure when the last one was built.
The Artar was the most widely used process lens in the
world. It is a four element air-spaced lens of a type
sometimes called a Dialyte, based on the Celor lens designed
by Emil von Hoegh, the inventor of the Dagor lens. The Artar
was designed by Walther Zschokke.
The characteristics of the Artar are outstanding color
correction for both longitudinal and lateral color, rather
narrow coverage angle (typcial of Celor type lenses) and low
speed. Process lenses are optimized for unity magnification,
that is, equal object and image distances, however, when
stopped down somewhat, they have good correction at infinity
up to a coverage equal to an image circle about equal to the
focal length. Stopping down does not increase coverage
significantly with this type of lens. Older, uncoated,
Artars tend to have some flare because of having eight
glass-air surfaces, however this does not affect the
sharpness.
The Red-Dot series were the last of the Artars, the
first one being built c.1960. AFAIK all Red-Dot Artars are
coated.
Late Artars were available with some adjustment of
element spacing to optimize them for other than 1:1
reproduction. In general, the coated versions have some
adjustment, the shutter versions being adjusted for more
distant objects than the barrel types. This specifically
includes the Red-Dot series.
Artars were also widely used for very high quality
enlarging before modern specialized enlarging lenses became
available c.1960's.
The most common focal length is 19" but 15" is also a
common FL. Artars were available in focal lengths from
perhaps 4" to about 70".
Process photography was the making of printing plates
for photo-mechanical reproduction. For four-color work the
three color images must be exactly in focus and of exactly
the same size, this is what the Artar was designed to do.
Most barrel mounted Artars have slots for the special
stops used for color process work and for filters.
15" is a bit long for enlarging even for 8x10. At 1:1
any lens covers an image circle that is double its infinity
coverage. For 8x10 about a 10" lens is adequate although a
longer lens will give you better illumination uniformity.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
<jjs> wrote in message
news:13tl7oitj9s7a68@news.supernews,com ...
>I am getting a 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar (it's on an enlarger
>arriving soon).
>
> Never heard of such. Has anyone some information on that
> specific lens?
The Apochromatic Artar is a very famous lens. These were
made by Goerz from the early 'teens and continued by
Schneider after they bought out Goerz American Optical in
the mid 1970's. I am not sure when the last one was built.
The Artar was the most widely used process lens in the
world. It is a four element air-spaced lens of a type
sometimes called a Dialyte, based on the Celor lens designed
by Emil von Hoegh, the inventor of the Dagor lens. The Artar
was designed by Walther Zschokke.
The characteristics of the Artar are outstanding color
correction for both longitudinal and lateral color, rather
narrow coverage angle (typcial of Celor type lenses) and low
speed. Process lenses are optimized for unity magnification,
that is, equal object and image distances, however, when
stopped down somewhat, they have good correction at infinity
up to a coverage equal to an image circle about equal to the
focal length. Stopping down does not increase coverage
significantly with this type of lens. Older, uncoated,
Artars tend to have some flare because of having eight
glass-air surfaces, however this does not affect the
sharpness.
The Red-Dot series were the last of the Artars, the
first one being built c.1960. AFAIK all Red-Dot Artars are
coated.
Late Artars were available with some adjustment of
element spacing to optimize them for other than 1:1
reproduction. In general, the coated versions have some
adjustment, the shutter versions being adjusted for more
distant objects than the barrel types. This specifically
includes the Red-Dot series.
Artars were also widely used for very high quality
enlarging before modern specialized enlarging lenses became
available c.1960's.
The most common focal length is 19" but 15" is also a
common FL. Artars were available in focal lengths from
perhaps 4" to about 70".
Process photography was the making of printing plates
for photo-mechanical reproduction. For four-color work the
three color images must be exactly in focus and of exactly
the same size, this is what the Artar was designed to do.
Most barrel mounted Artars have slots for the special
stops used for color process work and for filters.
15" is a bit long for enlarging even for 8x10. At 1:1
any lens covers an image circle that is double its infinity
coverage. For 8x10 about a 10" lens is adequate although a
longer lens will give you better illumination uniformity.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
news:13tlgec2ku7r332@corp.supernews,com ...
> 15" is a bit long for enlarging even for 8x10. At 1:1 any lens covers
> an image circle that is double its infinity coverage. For 8x10 about a 10"
> lens is adequate although a longer lens will give you better illumination
> uniformity.
[snip usual most excellent infromation from Mr Knoppow]
I've come across all but a 15" before. Interesting. Well, I will have it
Sunday! I think this lens will be just ideal for our purposes of max ~2X
enlargements from 8x10.
The enlarger is a Saltzman. Will need a head and I can work that out.
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
news:13tlgec2ku7r332@corp.supernews,com ...
> 15" is a bit long for enlarging even for 8x10. At 1:1 any lens covers
> an image circle that is double its infinity coverage. For 8x10 about a 10"
> lens is adequate although a longer lens will give you better illumination
> uniformity.
[snip usual most excellent infromation from Mr Knoppow]
I've come across all but a 15" before. Interesting. Well, I will have it
Sunday! I think this lens will be just ideal for our purposes of max ~2X
enlargements from 8x10.
The enlarger is a Saltzman. Will need a head and I can work that out.
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
<jjs> wrote in message
news:13tlha146243k2e@news.supernews,com ...
>
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in
> message news:13tlgec2ku7r332@corp.supernews,com ...
>
>> 15" is a bit long for enlarging even for 8x10. At 1:1
>> any lens covers an image circle that is double its
>> infinity coverage. For 8x10 about a 10" lens is adequate
>> although a longer lens will give you better illumination
>> uniformity.
>
> [snip usual most excellent infromation from Mr Knoppow]
>
> I've come across all but a 15" before. Interesting. Well,
> I will have it Sunday! I think this lens will be just
> ideal for our purposes of max ~2X enlargements from 8x10.
>
> The enlarger is a Saltzman. Will need a head and I can
> work that out.
>
If by 'head' you mean a lamphouse Arista makes a
coldlight head that fits the Saltzman. There were a number
of heads available for it from both the original
manufacturer and also aftermarket. The original lamp on most
Saltzman's used mercury arc tubes but there was also a
focusing condenser head using a large incandescent lamp and
a fluorescent lamp head. Color heads were available as
aftermarket items. Saltzman made three 8x10 models, a studio
enlarger, with a single support rail for the bellows, the
deluxe studio model which has two support rails, and the
10x10 aerial film printer, similar to the deluxe but even
heavier. These were the best LF enlargers available at the
time and maybe ever. When setup right they are very smooth
and stable.
Originally, they came with a shutter similar to a Packard
shutter, which fitted under the lens. This is because the
mercury arc type lamp must be left running continuously.
Actually, this is a good idea for any gaseous discharge lamp
like conventional fluorescent lamps. I have a Saltzman
catalogue but its among my famous stored away stuff and I
don't know where it is any more. I've never seen on on-line
anywere but they may exist.
For those who have never seen a Saltzman enlarger they
resemble a vertical milling machine.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
<jjs> wrote in message
news:13tlha146243k2e@news.supernews,com ...
>
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in
> message news:13tlgec2ku7r332@corp.supernews,com ...
>
>> 15" is a bit long for enlarging even for 8x10. At 1:1
>> any lens covers an image circle that is double its
>> infinity coverage. For 8x10 about a 10" lens is adequate
>> although a longer lens will give you better illumination
>> uniformity.
>
> [snip usual most excellent infromation from Mr Knoppow]
>
> I've come across all but a 15" before. Interesting. Well,
> I will have it Sunday! I think this lens will be just
> ideal for our purposes of max ~2X enlargements from 8x10.
>
> The enlarger is a Saltzman. Will need a head and I can
> work that out.
>
If by 'head' you mean a lamphouse Arista makes a
coldlight head that fits the Saltzman. There were a number
of heads available for it from both the original
manufacturer and also aftermarket. The original lamp on most
Saltzman's used mercury arc tubes but there was also a
focusing condenser head using a large incandescent lamp and
a fluorescent lamp head. Color heads were available as
aftermarket items. Saltzman made three 8x10 models, a studio
enlarger, with a single support rail for the bellows, the
deluxe studio model which has two support rails, and the
10x10 aerial film printer, similar to the deluxe but even
heavier. These were the best LF enlargers available at the
time and maybe ever. When setup right they are very smooth
and stable.
Originally, they came with a shutter similar to a Packard
shutter, which fitted under the lens. This is because the
mercury arc type lamp must be left running continuously.
Actually, this is a good idea for any gaseous discharge lamp
like conventional fluorescent lamps. I have a Saltzman
catalogue but its among my famous stored away stuff and I
don't know where it is any more. I've never seen on on-line
anywere but they may exist.
For those who have never seen a Saltzman enlarger they
resemble a vertical milling machine.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
news:13tlpevhflvi00e@corp.supernews,com ...
> If by 'head' you mean a lamphouse Arista makes a coldlight head that
> fits the Saltzman. There were a number of heads available for it from both
> the original manufacturer and also aftermarket.
Yes, I've found a number of heads that fit it properly. Spendy, too.
Speaking of condensers, check them out here:
http :// www .hkhinc,com /sffacility/saltzman/saltzman.htm (not my site).
> Originally, they came with a shutter similar to a Packard shutter, which
> fitted under the lens. This is because the mercury arc type lamp must be
> left running continuously.
Ah, yes, many years ago we had a conversation about using a shutter with
such lamps. I have a 110V shutter that would work. Dunno how the
lamphousing will finally come about.
> For those who have never seen a Saltzman enlarger they resemble a
> vertical milling machine.
I am so glad to get this one. Of course, it won't fit in my darkroom but I
had planned to eventually rent some space in our local manufacturing
district.
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
news:13tlpevhflvi00e@corp.supernews,com ...
> If by 'head' you mean a lamphouse Arista makes a coldlight head that
> fits the Saltzman. There were a number of heads available for it from both
> the original manufacturer and also aftermarket.
Yes, I've found a number of heads that fit it properly. Spendy, too.
Speaking of condensers, check them out here:
http :// www .hkhinc,com /sffacility/saltzman/saltzman.htm (not my site).
> Originally, they came with a shutter similar to a Packard shutter, which
> fitted under the lens. This is because the mercury arc type lamp must be
> left running continuously.
Ah, yes, many years ago we had a conversation about using a shutter with
such lamps. I have a 110V shutter that would work. Dunno how the
lamphousing will finally come about.
> For those who have never seen a Saltzman enlarger they resemble a
> vertical milling machine.
I am so glad to get this one. Of course, it won't fit in my darkroom but I
had planned to eventually rent some space in our local manufacturing
district.
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
<jjs> wrote in message news:13tm40rof4t0mc2@news.supernews,com ...
>
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
> news:13tlpevhflvi00e@corp.supernews,com ...
>
>> If by 'head' you mean a lamphouse Arista makes a coldlight head that
>> fits the Saltzman. There were a number of heads available for it from
>> both the original manufacturer and also aftermarket.
>
> Yes, I've found a number of heads that fit it properly. Spendy, too.
>
> Speaking of condensers, check them out here:
> http :// www .hkhinc,com /sffacility/saltzman/saltzman.htm (not my site).
>
>> Originally, they came with a shutter similar to a Packard shutter,
>> which fitted under the lens. This is because the mercury arc type lamp
>> must be left running continuously.
>
> Ah, yes, many years ago we had a conversation about using a shutter with
> such lamps. I have a 110V shutter that would work. Dunno how the
> lamphousing will finally come about.
>
>> For those who have never seen a Saltzman enlarger they resemble a
>> vertical milling machine.
>
> I am so glad to get this one. Of course, it won't fit in my darkroom but I
> had planned to eventually rent some space in our local manufacturing
> district.
>
Just out of morbid curiosity, roughly how much does one of these beasties
weigh? Does it come with a floor stand as a standard configuration (I'm
envisioning a big drill press, as I'm not familiar with a milling machine.)?
And finally, would this be the perfect enlarger to print all those 110 and
126 size negs I've got left over from twenty-plus years ago? (OK, just
joking with that last question-- I do know better!)
As for it not fitting in your darkroom, when I built my current darkrooms, I
failed to measure countertop to ceiling for my D2V. When it came down to
moving in, I found I couldn't extend it all the way up. I boted it to the
countertop (giving an extra inch or so by eliminating the baseboard), and
cut a hole in the ceiling so the lamphouse would go up between two rafters.
<jjs> wrote in message news:13tm40rof4t0mc2@news.supernews,com ...
>
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
> news:13tlpevhflvi00e@corp.supernews,com ...
>
>> If by 'head' you mean a lamphouse Arista makes a coldlight head that
>> fits the Saltzman. There were a number of heads available for it from
>> both the original manufacturer and also aftermarket.
>
> Yes, I've found a number of heads that fit it properly. Spendy, too.
>
> Speaking of condensers, check them out here:
> http :// www .hkhinc,com /sffacility/saltzman/saltzman.htm (not my site).
>
>> Originally, they came with a shutter similar to a Packard shutter,
>> which fitted under the lens. This is because the mercury arc type lamp
>> must be left running continuously.
>
> Ah, yes, many years ago we had a conversation about using a shutter with
> such lamps. I have a 110V shutter that would work. Dunno how the
> lamphousing will finally come about.
>
>> For those who have never seen a Saltzman enlarger they resemble a
>> vertical milling machine.
>
> I am so glad to get this one. Of course, it won't fit in my darkroom but I
> had planned to eventually rent some space in our local manufacturing
> district.
>
Just out of morbid curiosity, roughly how much does one of these beasties
weigh? Does it come with a floor stand as a standard configuration (I'm
envisioning a big drill press, as I'm not familiar with a milling machine.)?
And finally, would this be the perfect enlarger to print all those 110 and
126 size negs I've got left over from twenty-plus years ago? (OK, just
joking with that last question-- I do know better!)
As for it not fitting in your darkroom, when I built my current darkrooms, I
failed to measure countertop to ceiling for my D2V. When it came down to
moving in, I found I couldn't extend it all the way up. I boted it to the
countertop (giving an extra inch or so by eliminating the baseboard), and
cut a hole in the ceiling so the lamphouse would go up between two rafters.
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
news:frfa7m$jq$1@aioe.org...
>
> <jjs> wrote in message
> news:13tm40rof4t0mc2@news.supernews,com ...
>>
>> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in
>> message news:13tlpevhflvi00e@corp.supernews,com ...
>>
>>> If by 'head' you mean a lamphouse Arista makes a
>>> coldlight head that fits the Saltzman. There were a
>>> number of heads available for it from both the original
>>> manufacturer and also aftermarket.
>>
>> Yes, I've found a number of heads that fit it properly.
>> Spendy, too.
>>
>> Speaking of condensers, check them out here:
>> http :// www .hkhinc,com /sffacility/saltzman/saltzman.htm
>> (not my site).
>>
>>> Originally, they came with a shutter similar to a
>>> Packard shutter, which fitted under the lens. This is
>>> because the mercury arc type lamp must be left running
>>> continuously.
>>
>> Ah, yes, many years ago we had a conversation about using
>> a shutter with such lamps. I have a 110V shutter that
>> would work. Dunno how the lamphousing will finally come
>> about.
>>
>>> For those who have never seen a Saltzman enlarger
>>> they resemble a vertical milling machine.
>>
>> I am so glad to get this one. Of course, it won't fit in
>> my darkroom but I had planned to eventually rent some
>> space in our local manufacturing district.
>>
>
> Just out of morbid curiosity, roughly how much does one of
> these beasties weigh? Does it come with a floor stand as a
> standard configuration (I'm envisioning a big drill press,
> as I'm not familiar with a milling machine.)?
>
> And finally, would this be the perfect enlarger to print
> all those 110 and 126 size negs I've got left over from
> twenty-plus years ago? (OK, just joking with that last
> question-- I do know better!)
>
> As for it not fitting in your darkroom, when I built my
> current darkrooms, I failed to measure countertop to
> ceiling for my D2V. When it came down to moving in, I
> found I couldn't extend it all the way up. I boted it to
> the countertop (giving an extra inch or so by eliminating
> the baseboard), and cut a hole in the ceiling so the
> lamphouse would go up between two rafters.
The Saltzmans were made as a unit with a five leg table
as part of the machine. The weight varies with the model. I
am not sure of the 5x7 and 8x10 studio enlargers but the
aerial enlarger weighs about 800 lbs. The up and down motion
and focusing are controlled by chain drives connected to
handwheels on the front of the table. Some also have a small
handwheel for setting the f/stop. I don't remember the exact
clearance needed for the 8x10 but think is around 12 feet.
The best way to mount a D2V or similar enlarger is on a
table with moveable baseboard. Omega actually made one with
a crank-up baseboard but I think I've only ever seen one.
Its not difficult to build a table with shelves for the
baseboard. That way you can make very large prints without
having to swing the over to project on the floor.
Saltzman was associated with a company named Ceaser
Manufacturing Co. I am not sure who built what. Saltzman
sold very heavy duty enlargers and monopole studio stands
which were very widely used in New York studios. The also
made or sold heavy duty strobe units. I have one of their
tripod type studio stands, very heavy, very stable, probably
would support 500 lbs.
These things were actually made for _field_ use, whoa!
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
news:frfa7m$jq$1@aioe.org...
>
> <jjs> wrote in message
> news:13tm40rof4t0mc2@news.supernews,com ...
>>
>> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in
>> message news:13tlpevhflvi00e@corp.supernews,com ...
>>
>>> If by 'head' you mean a lamphouse Arista makes a
>>> coldlight head that fits the Saltzman. There were a
>>> number of heads available for it from both the original
>>> manufacturer and also aftermarket.
>>
>> Yes, I've found a number of heads that fit it properly.
>> Spendy, too.
>>
>> Speaking of condensers, check them out here:
>> http :// www .hkhinc,com /sffacility/saltzman/saltzman.htm
>> (not my site).
>>
>>> Originally, they came with a shutter similar to a
>>> Packard shutter, which fitted under the lens. This is
>>> because the mercury arc type lamp must be left running
>>> continuously.
>>
>> Ah, yes, many years ago we had a conversation about using
>> a shutter with such lamps. I have a 110V shutter that
>> would work. Dunno how the lamphousing will finally come
>> about.
>>
>>> For those who have never seen a Saltzman enlarger
>>> they resemble a vertical milling machine.
>>
>> I am so glad to get this one. Of course, it won't fit in
>> my darkroom but I had planned to eventually rent some
>> space in our local manufacturing district.
>>
>
> Just out of morbid curiosity, roughly how much does one of
> these beasties weigh? Does it come with a floor stand as a
> standard configuration (I'm envisioning a big drill press,
> as I'm not familiar with a milling machine.)?
>
> And finally, would this be the perfect enlarger to print
> all those 110 and 126 size negs I've got left over from
> twenty-plus years ago? (OK, just joking with that last
> question-- I do know better!)
>
> As for it not fitting in your darkroom, when I built my
> current darkrooms, I failed to measure countertop to
> ceiling for my D2V. When it came down to moving in, I
> found I couldn't extend it all the way up. I boted it to
> the countertop (giving an extra inch or so by eliminating
> the baseboard), and cut a hole in the ceiling so the
> lamphouse would go up between two rafters.
The Saltzmans were made as a unit with a five leg table
as part of the machine. The weight varies with the model. I
am not sure of the 5x7 and 8x10 studio enlargers but the
aerial enlarger weighs about 800 lbs. The up and down motion
and focusing are controlled by chain drives connected to
handwheels on the front of the table. Some also have a small
handwheel for setting the f/stop. I don't remember the exact
clearance needed for the 8x10 but think is around 12 feet.
The best way to mount a D2V or similar enlarger is on a
table with moveable baseboard. Omega actually made one with
a crank-up baseboard but I think I've only ever seen one.
Its not difficult to build a table with shelves for the
baseboard. That way you can make very large prints without
having to swing the over to project on the floor.
Saltzman was associated with a company named Ceaser
Manufacturing Co. I am not sure who built what. Saltzman
sold very heavy duty enlargers and monopole studio stands
which were very widely used in New York studios. The also
made or sold heavy duty strobe units. I have one of their
tripod type studio stands, very heavy, very stable, probably
would support 500 lbs.
These things were actually made for _field_ use, whoa!
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
news:13tmcp6dikehld8@corp.supernews,com ...
> The Saltzmans were made as a unit with a five leg table as part of the
> machine. The weight varies with the model. I am not sure of the 5x7 and
> 8x10 studio enlargers but the aerial enlarger weighs about 800 lbs.
Look at this: the Real Deal of Saltzmans (the baseboard, winders and chain
are not on it):
http :// www .aardenburg-imaging,com /images/2007_0530_S3-02(rw).jpg
(from http :// www .aardenburg-imaging,com /news2007.html)
And this site says his Saltzman is 1500 pounds:
http :// www .hkhinc,com /sffacility/saltzman/saltzman.htm
We gottta get your catalog out of storage, Richard.. :)
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
news:13tmcp6dikehld8@corp.supernews,com ...
> The Saltzmans were made as a unit with a five leg table as part of the
> machine. The weight varies with the model. I am not sure of the 5x7 and
> 8x10 studio enlargers but the aerial enlarger weighs about 800 lbs.
Look at this: the Real Deal of Saltzmans (the baseboard, winders and chain
are not on it):
http :// www .aardenburg-imaging,com /images/2007_0530_S3-02(rw).jpg
(from http :// www .aardenburg-imaging,com /news2007.html)
And this site says his Saltzman is 1500 pounds:
http :// www .hkhinc,com /sffacility/saltzman/saltzman.htm
We gottta get your catalog out of storage, Richard.. :)
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
<jjs> wrote in message
news:13tmdr72b37vdc8@news.supernews,com ...
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in
> message news:13tmcp6dikehld8@corp.supernews,com ...
>
>> The Saltzmans were made as a unit with a five leg
>> table as part of the machine. The weight varies with the
>> model. I am not sure of the 5x7 and 8x10 studio enlargers
>> but the aerial enlarger weighs about 800 lbs.
>
> Look at this: the Real Deal of Saltzmans (the baseboard,
> winders and chain are not on it):
> http :// www .aardenburg-imaging,com /images/2007_0530_S3-02(rw).jpg
> (from http :// www .aardenburg-imaging,com /news2007.html)
>
> And this site says his Saltzman is 1500 pounds:
> http :// www .hkhinc,com /sffacility/saltzman/saltzman.htm
>
> We gottta get your catalog out of storage, Richard.. :)
Some day labor and cheap sheving will do it.
This appears to be the deluxe enlarger for 10x10. Note
the twin post supports for the bellows. Also, it has the
condenser lamphouse. This was equipped with a 45 degree
mirror to lenghten the light path from the lamp and keep the
thing from being even taller. The head and support (the
triangular system of tubes) runs up and down the support
column by means of bicycle type chains driven by handwheels
on the front. These are not shown in the photos. The largest
aerial film printer had two support columns. I don't doubt
this weighs in at 1500 lbs or even more. Better have a
strong floor as well as a tall ceiling.
I have lusted after one of these guys since I was in
highschool but doubt I will ever have one. They are on the
market, along with the process lenses, because most of the
work they were designed to do is done by digital means now.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
<jjs> wrote in message
news:13tmdr72b37vdc8@news.supernews,com ...
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in
> message news:13tmcp6dikehld8@corp.supernews,com ...
>
>> The Saltzmans were made as a unit with a five leg
>> table as part of the machine. The weight varies with the
>> model. I am not sure of the 5x7 and 8x10 studio enlargers
>> but the aerial enlarger weighs about 800 lbs.
>
> Look at this: the Real Deal of Saltzmans (the baseboard,
> winders and chain are not on it):
> http :// www .aardenburg-imaging,com /images/2007_0530_S3-02(rw).jpg
> (from http :// www .aardenburg-imaging,com /news2007.html)
>
> And this site says his Saltzman is 1500 pounds:
> http :// www .hkhinc,com /sffacility/saltzman/saltzman.htm
>
> We gottta get your catalog out of storage, Richard.. :)
Some day labor and cheap sheving will do it.
This appears to be the deluxe enlarger for 10x10. Note
the twin post supports for the bellows. Also, it has the
condenser lamphouse. This was equipped with a 45 degree
mirror to lenghten the light path from the lamp and keep the
thing from being even taller. The head and support (the
triangular system of tubes) runs up and down the support
column by means of bicycle type chains driven by handwheels
on the front. These are not shown in the photos. The largest
aerial film printer had two support columns. I don't doubt
this weighs in at 1500 lbs or even more. Better have a
strong floor as well as a tall ceiling.
I have lusted after one of these guys since I was in
highschool but doubt I will ever have one. They are on the
market, along with the process lenses, because most of the
work they were designed to do is done by digital means now.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
news:13tmcp6dikehld8@corp.supernews,com ...
snip
> The best way to mount a D2V or similar enlarger is on a table with
> moveable baseboard. Omega actually made one with a crank-up baseboard but
> I think I've only ever seen one. Its not difficult to build a table with
> shelves for the baseboard. That way you can make very large prints without
> having to swing the over to project on the floor.
Many (many!) years ago (1960's?), Popular Mechanics published plans for an
enlarger stand. This was a stand-alone cabinet with no front and a top only
at the back where the enlarger's column was mounted. It had a shelf that
slid in at various positions to allow enlargerments to almost floor level. I
built one of these in high school shop class-- the shop teacher was also the
photography club adviser. To cut costs, I built it out of particle board
(OSB). At that time, my darkroom was in the un-heated basement. It didn't
take long before the dampness caused the particle board to fall apart.
If I were remodeling or rebuilding my darkroom, I'd probably use ordinary
kitchen base cabinets with a gap where the enlarger would be. The enlarger
would be mounted to a wall bracket, and the cabinets would have battens or
brackets so that a shelf (baseboard) could be laid in at various levels.
Fortunately, I'm sufficiently happy with my darkrooms as they are now to
avoid any remodeling foolishness. Maybe if Bob Vila did a show on darkrooms,
I might change my mind!
I suppose if I really needed additional enlarger extension, I could cut a
hole the rest of the way thru the ceiling and the floor above, take the
enlarger upstairs to the living room, and project it to the darkroom below--
using the grain focuser might be an issue!
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
news:13tmcp6dikehld8@corp.supernews,com ...
snip
> The best way to mount a D2V or similar enlarger is on a table with
> moveable baseboard. Omega actually made one with a crank-up baseboard but
> I think I've only ever seen one. Its not difficult to build a table with
> shelves for the baseboard. That way you can make very large prints without
> having to swing the over to project on the floor.
Many (many!) years ago (1960's?), Popular Mechanics published plans for an
enlarger stand. This was a stand-alone cabinet with no front and a top only
at the back where the enlarger's column was mounted. It had a shelf that
slid in at various positions to allow enlargerments to almost floor level. I
built one of these in high school shop class-- the shop teacher was also the
photography club adviser. To cut costs, I built it out of particle board
(OSB). At that time, my darkroom was in the un-heated basement. It didn't
take long before the dampness caused the particle board to fall apart.
If I were remodeling or rebuilding my darkroom, I'd probably use ordinary
kitchen base cabinets with a gap where the enlarger would be. The enlarger
would be mounted to a wall bracket, and the cabinets would have battens or
brackets so that a shelf (baseboard) could be laid in at various levels.
Fortunately, I'm sufficiently happy with my darkrooms as they are now to
avoid any remodeling foolishness. Maybe if Bob Vila did a show on darkrooms,
I might change my mind!
I suppose if I really needed additional enlarger extension, I could cut a
hole the rest of the way thru the ceiling and the floor above, take the
enlarger upstairs to the living room, and project it to the darkroom below--
using the grain focuser might be an issue!
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
news:frfa7m$jq$1@aioe.org...
> Just out of morbid curiosity, roughly how much does one of these beasties
> weigh? Does it come with a floor stand as a standard configuration (I'm
> envisioning a big drill press, as I'm not familiar with a milling
> machine.)?
The largest was built for military aerial photo printing and it is close to
1,500 pounds, 12' tall. The other 10x10" enlargers were about 800 pounds.
Mine is the later. Gosh, maybe I should upgrade.
> As for it not fitting in your darkroom, when I built my current darkrooms,
> I failed to measure countertop to ceiling for my D2V. When it came down to
> moving in, I found I couldn't extend it all the way up. I boted it to the
> countertop (giving an extra inch or so by eliminating the baseboard), and
> cut a hole in the ceiling so the lamphouse would go up between two
> rafters.
:) You sure aren't the first to go there! (Now, how would I know that?)
Richard K! About your stuff in storage: I just checked Craig Camera
http :// www .craigcamera,com / and they have a Saltzman catalog for $75.
"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
news:frfa7m$jq$1@aioe.org...
> Just out of morbid curiosity, roughly how much does one of these beasties
> weigh? Does it come with a floor stand as a standard configuration (I'm
> envisioning a big drill press, as I'm not familiar with a milling
> machine.)?
The largest was built for military aerial photo printing and it is close to
1,500 pounds, 12' tall. The other 10x10" enlargers were about 800 pounds.
Mine is the later. Gosh, maybe I should upgrade.
> As for it not fitting in your darkroom, when I built my current darkrooms,
> I failed to measure countertop to ceiling for my D2V. When it came down to
> moving in, I found I couldn't extend it all the way up. I boted it to the
> countertop (giving an extra inch or so by eliminating the baseboard), and
> cut a hole in the ceiling so the lamphouse would go up between two
> rafters.
:) You sure aren't the first to go there! (Now, how would I know that?)
Richard K! About your stuff in storage: I just checked Craig Camera
http :// www .craigcamera,com / and they have a Saltzman catalog for $75.
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
<jjs> wrote in message
news:13tmd3h9l77mic1@news.supernews,com ...
>
> "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
> news:frfa7m$jq$1@aioe.org...
>
>> Just out of morbid curiosity, roughly how much does one
>> of these beasties weigh? Does it come with a floor stand
>> as a standard configuration (I'm envisioning a big drill
>> press, as I'm not familiar with a milling machine.)?
>
> The largest was built for military aerial photo printing
> and it is close to 1,500 pounds, 12' tall. The other
> 10x10" enlargers were about 800 pounds. Mine is the later.
> Gosh, maybe I should upgrade.
>
>> As for it not fitting in your darkroom, when I built my
>> current darkrooms, I failed to measure countertop to
>> ceiling for my D2V. When it came down to moving in, I
>> found I couldn't extend it all the way up. I boted it to
>> the countertop (giving an extra inch or so by eliminating
>> the baseboard), and cut a hole in the ceiling so the
>> lamphouse would go up between two rafters.
>
> :) You sure aren't the first to go there! (Now, how would
> I know that?)
>
> Richard K! About your stuff in storage: I just checked
> Craig Camera http :// www .craigcamera,com / and they have a
> Saltzman catalog for $75.
>
John Craig is a very reliable dealer in photographic
instruction books and other stuff. I may even have gotten my
catalogue from him when he was still making the rounds of
local photo sales but its been so long I have no memory of
it. I also don't remember what I paid for it, probably not
more than $20.
The other big enlarger is the Elwood. They sold a
modified version of their 8x10 auto-focus enlarger mounted
on a stand with a crank on the side to run it up and down. A
perfectly useable enlarger but very crude compared to the
Saltzman.
Again, if you find either a Saltzman or Elwood without a
lamphouse you can get a cold light head from Arista. Not
cheap but the originals are very hard to find.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
<jjs> wrote in message
news:13tmd3h9l77mic1@news.supernews,com ...
>
> "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
> news:frfa7m$jq$1@aioe.org...
>
>> Just out of morbid curiosity, roughly how much does one
>> of these beasties weigh? Does it come with a floor stand
>> as a standard configuration (I'm envisioning a big drill
>> press, as I'm not familiar with a milling machine.)?
>
> The largest was built for military aerial photo printing
> and it is close to 1,500 pounds, 12' tall. The other
> 10x10" enlargers were about 800 pounds. Mine is the later.
> Gosh, maybe I should upgrade.
>
>> As for it not fitting in your darkroom, when I built my
>> current darkrooms, I failed to measure countertop to
>> ceiling for my D2V. When it came down to moving in, I
>> found I couldn't extend it all the way up. I boted it to
>> the countertop (giving an extra inch or so by eliminating
>> the baseboard), and cut a hole in the ceiling so the
>> lamphouse would go up between two rafters.
>
> :) You sure aren't the first to go there! (Now, how would
> I know that?)
>
> Richard K! About your stuff in storage: I just checked
> Craig Camera http :// www .craigcamera,com / and they have a
> Saltzman catalog for $75.
>
John Craig is a very reliable dealer in photographic
instruction books and other stuff. I may even have gotten my
catalogue from him when he was still making the rounds of
local photo sales but its been so long I have no memory of
it. I also don't remember what I paid for it, probably not
more than $20.
The other big enlarger is the Elwood. They sold a
modified version of their 8x10 auto-focus enlarger mounted
on a stand with a crank on the side to run it up and down. A
perfectly useable enlarger but very crude compared to the
Saltzman.
Again, if you find either a Saltzman or Elwood without a
lamphouse you can get a cold light head from Arista. Not
cheap but the originals are very hard to find.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
In article <frfa7m$jq$1@aioe.org>, "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net >
wrote:
> and cut a hole in the ceiling so the lamphouse would go up between two rafters.
I always laugh when people say they cut a hole in the ceiling. You could
have just dropped the counter top and then made an adjustable shelf in
front of the enlarger to make smaller prints.
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
In article <frfa7m$jq$1@aioe.org>, "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net >
wrote:
> and cut a hole in the ceiling so the lamphouse would go up between two rafters.
I always laugh when people say they cut a hole in the ceiling. You could
have just dropped the counter top and then made an adjustable shelf in
front of the enlarger to make smaller prints.
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
"____" <internetphobic@deletedmail,com > wrote in message
news:internetphobic-145ABE.09083515032008@newsgroups,com cast,net ...
> In article <frfa7m$jq$1@aioe.org>, "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net >
> wrote:
>
>> and cut a hole in the ceiling so the lamphouse would go up between two
>> rafters.
>
> I always laugh when people say they cut a hole in the ceiling. You could
> have just dropped the counter top and then made an adjustable shelf in
> front of the enlarger to make smaller prints.
>
The hole in the ceiling was the easier alternative. I had already installed
the cabinets and countop. Since this was going to be my enlarger area, I
took special care in installing the cabinets: trimming the toekick rather
than using shims to level it to the floor, additional mounting supports to
the wall, and stiffening battens on the underside of the countertop. I
probably "test-installed" the cabinets a half-dozen times before I was
satisfied with them. Once they were permantently in place and all the other
"trimmings" of the darkroom were installed (timers, stereo,etc) I had no
urge to remove them and modify them to get six inches less height.
The hole in the ceiling required five minutes work with a keyhole saw!
"____" <internetphobic@deletedmail,com > wrote in message
news:internetphobic-145ABE.09083515032008@newsgroups,com cast,net ...
> In article <frfa7m$jq$1@aioe.org>, "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net >
> wrote:
>
>> and cut a hole in the ceiling so the lamphouse would go up between two
>> rafters.
>
> I always laugh when people say they cut a hole in the ceiling. You could
> have just dropped the counter top and then made an adjustable shelf in
> front of the enlarger to make smaller prints.
>
The hole in the ceiling was the easier alternative. I had already installed
the cabinets and countop. Since this was going to be my enlarger area, I
took special care in installing the cabinets: trimming the toekick rather
than using shims to level it to the floor, additional mounting supports to
the wall, and stiffening battens on the underside of the countertop. I
probably "test-installed" the cabinets a half-dozen times before I was
satisfied with them. Once they were permantently in place and all the other
"trimmings" of the darkroom were installed (timers, stereo,etc) I had no
urge to remove them and modify them to get six inches less height.
The hole in the ceiling required five minutes work with a keyhole saw!
Re: 15" F/11 Red Dot Artar ?
In article <frgmg4$tfj$1@aioe.org>, "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net >
wrote:
> >
>
> The hole in the ceiling was the easier alternative.
> The hole in the ceiling required five minutes work with a keyhole saw!
I'll take your word for it.
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
In article <frgmg4$tfj$1@aioe.org>, "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net >
wrote:
> >
>
> The hole in the ceiling was the easier alternative.
> The hole in the ceiling required five minutes work with a keyhole saw!
I'll take your word for it.
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
