Advatages of Giant enlargers??

[chip j]

The floor-to-ceiling types. Would they give better 35mm quality than my Leitz 1c??

 

[paul_c5x4]

I would have thought it depends very much on the lenses being used and the size of enlargements. Certainly, a giant enlarger will produce bigger prints, but how often are you going to want to do that...

 

[photog_ed]

No... but when you want to enlarge an 8x10 negative you'll need something bigger than your Leitz 1c.

 

[Rick A]

Why would anyone wish to enlarge a giant, aren't they large enough already?

 

[ic-racer]

You would have to rig to 1C to project on the floor or wall. An enlarger with a tall column and 40" baseboard will likely give a better print. Both in terms of alignment and sharpness. Owing to the fact that, with 2000W, you won't have to print wide open.

 

[Arklatexian]

The floor-to-ceiling types. Would they give better 35mm quality than my Leitz 1c??

To answer your question, I would say yes but only if the people who made your Focamat 1c and your Leica lenses made the big enlarger and lenses also........Regards!

 

[Peter Rockstroh01]

Why would anyone wish to enlarge a giant, aren't they large enough already?

I thought exactly the same thing, until I printed a 16x20 from an 8x10 negative. Yes, contact prints are beautiful, but big prints are a feast ... a big feast.

 

[chip j]

To answer your question, I would say yes but only if the people who made your Focamat 1c and your Leica lenses made the big enlarger and lenses also........Regards!

YES! Leica 5 x7 and 11 x 14 view cameras, Leica 11 x 14 enlarger, and Leica lenses all around! Plus Leica films, papers, and chemistry!!

 

[chuck94022]

The floor-to-ceiling types. Would they give better 35mm quality than my Leitz 1c??

No. If you are enlarging 35mm, your Leitz 1c, *with a good enlarging lens*, is a great enlarger. If you are working in 35mm, you have one of the best enlargers available. You could move to the IIc, or the v35, but don't buy a giant enlarger. Unless of course you intend to move into 8x10 film...

I've seen results from a Leica that seem to exceed the theoretical limits of the film it is enlarging. Great tool. Keep it, use the money to buy great lenses.

 

[chip j]

Yes, I have 2 Focotar-2s, 2 Schneider-Focotars, and the original Focotar.

 

[chuck94022]

Yes, I have 2 Focotar-2s, 2 Schneider-Focotars, and the original Focotar.

Awesome! So let's see some prints!

 

[kobaltus]

Yes, I have 2 Focotar-2s, 2 Schneider-Focotars, and the original Focotar.

We are dealing with a proud collector of top gear equipment here.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I would suggest that any of the more modern professional enlargers that have the capability to align every stage, from light source through negative stage, through lens stage through to the baseboard, as well as the vertical alignment on both the x and y axes, would be a better unit for sure.

The Ic is a pretty old unit, the IIc would be my choice if you were wishing to stay with a Leitz enlarger.

The ability to do massive enlargements is a great help for severe cropping, or inventive darkroom work. Not often used, but nice to have that option.

Probably the best enlargers for massive work that I have used, regardless of the format, are the DeVere, 504, 508, 5108, 108H and 810H.

The 504 is an enlarger capable of effortlessly enlarging anything from 35mm through to 4x5 film. There are two models, a desk model and a free standing model, floor to ceiling job. Essentially they are the same enlarger, one just has a set of legs and drop table that allows massive enlargements.

For the home darkroom, the desk unit is terrific, if you can find a free standing unit, you are in clover. I myself have one of the free standing floor to ceiling 504 units.

I have used the long column Ic model, not too bad an enlarger, then I was put onto the IIc enlarger and thought it was the bees knees by comparison. I then worked for a while in our special B&W darkroom equipped with motorised Beseler 4x5 enlargers and both fitted with the special Ilford multigrade head. These were pretty impressive, but they couldn’t do massive enlargements without some massive fiddling. But the throughput of these enlargers once you knew what you were doing, would make your eyes water. The paper travelled so fast it barely had time to be still on the baseboard. Just kidding, but you really could put some serious stuff through these enlargers, in a seriously short time frame

I then moved on and up to the De Vere enlarger equipped darkrooms where we did colour and some B&W from colour negatives. The De Vere enlargers were a revelation.

Finally I graduated onto the huge Durst 10x10 enlarger with the 2,000W colour head Essentially the Durst was/is the Rolls Royce of enlargers. However to use one of these you sort of need to know how to keep it running and the list of possibilities (if you have the accessories) is mind boggling, along with the price of everything; Durst were never cheap.

It really depends upon just where in the world you are located, and then what is available second hand in that part of the world. If you live in a part of the world where you can source something biggish, then generally you will be better off.

I’m not saying the Leitz Ic, short or long column, is not good, but in my opinion there are many better enlargers that came along well after the Ic was on the market.

The autofocus feature of the Ic and IIc and for that matter, many other professional enlargers, was and is great, but for critical work, the autofocus feature was never used either by myself or anyone else I was working alongside. The autofocus feature was always good, in fact quite good, and, perfectly suited to what we called colour stat work, but when you are after super critical stuff, it never was used to my knowledge.

Colour stat work is where one did direct positive prints from transparency film to line drawings of critical parts of the image for pasting into magazines or advertising brochures. The resulting prints were sent to the paste up people who contoured them with a scalpel, then pasted them into a layout page, which was then often photographed with a gallery camera using four sheets of film through four different filters and line ruling screens in four different angles, for four colour printing. It was not uncommon to produce in excess of 300 colour prints, all different and all colour corrected, in a single shift. Always of course, saving the really difficult or fiddly ones, for the next shift, sometimes .

Sometimes we had multiple sizes from the same transparency. The image was possibly going to be used in a newspaper advertisement, plus a magazine, plus quite often it would be used in a throw away brochure, what is now termed, junk mail. These transparencies were always done on an autofocus enlarger, generally the IIc enlargers which could handle up to 6x7 (maybe 6x9 not sure).

I would suggest that if you are looking at changing enlargers, if possible, get one with a diffused head, it is a world of difference. A colour head is what I have, but a dedicated B&W diffused head is probably the best thing since sliced bread in enlarger land.

To directly answer your question, I do believe more modern equipment, which is basically at give away prices, is far better. The fact that you will more than likely find something that at the very least can do 5x4”, then that is a bonus.

Mick.

 

[removed account4]

bragging rights ?
like " my 1200lb, 15foot tall enlarger i found behind a building
in a heap of rubbish and was free used to belong to the person who used to be the
person who did the developing and printing for xyz - photographer ( fill in the blank )
the only problem is that it is stripped clean as scrap and i have to rebuild it from the bottom up
maybe having things custom made, and of course i have to store it horizontal until i can build an addition
onto my house and a 3phase plug and an asbestos fire wall because the light source i am gonna be using is a sodium vapor lamp
i bought at my local public works department surplus auction last year after they were recalled from the manufacturer for overheating
and bursting into flames. but that's ok i only paid 10$ for it because the DPW was too cheap to send them back 3 years ago ...
oh, yeah i forgot to mention i had to contract a group of piano movers to help me move and secure the enlarger, and rig block and tackle
to move it around ... its HUGE ! "

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you feel the compelling need to print bigger than say 16x20 from 35mm (which won't hold up very well, regardless of the camera lens/film/enlarger/enlarger lens combo you use), then definitely invest in a large format enlarger. To keep life simple, at least if you're in the US, look for a Beseler 45 M series enlarger. There are TONS of them out there, they still make a variant of it today so parts are available new, and used ones can be found on the silly cheap. Alternately keep your eyes out for a Saunders 4550 or a Beseler 45 V. Both are more modern and more rigid, and while a bit of a pain to align, they're much less likely to get out of alignment in the first place. Otherwise, stick with what you have as long as it is working. The biggest factor in the sharpness of your prints (after the negative you're working from) will be the lens. The enlarger is just an inverted camera - a box that transmits light onto an image-forming substrate. As long as it keeps the film, lens and paper planes in parallel, anything else it does is gravy.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Big enlargers are for big negatives which require a longer neg to print distance then 35 mm for any given size print.
Quality is not improved if you are already using the best lens.

For 24x36 prints and larger, turn the head around and project on floor. Level everything to perfection. You will need a lens made for high magnification, not standard enlarging lenses. Black, not chrome, 65 elmars work. Radagon made specials for big prints.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just take your 35mm shot to any outdoor advertising company. They can make it 60 feet wide if you want. That's how the Marlboro Man got famous.
Of course, the image would look like utter fuzz from any distance less than a quarter mile away; but even a 16x20 print from 35mm looks like fuzz
up close.

 

[chip j]

Well, I only make 6" x 9" prints, so I guess I'm OK w/what I have. And I've read that the 11c's double-condenser is inferior to the 1c's single-condenser for 35mm. Oh, and I did just buy a diffusion enlarger--a mint Minolta MOD 111. I have the Minolta lens designed for it.

 

[chip j]

Oh, and I do have a Beseler 4x5 w/a color head also. And a Durst M35 Micromat, the most expensive 35mm enlarger at the time. W/a semi-point light source & my Focotar-2 the sharpness HURTS your eyes!

 

[AgX]

Floor-to-ceiling enlargers from Durst yield full rectifying facilities, what your Leitz is lacking.

(If you consider rectification as part of image quality.)

 

[chip j]

Leitz made a rectifying carrier and a tilting easel attacment for the 1c. I had them both at one time. My Durst M35 Micromat has it built-into the negative stage.

 

[Trask]

I would suggest that any of the more modern professional enlargers that have the capability to align every stage, from light source through negative stage, through lens stage through to the baseboard, as well as the vertical alignment on both the x and y axes, would be a better unit for sure.

The Ic is a pretty old unit, the IIc would be my choice if you were wishing to stay with a Leitz enlarger.

The ability to do massive enlargements is a great help for severe cropping, or inventive darkroom work. Not often used, but nice to have that option.

Probably the best enlargers for massive work that I have used, regardless of the format, are the DeVere, 504, 508, 5108, 108H and 810H.

The 504 is an enlarger capable of effortlessly enlarging anything from 35mm through to 4x5 film. There are two models, a desk model and a free standing model, floor to ceiling job. Essentially they are the same enlarger, one just has a set of legs and drop table that allows massive enlargements.

For the home darkroom, the desk unit is terrific, if you can find a free standing unit, you are in clover. I myself have one of the free standing floor to ceiling 504 units.

I have used the long column Ic model, not too bad an enlarger, then I was put onto the IIc enlarger and thought it was the bees knees by comparison. I then worked for a while in our special B&W darkroom equipped with motorised Beseler 4x5 enlargers and both fitted with the special Ilford multigrade head. These were pretty impressive, but they couldn’t do massive enlargements without some massive fiddling. But the throughput of these enlargers once you knew what you were doing, would make your eyes water. The paper travelled so fast it barely had time to be still on the baseboard. Just kidding, but you really could put some serious stuff through these enlargers, in a seriously short time frame

I then moved on and up to the De Vere enlarger equipped darkrooms where we did colour and some B&W from colour negatives. The De Vere enlargers were a revelation.

Finally I graduated onto the huge Durst 10x10 enlarger with the 2,000W colour head Essentially the Durst was/is the Rolls Royce of enlargers. However to use one of these you sort of need to know how to keep it running and the list of possibilities (if you have the accessories) is mind boggling, along with the price of everything; Durst were never cheap.

It really depends upon just where in the world you are located, and then what is available second hand in that part of the world. If you live in a part of the world where you can source something biggish, then generally you will be better off.

I’m not saying the Leitz Ic, short or long column, is not good, but in my opinion there are many better enlargers that came along well after the Ic was on the market.

The autofocus feature of the Ic and IIc and for that matter, many other professional enlargers, was and is great, but for critical work, the autofocus feature was never used either by myself or anyone else I was working alongside. The autofocus feature was always good, in fact quite good, and, perfectly suited to what we called colour stat work, but when you are after super critical stuff, it never was used to my knowledge.

Colour stat work is where one did direct positive prints from transparency film to line drawings of critical parts of the image for pasting into magazines or advertising brochures. The resulting prints were sent to the paste up people who contoured them with a scalpel, then pasted them into a layout page, which was then often photographed with a gallery camera using four sheets of film through four different filters and line ruling screens in four different angles, for four colour printing. It was not uncommon to produce in excess of 300 colour prints, all different and all colour corrected, in a single shift. Always of course, saving the really difficult or fiddly ones, for the next shift, sometimes .

Sometimes we had multiple sizes from the same transparency. The image was possibly going to be used in a newspaper advertisement, plus a magazine, plus quite often it would be used in a throw away brochure, what is now termed, junk mail. These transparencies were always done on an autofocus enlarger, generally the IIc enlargers which could handle up to 6x7 (maybe 6x9 not sure).

I would suggest that if you are looking at changing enlargers, if possible, get one with a diffused head, it is a world of difference. A colour head is what I have, but a dedicated B&W diffused head is probably the best thing since sliced bread in enlarger land.

To directly answer your question, I do believe more modern equipment, which is basically at give away prices, is far better. The fact that you will more than likely find something that at the very least can do 5x4”, then that is a bonus.

Mick.

Well, that's pretty much the truth straight from the horse's mouth...impressive experience!