David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Looks as if you could use a better news reader, instead of whatever's on
> that Linux box you're using:
I use SLRN. Works fine for me. The only thing I miss is a spelling
checker.
>
> In answer to your original query, no, I'm not familiar with this
> specific enlarger, but have seen lots like it. Sounds cheap and flimsy,
> but hey, it's an enlarger, and with a decent lens will make decent
> prints. (I'm guessing that lens you got probably doesn't qualify.)
Actually it's fairly well made and stable. The only problem it has is that
the enlarger itself rotates on the pole if you are not careful. I probably
will put a small piece of stick on felt in there if I remember to buy it.
The lens was the standard 3 element cheapo enlarging lens of that era.
I use the past tense because it can not easily be opened and there is
a large star shaped splat of fungus on one of the elements.
Someone gave me a vivtar 50mm lens of the same era, without an enlarger
to go with it, now they are together.
To summarize the discussion that was here recently there are three classes
of lenses, both the Paterson and the Vivitar are probably the lowest.
For 5x7 or 8x10 prints from 35mm negatives they will do ok.
Better lenses may not in this case produce better results.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
N3OWJ/4X1GM
|
