35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?

[BetterSense]

The scratches I get are very very fine; you can't see them with the naked eye, and they run along the length of the film, and they go away with nose oil completely. I get them on pretty much everything and attribute it to normal friction of the film going through the gate, because I don't squeegie my film with anything. I do print with an Omega condensor enlarger; next time I get a negative with them I will try to remember to print it on my D2 w/coldlight to see if that helps.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The scratches I get are very very fine; you can't see them with the naked eye, and they run along the length of the film, and they go away with nose oil completely. I get them on pretty much everything and attribute it to normal friction of the film going through the gate, because I don't squeegie my film with anything. I do print with an Omega condensor enlarger; next time I get a negative with them I will try to remember to print it on my D2 w/coldlight to see if that helps.

Sounds like a plan. Please let us know how it goes. Good luck!

 

[Tom Stanworth]

And not all diffusion heads are the same. My 10x8 colour head is noticeably more diffuse than Robin Bell's 6x7 colour head. His grain is somewhat more visible and he can generate more contrast than I can.

My old condenser, which I hardly use now, is a full two grades higher contrast than my 10x8 colour head.... and my filters are fine!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

And not all diffusion heads are the same. My 10x8 colour head is noticeably more diffuse than Robin Bell's 6x7 colour head. His grain is somewhat more visible and he can generate more contrast than I can.

My old condenser, which I hardly use now, is a full two grades higher contrast than my 10x8 colour head.... and my filters are fine!

This is a really good reminder to make sure we optimize our negatives for the type of output we rely on. Switching from condenser to diffusion was a bit of a stir-up for me, because a lot of my old negatives have to be cranked all the way to Grade 4 now to give pleasing tonality, negatives that printed well on Grade 2.5-3 or so before.

To those that use diffusion enlargers, don't be afraid to develop your film 10-15% longer than you would if you use condenser enlargers.

 

[patrickjames]

Patrick, thanks. My reply above was a bit too self centered, and I should have thought about it in broader terms.
However, my own printing suggests that the improvement I saw was more down to the lens design, than to be using a longer focal length lens. As I fitted the enlarger with a decent Nikkor 50mm lens, that difference was no longer visible. I'm not really arguing that you are wrong, absolutely not, but can you quantify what differences you saw? I saw 'sharper corners' mentioned, for example, and I was silently thinking that perhaps that was more of an alignment issue than anything. Was there anything else?

I'm just curious to learn what you know, as you seem to have considerable experience and a keen eye.

I think I was a little unclear; I should have written all other errors being equal. You are right that this only relates to alignment. Normally, with an aligned enlarger, there is no benefit to using a longer lens other than possibly more even illumination, but that depends on what kind of light source the enlarger has. If the enlarger is not aligned properly, then it is better to use a longer lens to diminish the error somewhat.

 

[patrickjames]

BetterSense; You should get the pressure plate of your cameras checked out. Scratches, however small they are, are not normal. Condenser enlargers of course show any problems the negative has. If the scratches are small, you probably won't see them if you use your diffusion source.

I would love to get a point light source Durst one day just for giggles, but I am always afraid of the amount of spotting I would end up doing!

As an aside, since I have spent so much time thinking about these things in the last few days since this thread started, I found that one of my lenses is a little decentered. Bummer!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

BetterSense; You should get the pressure plate of your cameras checked out. Scratches, however small they are, are not normal.

That's something I definitely didn't think of. Great suggestion! Upon closer inspection (today) of one of my negatives that I printed last weekend, I actually found one Tri-X negatives with a scratch running the length of the film strip I was using. It does not show in the print.

I would love to get a point light source Durst one day just for giggles, but I am always afraid of the amount of spotting I would end up doing!

As an aside, since I have spent so much time thinking about these things in the last few days since this thread started, I found that one of my lenses is a little decentered. Bummer!

Maybe your prints would be a little bit too good, Patrick!

 

[patrickjames]

That's something I definitely didn't think of. Great suggestion! Upon closer inspection (today) of one of my negatives that I printed last weekend, I actually found one Tri-X negatives with a scratch running the length of the film strip I was using. It does not show in the print.

I had a camera that scratched the film and it drove me crazy since I couldn't find the source of the scratches! I eventually narrowed it down to the pressure plate but I couldn't feel or see anything wrong with it, even with a loupe. In a fit of frustration, I whipped out my Dremel and polished the entire plate. No more scratches! Of course it would be better to send it to someone who knew what he was doing, but I was at the end of my rope.

Maybe your prints would be a little bit too good, Patrick!

Ha! I wish. I just muddle along.

 

[thaung]

Hi everyone who contributed to this thread, it´s been a complete pleasure to read from start.

It so happens to be that I recently (last week) bought myself a Focomat V35. I have previously used a Opemus 5 with an EL-Nikor 50mm F2.8, obviously a condenser enlarger. The most noticable changes I first noticed when switching enlarger was that the grain almost vanished from the prints. Of course this is because of the diffused light source in the V35. Secondly, and that was probably the most apparent change, the contrast was very different. Not just significantly lower on standard grade 2 but fine details in the shadow areas was much more visible and finer rendered. Don´t really know how to describe it in a better way but even if I crank up the contrast to 3-4, it is still very much more details in the shadows than if I enlarge in the Opemus on grade 2, or for that matter my Durst M800 (condenser setup) or B30. My EL-Nikkor is not the N-version but the Focotar 40mm 2.8 is just way better in every aspect. That said, the Nikkor is a very fine performer and certainly not bad, it´s even very good. It´s just that the Focotar is better. Reading in the thread about the APO Rodagons makes be really wonder how it compares in bigger prints.

When I first swapped my Durst Neotaron 50mm F2.8 with a EL-Nikkor 50mm F4 I thought that it could´nt get very much better, with the Nikkor 50mm F2.8 I was proven wrong but again I thought; OK, now it must be pretty much as good as it gets. With the Focotar I was proven wrong again. I like being proven wrong in these cases.

Last, the Focomat (once AF-calibrated) is a masterpiece but got damn it is big! My Durst M800 (up to 6*9cm negs) and the V35 is about the same size and the Focomat is way heavier, only downside I can think of but one I can live with.

Just my thoughts on the matter, and yes 35mm enlarging can really be wonderful when everything falls into place, I thought my cravings for MF gear would stop with my M Leica but it didn´t, it stopped with the Focomat V35.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hey, another svensk (Swedish person) on the thread. Kom in i stugan.

It's wonderful to read your account, and your experience pretty much mirrors my own. Out of the various enlargers I have tried, I get the very best results from the Focomat.

There is always something better, and some folks chase that extra goodness. To get better than the V35 / Focotar, you have to plunk down some pretty serious cash, and the Leitz is such a wonderful machine to work with.
A thought struck me the other day, thinking about this thread, and I concluded that I just don't think it's worth my time and money to invest in anything better than I have at this point. The V35 / Focotar performs at such a high level that it seems unnecessary to want more. That's for me, anyway. Six months down the road, don't remind me of this if you somehow find out I got the Schneider 40mm APO...

- Thomas

 

[Dave in Kansas]

Thomas,

You make reference to D3200 being such an excellent film (I'm sure it is), but considering your previous association with Tmax 400 I'm sure you must have tried TMax 3200. I'm curious what D3200 has going for it that you prefer it over Tmax 3200?

Dave

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas,

You make reference to D3200 being such an excellent film (I'm sure it is), but considering your previous association with Tmax 400 I'm sure you must have tried TMax 3200. I'm curious what D3200 has going for it that you prefer it over Tmax 3200?

Dave

Hi Dave,

I have no idea! The reason is that I have never tried TMax 3200, and I'm so happy with Delta 3200 that I don't see a reason to either. It's as simple as that. Don't fix what isn't broken, basically.

I would be surprised if there is much difference between them, though, judging by how similar TMax 400 and Delta 400 are.

Are you curious about shooting high speed film? Grain galore?

- Thomas

 

[Dave in Kansas]

Thanks Thomas. I have to admit that I have only shot a couple rolls of TMax 3200 and that was developed in TMax developer. It had some pretty good grain as I expected it would. I'm kind of interested in trying it again and developing it in something like Microdol-x just to see the difference.

It makes sense that if you are pleased with Delta 3200 and have it "dialed in" there is no reason to jump to another similar film. I was just curious.

I would expect your Delta 3200 in Rodinal to have some real crunchy grain.

Dave

 

[thaung]

Hey, another svensk (Swedish person) on the thread. Kom in i stugan.

Härligt, inte ofta det skrivs på svenska här. Kul!

Just this evening I did some enlarging with the V35 using some old (well, at least a few months) negatives that I´ve enlarged before on other enlargers. The difference is striking, I used some very old Agfa Brovira-Speed paper that really has a rich dark-black tones. On the precious prints most of the darker part in the images have lacked details but now I get both rich black AND good detail in these areas as well. The prints truly look great. Too bad I´m running out of that type of paper. If anyone can recommend a good or at least half-good replacement for it I would be most grateful..

Regarding Tmax:
I have shot a few rolls of TMax 3200 as well, developed in D76 1+1. I was quite supprised at how detailed the film was even with a developer that may not be suited for it. Of course there is grain but I´ve done 24*30cm enlargements from it with very good result, most usable.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hi Dave,

Oh yes, the Rodinal negatives have a lot of grain in them, but the funny thing is, since the grain is sharp and clearly resolved, it's as though you look through it when you view the prints. At least for me. It's a new experience to me, and I'm very pleasantly surprised!

I only have one un-altered print around from such a negative, and it's 16x20, so I can't scan the whole thing to show you. But I can scan a section, and then post a smaller neg scan, if that would be educational.

In the past I have used HC-110, Ilfotec DD-X, and Xtol to process Delta 3200, and I got great results with all three. But the Rodinal negs have a completely different set of tones, with deeper and richer shadows, and after developing it sufficiently long, some pretty exciting highlights too. It's not the typical S-shaped curve that I normally look for, but by dialing in more contrast at the enlarging stage, I get something similar. It's fun!

Thanks Thomas. I have to admit that I have only shot a couple rolls of TMax 3200 and that was developed in TMax developer. It had some pretty good grain as I expected it would. I'm kind of interested in trying it again and developing it in something like Microdol-x just to see the difference.

It makes sense that if you are pleased with Delta 3200 and have it "dialed in" there is no reason to jump to another similar film. I was just curious.

I would expect your Delta 3200 in Rodinal to have some real crunchy grain.

Dave

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Brovira. Good luck replacing it! I have never used it, but hear that its amazing contrast and cold tones are virtually irreplaceable with today's paper. It's probably best to look for something different, but that you like equally much.

My experience is also that the V35 gives amazing shadow contrast. Negatives that were difficult at best with my condenser enlarger just kind of 'fall into place' on the Leitz. Highlights too. I've started to add about 10% to my film processing time now, just because I can (the enlarger still gives the detail), and I want my standard contrast negs to print well at Grade 2 without too much manipulation.

Keep working, and have fun. Good luck with that paper replacement.

Härligt, inte ofta det skrivs på svenska här. Kul!

Just this evening I did some enlarging with the V35 using some old (well, at least a few months) negatives that I´ve enlarged before on other enlargers. The difference is striking, I used some very old Agfa Brovira-Speed paper that really has a rich dark-black tones. On the precious prints most of the darker part in the images have lacked details but now I get both rich black AND good detail in these areas as well. The prints truly look great. Too bad I´m running out of that type of paper. If anyone can recommend a good or at least half-good replacement for it I would be most grateful..

Regarding Tmax:
I have shot a few rolls of TMax 3200 as well, developed in D76 1+1. I was quite supprised at how detailed the film was even with a developer that may not be suited for it. Of course there is grain but I´ve done 24*30cm enlargements from it with very good result, most usable.

 

[thaung]

Brovira. Good luck replacing it! I have never used it, but hear that its amazing contrast and cold tones are virtually irreplaceable with today's paper. It's probably best to look for something different, but that you like equally much.

You are probably right, the Brovira has a very special look and especially the deep black tones are truly amazing. My thought was to replace it with some other bromide paper. Here in Europe it´s quite easy to obtain Foma´s Fomabrom papers for instance. I haven´t tried it yet but that is first on my "replacement tryout list". Apart from being an "old style" paper it is also very cheap and that is for someone like me, very good.

Thomas; In what price-segment does the V35 belong over in the US? Darkroom equipment here in Sweden is generally very cheap I think...

When it comes to Tmax3200 I haven´t tried it in Rodinal yet but will within the next few weeks. I have always imagined that developer to make the grain in that film to be a little to much but maybe I am wrong after all. I´m looking forward to try it. What time/dilution did you use?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You are probably right, the Brovira has a very special look and especially the deep black tones are truly amazing. My thought was to replace it with some other bromide paper. Here in Europe it´s quite easy to obtain Foma´s Fomabrom papers for instance. I haven´t tried it yet but that is first on my "replacement tryout list". Apart from being an "old style" paper it is also very cheap and that is for someone like me, very good.

Fomabrom Variant is pretty much 90% of what I use. I like matte papers. The 112 is probably the exact opposite of Brovira. It takes a fair bit of negative contrast to make that paper exhibit the kind of contrast you'd get from Brovira with normal contrast negatives. They are totally different. That doesn't make the Foma paper worse. Just different. I think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Thomas; In what price-segment does the V35 belong over in the US? Darkroom equipment here in Sweden is generally very cheap I think...

I bought my V35 with VC head and Focotar lens for $400 shipped. But I still have to repair it, because the arm doesn't move smoothly. It's in fact very hard to raise and lower the enlarger head, so I still owe Leitz/Leica in New Jersey a box full of my enlarger. The seller wasn't aware of the problem, so I think $400 or a bit more is probably about average for it, which is a steal for what you get.

When it comes to Tmax3200 I haven´t tried it in Rodinal yet but will within the next few weeks. I have always imagined that developer to make the grain in that film to be a little to much but maybe I am wrong after all. I'm looking forward to try it. What time/dilution did you use?

I have never used TMZ. I've always used Delta 3200, mostly because it's available in 120 too, and I like the results so much I have no reason to look elsewhere. Delta 3200 is a fairly low contrast film. So to get the right contrast for my prints I have to develop it for a fairly long time. I see no reason at all to use anything but the 1+25 dilution of Rodinal, as it seems that 1+50 would yield counter-productively long developing times. As it is, at 1+25 I process for 10-12 minutes, depending on lighting, and I shoot it at 1600.

 

[patrickjames]

With all of your guy's waxing ecstatic, the V35 will be selling for several times that for a while!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

With all of your guy's waxing ecstatic, the V35 will be selling for several times that for a while!

Not intentionally, of course. I just wish that people that aren't happy with their 35mm enlarging get to try something as good. All of the Leitz enlargers are great, not just the V35. Some say that the V35 is the worst of them, because it's 'cheaply' manufactured, compared to the older ones.

 

[Dave in Kansas]

Thomas,

Yes, I would be interested in seeing a partial scan of your 16x20 print at your convenience. I was just looking at my TMax 3200 negatives last night (scans), and no, I haven't printed any of them yet, mainly because they don't look sharp. The film was exposed at 1600 and developed in TMax developer. I used my Pentax ME Super and about half were shot using my Vivitar Series 1 and the remainder were with my 50mm Pentax f2 lens, but nothing looked sharp. I've been scratching my head wondering why and what to try next.

Most of my shooting is under good lighting so I don't have need to shoot that much high speed film, but it would be nice to get decent results when the need arises.

Dave

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas,

Yes, I would be interested in seeing a partial scan of your 16x20 print at your convenience. I was just looking at my TMax 3200 negatives last night (scans), and no, I haven't printed any of them yet, mainly because they don't look sharp. The film was exposed at 1600 and developed in TMax developer. I used my Pentax ME Super and about half were shot using my Vivitar Series 1 and the remainder were with my 50mm Pentax f2 lens, but nothing looked sharp. I've been scratching my head wondering why and what to try next.

Most of my shooting is under good lighting so I don't have need to shoot that much high speed film, but it would be nice to get decent results when the need arises.

Dave

Hi Dave,

I'll post the scan tonight, along with a smaller neg scan.

TMax 3200 should be pretty sharp. Keep in mind that neg scans usually just show the limitations of your scanner, and seldom reveal what the grain of the film actually looks like, especially 35mm.
TMax developer does not give sharp negatives, comparing to many other negatives. Its main virtue is film speed. Sharpness is good, but not brilliant.

See this link: Kodak developers

I'd say try printing them. Or look at them using a 10x loupe. You may be surprised. If they're still not sharp, try using a tripod.

- Thomas

 

[thaung]

patrickjames: You´re probably right, but maybe it´s just the diffusion light source that I appreciate. If so then many other enlargers would do the job just as good as the V35. But I will very soon do my own test regarding that issue. I just came across a color head for my Durst M800 and since I already got the other parts needed to use it as a diffusion enlarger I will set it up this weekend and use it both with the Focotar and my EL-Nikkors. I personally expect the M800 to deliver great enlargements as well. By the way, my M800 is also a total joy to use but has more of that "old-school-russian-tank-like" construction that has it´s charm. The level of customization that can be done with it is totally amazing, from condenser to diffusion, 35mm to 6*9, tilt/shift (awsome) and much more, just great.

Regarding the V35, I probably got a great deal here. Although it should be considered I did not buy it from a company, it was a private seller and I bought it without being able to look or try it in advance so it was a little bit like buying a lottery ticket, of course the seller insisted that it was ok but you never know. Still, about 120 usd with shipping turned out to be one of my better buys since the machine worked perfectly and was equipped with both the VC-head and the Focotar 40mm F2.8.

The prices on used darkroom equipment is just extremely low here, it kinda feels like I´m the only one buying stuff (probably right too). Everyone else seems to just want to get rid of what they have and are satisfied as long as someone come and get it. Kind of sad in a way, I suspect that there is a great deal of good enlargers and darkroom stuff that just gathers dust and withers away around here. Probably the same everywhere else too.

Thomas: My bad, I knew since previous posts in the thread you hadn´t used the Tmax3200 but instead the Delta. My brain just missed that part when I wrote my reply. You said one interesting thing though, if the Delta has low contrast it would from my point of view be better than the Tmax which displays an extreme amount of contrast, at least it has for me with the developer and time I used (Massive Dev Chart´s recommended). I will just have to try the Delta, most interesting and thank you for the unintentional advice.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas: My bad, I knew since previous posts in the thread you hadn´t used the Tmax3200 but instead the Delta. My brain just missed that part when I wrote my reply. You said one interesting thing though, if the Delta has low contrast it would from my point of view be better than the Tmax which displays an extreme amount of contrast, at least it has for me with the developer and time I used (Massive Dev Chart´s recommended). I will just have to try the Delta, most interesting and thank you for the unintentional tip.

I honestly don't believe that the Delta 3200 and TMax 3200 are that different. If your negatives have too much contrast, slow down what you do. Agitate less, and shorten your developing time until your negatives have normal contrast. Shifting to Delta 3200 isn't likely going to change your situation much.

While it's true that a film has a sort of 'inherent contrast', the final contrast you see in your negatives is a combination of exposure and development. The longer you develop your film, the more total contrast you will have. Too much contrast - just develop less. Easy peasy.

So you can take a film that has low inherent contrast, and a film that has high inherent contrast, and essentially end up with the same negative contrast by either developing the low contrast film longer, or the high contrast film shorter, or any combination of both.


And, I cannot believe you got a perfect Leitz Focomat V35 with VC head and Focotar lens for 120 bucks. That's unbelievable!

 

[thaung]

Hmm, well I just have to try the Tmax3200 and develop it a little different before I discuss it´s contrast further. I don´t know the time I used just now but the negatives I have from it are mostly true "black and white" if you know what I mean. Very narrow grayscale to say the least.

But there is probably much that be done as you say. I fact I recently got (along with darkroom equipment) a bulk filmloader with some old Plus-X, very old. I did some initial testing at standard iso and developing but it was total crap, a lot of contrast and LOTS of grain. The next roll I tried exposing it at iso 50 and reduced the dev. time and increased the dilution (rodinal), I ended up getting really good negs that is fully usable. So much can certainly be done during development to help the contrast and grain in any given direction.

Yes, my V35 was dirt cheap and I am just so glad I finally got to try out one of the Leitz enlargers along with one of their lenses. Funny that the only somewhat new Leica lens I have is an enlarger lens and I got it cheaper than almost any other lens I have for my M5, the only other lens that was cheap was a vintage 90mm F4 Elmar. Also a great performer and more so than I thought, it isn´t critically sharp but the way it renders both subjects in and out of focus is very pleasing. It also seems to give the grain a different and not so pronounced look. Maybe I´m just imagining but looking at prints taken with that lens compared to my C/V 35mm F2.5 PII I feel the grain is more apparent on shots taken with the 35mm F2.5. That said, the C/V lens is also a lot sharper and with more contrast so that is probably what is to be expected.