35mm negative printed on a diffuser or condenser enlarger

[cliveh]

Just checked Ctein Post Exposure, page 69, figures 6-14, 6-15 and 6-16 illustrate that he tested and graphed the different curves that correspond to Condenser vs. Diffusion enlarger - after matching the prints for contrast.

It corroborates what Cliveh has been saying: The highlights have more contrast in a Condenser - even when the prints are contrast-matched.

Ctein complains that Callier didn't study photographic materials so it can't rightly be called the Callier effect. So we need a new name, I vote to call it the Collier effect and say George came up with it.

Thanks Bill.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A lot of the arguments in print are academic, and in most cases of limited value simply because they make reference to materials which are now
seldom used. VC papers for one thing are a lot more common than graded options. There is a much bigger choice in developers, and many of the
special ones like pyro (of all flavors) are quite commonplace. Most of the rules of the game have changed. For a handful of people, this might
still be an worthwhile distinction...

 

[cliveh]

Please note that in my OP I am not trying to say that either diffuser or condenser are better, but just that I notice this difference for a condenser over a limited size of prints for a given negative.

 

[zsas]

I use a Focomat V35 - it's the best of both worlds (it's diffusion and condenser all in one)...is that the answer to the age old debate? Heeeee