Condenser or Diffusion Enlarger

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Zone VI later introduced the compensating enlarger timer in lieu of the stabilizer; it can be used with more enlargers, and also has dry down compensation, foot switch, etc., and should be easier to find. But RH Design products are fine as well.

 

Jeff

Edited November 5, 2017 by Jeff S

[pico]

Zone VI later introduced the compensating developing timer in lieu of the stabilizer; it can be used with more enlargers, and also has dry down compensation, foot switch, etc., and should be easier to find. But RH Design products are fine as well.

 

Jeff

 

I do not appreciate the dry-down thing. It's me.

 

 I use an Ilford 400* head, power stabilizer and control unit and I was very concerned that the timer/calculator would die ... then I remember that I worked without it for thirty years.

Edited November 5, 2017 by pico

[Jeff S]

I corrected my post to say compensating enlarger timer, not developing timer, although the latter was another extremely useful product.

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

I do not appreciate the dry-down thing. It's me.

 

We each have gear and workflows that become comfortable over time. One can always deal with dry down in other ways, but I liked being able to get a wet print looking just right and then simply dialing in a dry down factor for a given paper to ensure it looked equally well when dry.

 

After driving for 50 years without electronic aids, I've grown to like the blind spot monitoring feature in my new car. Sometimes technology helps....sometimes not.

 

Jeff

[otto.f]

The Zone VI Stabilizer Jesse mentions is probably hard to find, but the rest is likely available in a variety of ways.

 

The Heiland Splitgrade system's main downside is the price (so says my banker). But everything I read tells me it performs very well.

 

Yes it’s too much, I can’t get out of my hiccup to do it or not. I’d think that in these days of revival of film prices should go down, a 1000 would be reasonable

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Thank you everyone for the feed back. I will continue researching my options and ideally try and find something either already in Thailand or in Asia as I don't want to be paying $$$$ for shipping something that costs $$$.......if you know what I mean. Also Thailand has  40% import duty for camera gear.

 

Neil

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Also Thailand has 40% import duty for camera gear.

 

Neil

Jeesus

I thought I had a deal the other day with a Nikon-M 300mm for my 4x5, from Japan to the Netherlands: 33% import duty... pooff

Edited November 5, 2017 by otto.f

[TomB_tx]

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Jeesus

I thought I had a deal the other day with a Nikon-M 300mm for my 4x5, from Japan to the Netherlands: 33% import duty... pooff

Luxury goods hold a 100 to 300% import duty

 

Neil

[Michael Hiles]

IMO, the RH Design AnalyzerPro makes a lot of sense, including the price (369 GBP). Compared to other bits of equipment the price is not unreasonable.

 

Also, it appears to be as highly capable as the Heiland Splitgrade unit, but its approach is a little different. It is a little less automatic, but it seems to provide more control assuming you understand what you are doing. It would be my choice. 

[EoinC]

If you wanted to have some cheap jiggery pokery, Neil, you could use your 8x10 as an enlarger for your 4x5 negatives.

All you need to do is make a wooden back for it (maybe use the 4x5 holder from your Epson Scanner, mounted in a plywood surround). You then need a diffusing light box on the back of it - Maybe some LED's with a piece of ground glass in between.

 

Note that the light source has to be bigger than the negative, allowing for the converging angle back to the lens.

 

Here's a fancy version using a real enlarger...

[EoinC]

...or you could get yourself a Graflarger back to go on your 4x5. This one comes with a free Speed Graphic camera...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Graflex-anniversary-with-graflarger-back-polaroid-back-and-speed-graphic-front/112730207076?hash=item1a3f3e7364:g:5HEAAOSw-uNaTLRc

[pico]

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...

 

Never buy from Italy.

Edited January 3, 2018 by pico

[EoinC]

If you wanted to have some cheap jiggery pokery, Neil, you could use your 8x10 as an enlarger for your 4x5 negatives.

All you need to do is make a wooden back for it (maybe use the 4x5 holder from your Epson Scanner, mounted in a plywood surround). You then need a diffusing light box on the back of it - Maybe some LED's with a piece of ground glass in between.

 

Note that the light source has to be bigger than the negative, allowing for the converging angle back to the lens.

 

Here's a fancy version using a real enlarger...

...and here's his write-up on building his Arduino-controlled LED head:

https://apenasimagens.com/en/enlarger-head-using-leds/

[pico]

Are we still on the subject of condenser vs diffusion enlarger?

I have always used both.

 

For miniature formats (35mm), IMHO the condenser is better in the Valoy to the Focomat IIc range. Crisp, well focused, consistent alignment,  good contrast. I use a Focomat IIa today for 6x10cm and an ancient Valoy for 35mm (pretty much retired)

 

Beside the Focomat in my small darkroom is an Omega do-every-format diffusion enlarger with three lenses on a turret which is adequate for 4x5, but nothing smaller.

Edited January 3, 2018 by pico

[EoinC]

Are we still on the subject of condenser vs diffusion...

A mixture of dense confusion, really.

[pico]

A mixture of dense confusion, really.

 

Yes, indeed, and I must add that the Leitz condenser enlargers I mentioned only show greater acutance when grain is apparent, otherwise diffusion enlargers are equal. I miss the old Tri-X grain. Silly me.

[Martin B]

I use both and try to keep it simple with my answer to the original inquiry: condenser based enlargers are mostly used for B&W only while diffuser-based ones can be used both for B&W and color prints from negatives. I have tried the color print via RA-4 process with my diffuser based enlarger, but I meanwhile gave up doing so since the process is tedious and very time consuming. But a color diffuser setup also has a beneficial advantage for B&W printing - the purple channel can be used to increase contrast similar to a red/purple filter added into the filter holder of any enlarger. It is simply convenient to change the purple color channel depending on how much contrast is needed. I don't use this feature often, but when I do, I find it very helpful. 

 

Condenser-based enlargers were formerly thought to deliver more contrasty looking prints from B&W negatives. The reason for this (the way I understand is ) is that the condenser bundles the light better onto the negative whereas a diffuser setup leads to more scattered light which can potentially reflect in different angles on particles of the negative leading to lower contrast (Edit: just read post #2 which already describes this correctly as the Callier effect). From my experience with B&W printing, I honestly don't see a big difference if any. Very precise tests might reveal something, but judging from my prints they look fairly equal made with both kind of enlarger types. 

 

It comes pretty much down to availability of enlargers depending on the negative size which you use and if you need color channel capability. If you only want to to B&W printing, condenser based ones are normally cheaper and more available. I was fortunate enough to get my first Beseler 45M with condenser and then a second 45MXT with original color diffuser setup. I am currently using the condenser one for B&W prints from 35 mm negatives and the diffuser one for B&W prints from 4x5" negatives. Hope this helps!

 

Another thing are enlarger lenses - there is quite a variety out for them in a wide price range. It is important to use the right focal length depending on the negative size - larger negatives require longer focal lengths, e. g. for 35 mm negatives, a 50 mm enlarger lens is sufficient. In contrary to what I read online in reviews, I find cheaper Wollensak enlarger lenses nearly as good as expensive Schneider-Kreuznach or Nikkor ones. They all deliver (at least from what I can tell printing up to 11x14"). One thing often overlooked when it comes to corner sharpness of prints instead is to make sure that the enlarger is correctly aligned. I was lucky to get one of the laser-based calibration tools which resolved some alignment issues I had earlier. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Martin B

[otto.f]

One thing often overlooked when it comes to corner sharpness of prints instead is to make sure that the enlarger is correctly aligned. I was lucky to get one of the laser-based calibration tools which resolved some alignment issues I had earlier. 

 

 

Good tip, thanks

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pico]

I was lucky to get one of the laser-based calibration tools which resolved some alignment issues I had earlier. 

 

My 4x5 enlarger has difficult alignment adjustments, so I made an oversized baseboard and another that fits on top of it with three legs with counter-sunk allen bolts that allow it to be aligned from its top surface. It was the most effective little project I did.

 

My alignment tool is an old 'hall of mirrors' type with a 1/2 silvered mirror in front of the lens on two other mirrors - one in the negative stage and one on the baseboard. Oh, what we did before lasers!

 

Oh, and added a couple jam screws to the negative stage. It helped a little.

 

May I ask you and others what laser alignment tool you used? Thank you.

 

edit: lenses - a long trip in which I found sample variations and a big surprise in an economy Rodenstock 50mm lens for the Focomat and Valoy. It had astounding performance up to 16x20". I've never been disappointed with Rodenstock.

Edited January 30, 2018 by pico