Someone gave me an old enlarger. It has no markings on it, but it came with a set of Paterson trays, Paterson tongs and a Paterson 3 element lens, so I'm guessing it is a Paterson enlarger.
I have no data on it's age, but it came with a bulk loader still contaning film with the flap from a roll of Tri-X with a 1990 expiration date.
It consists of a plastic base, a metal pole that screws into a threaded cap which fits into the base and the enlarger itself. The enlarger has a push botton on the bottom of the arm to relase a clamp against the pole, a red knob to slide a red filter in and out and the a hidden push botton which allows the entire top of the enlarger to pivoit backwards allowing you to move a negative in the carrier.
There is a metal housing for a regular size enlarging bulb which locks in place with a twist. The condenser at the bottom of it has a frosted flat side, which can be moved by twisting to hold the negative in the carrier.
It came with 35mm and 126 carriers. The lens has a regular leica thread, and screws into a larger threaded ring for focusing. There is wire bail that looks like it holds up strips of negatives if they are in the carrier. This took a while for me to figure out, it rotates but seemed to have no function. At first I thought it was the release for a missing top of the negative carrier, but then I figured out the condenser can be rotated to hold the negative in place.
There was a drawer for filters, but it's missing.
Any information about it would be appreiciated.
Thanks, Geoff.
-- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > Someone gave me an old enlarger. It has no markings on it, but it came > with a set of Paterson trays, Paterson tongs and a Paterson 3 element > lens, so I'm guessing it is a Paterson enlarger.
On 5/15/2008 11:04 AM Geoffrey S. Mendelson spake thus:
> Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
>> Someone gave me an old enlarger. It has no markings on it, but it came >> with a set of Paterson trays, Paterson tongs and a Paterson 3 element >> lens, so I'm guessing it is a Paterson enlarger.
> It's the enlarger on the left side of the photograph.
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.)
-- The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
> 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.)
To which I was going to add, just don't jiggle the table it's on while making your exposures.
-- The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
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 g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
