Any *real* gain of a condenser head?

[Shootar401]

I have two 4x5 Durst Laborator 1000 enlargers, both with color diffusion heads. 90% of what I print is B&W with some color here and there. In reality would I notice any difference in print quality by adding a condenser enlarger into the darkroom? I would ideally just like to pick up a condenser head for my other enlarger, but they are next to impossible to find.

I hear both sides, one saying diffusion enlargers are too soft for B/W and other other saying, it's nothing worry about, just go ahead and use it.

 

[cliveh]

I have 2 enlargers in my darkroom, a De Vere 504 with dichromatic head and a Durst Graduate condenser enlarger. Although both have their own special qualities, I probably use the Durst more often. I know the argument about dust with a condenser, but if you keep your negs clean, the snap of a print made with a condenser is one I prefer and a much simpler print to make (in my mind that is).

 

[David Brown]

. In reality would I notice any difference in print quality by adding a condenser enlarger into the darkroom? I would ideally just like to pick up a condenser head for my other enlarger,

"Quality"? That's subjective. They are a bit different, but I would stop short of saying one was better than the other. I, too, have a pair of enlargers (Beselers) one with the color head, and one condenser. I could make prints of the same negative, and you would not be able to tell me with certainty which was which. I'm not saying they would be exactly the same, but it's not that obvious.

Still, if you ever come across a condenser head for your enlarger at a price good to you, I would say: get it. It's all subjective, after all.

 

[ic-racer]

would I notice any difference in print quality by adding a condenser enlarger into the darkroom?

The condenser heads are more efficient. More light per wattage. The drawback is that dust on the negative can be more prominent and the heads almost never have adjustable filtration.

 

[chip j]

In my experience a condenser is sharper & livelier than a full diffusion head, but I use a Leitz 1c for 35mm , which is semi-diffused.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I prefer diffusion enlargers. Depending on how your film is processed, I think highlights block up faster. There's more of a chance of "soot and chalk" prints. I don't know if other APUGers experience the same.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In the past I had always used condensers for two reasons: I was printing black & white and I was using a darkroom that I did not own. When I decided to set up a darkroom I had already printed color at Kodak using their diffusion heads. I first high quality used enlarger was the same type as I had used at Kodak. I asked the seller and he told me that the dichroic heads would make great black & white prints, but I might see some slight softness. Once I had it set up and started using it, I was happy with the black & white prints. I would not hesitate to chose a diffusion head for both color and black & white. I do not have color printing experience with condensers, but I do remember the dust concerns.

 

[JLP]

I have always printed with condenser heads and have developed my negatives accordingly but it does happen that a negative is to difficult to print with a condenser head so having both is a nice option.
Just last week I received a new old stock Dichro S head for my 23C II and it can actually be used with both the original condenser and the diffusion chamber that comes with the head.
It takes about 5 minutes at most to switch.
An option available if you only want to have one enlarger.

 

[Neal]

Dear Shootar401,

"In reality would I notice any difference in print quality...?"

I have used both extensively and the slight difference in contrast between the two is dwarfed by all the other variables that we deal with. Personally, I would spend very little money converting from either system unless I was printing enough color for the convenience to make a difference. Of course having both types in the same darkroom looks very cool.

Neal Wydra

 

[AgX]

I, too, have a pair of enlargers (Beselers) one with the color head, and one condenser.

I assume the Beseler condenser head has less a pointlight sourse than the Durst L 1000.

 

[resummerfield]

I am fortunate in the fact that I teach in a department with both types, so I can compare them at any time. I would recommend the same I teach my students: choose one to start with and make the best print you can from a negative you know well. Then swap heads and try to make a matching print. This will show you the differences better than any internet argument ever can.

I agree with Greg's thinking.... Each negative is different, and each type of head is different. Try them both, with the same neg, and see which pleases you more. I have both, and generally prefer the condenser, but occasionally I find a negative that prints better with the diffusion head.

 

[cliveh]

I am fortunate in the fact that I teach in a department with both types, so I can compare them at any time. I would recommend the same I teach my students: choose one to start with and make the best print you can from a negative you know well. Then swap heads and try to make a matching print. This will show you the differences better than any internet argument ever can.

Yes Greg, but what's your preference if any? I noticed that all my best student printers gravitated to a condenser.

 

[fran]

I have 2 L1000 (just picked up my second one this week!) with the intention of using one with the condenser head and one with a diffusion head (I already have both heads). The only thing I can say is that if you get the durst head make sure you get all the condenser lenses with it, as they are hard to find and expensive to ship if you need them Also, the bulbs are gone kinda hard to get. A 100W pearl golf ball bulb works well as a sub for the 150W original.


Fran

 

[AgX]

I have 2 L1000 (just picked up my second one this week!) with the intention of using one with the condenser head and one with a diffusion head (I already have both heads). The only thing I can say is that if you get the durst head make sure you get all the condenser lenses with it, as they are hard to find and expensive to ship if you need them Also, the bulbs are gone kinda hard to get. A 100W pearl golf ball bulb works well as a sub for the 150W original.

I assume the Beseler condenser head has less a pointlight sourse than the Durst L 1000.

I have to admit that when speaking of the modern Durst 4x5 condenser heads I alweays think of the version with the rather small, clear bulb (Varipoint), but most probably everyone else thinks of the version with the larger, opalized bulb, as Fran does above.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

It's fairly well known that diffusion heads (cold light included) give less contrast; condenser heads more. Kodak gives (or used to, anyway) different development recommendations for diffusion and condenser sources. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned in this discussion yet. (Maybe those students gravitating to the condenser enlargers are just after more "snap"?)

Many feel that diffusion sources show dust less; I happen to be one of them Otherwise, there shouldn't be a difference in quality.

If your negative development is matched to your light source, you should notice no difference in quality. I have prints made with diffusion heads that require a loupe to see all the detail; no loss there due to the light source.

Best,

Doremus

 

[removed account4]

It's fairly well known that diffusion heads (cold light included) give less contrast; condenser heads more. Kodak gives (or used to, anyway) different development recommendations for diffusion and condenser sources. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned in this discussion yet. (Maybe those students gravitating to the condenser enlargers are just after more "snap"?)

Many feel that diffusion sources show dust less; I happen to be one of them Otherwise, there shouldn't be a difference in quality.

If your negative development is matched to your light source, you should notice no difference in quality. I have prints made with diffusion heads that require a loupe to see all the detail; no loss there due to the light source.

Best,

Doremus

exactly what i was thinking !

most of my film for some of my time doing photography have been thin
a wee bit under processed film. condenser heads gave that film a snap ( along with #3 or #4 paper or contrast filters )
that i couldn't get with a cold light head ... and the exposure time with the CL head would have been miniscule.
since i started with the-changed-development-times i use a cold light head and get similar results as i did with the condenser
not to mention when i was printing for a portraitist she INSISTED everything be printed with the elwood SOLAR
because it added a little but of softness ( everything was well lit / sometimes rembrandt lighting, f11-16ish,
retouched film with pencil and if it was someone who needed to be softened we did that in the printing stage )
the condenser while capable of snap couldn't do the same job as the diffusion head in a nice even smooth tonality ..
(hard to explain i guess ) .. we made contact sheets with the condenser head ..

 

[cliveh]

If your negative development is matched to your light source, you should notice no difference in quality. I have prints made with diffusion heads that require a loupe to see all the detail; no loss there due to the light source. Best, Doremus

I would agree with this and add if your negative development is matched to your camera exposure/enlarger light source. So I suppose it is really a matter of personal preference.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes, it's absolutely a matter of viewing the chain of events as a system, and strengths/limitations have to be dealt with in order to eke the maximum out of all of the links in the chain.

I love printing 35mm with a diffusion enlarger, simply because it's a better enlarger. For medium format and sheet film I use a condenser enlarger, because it's what I have available to me.
Because of this I develop 35mm film longer than I would medium format film. The end result is what matters, and what should be our guide to everything we do from metering to hanging the final prints to dry.

 

[Shootar401]

Looks like I'll stay with the color diffusion head until I can, or ever find a condenser head. I can't afford another 4x5 enlarger with all the system specific accessories to go along with it.

 

[Ian Grant]

Looks like I'll stay with the color diffusion head until I can, or ever find a condenser head. I can't afford another 4x5 enlarger with all the system specific accessories to go along with it.

Just stick with what you have.

I used a condenser LF enlarger for a few years, switched to a cold cathode head, now I have a De Vere 5108 with a colour head. I can still make prints that match those made earlier with the condenser enlarger.

My new darkroom will have both types, it's a bit of a misnomer because condenser enlargers use a very diffuse light source while diffuser/colour enlargers use focused dichroic lamps, the end result is very similar. Main difference is the condenser enlargers acerbate dust & scratches.

Ian

 

[cliveh]

it's a bit of a misnomer because condenser enlargers use a very diffuse light source Ian

Do they?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I think 'soot and chalk' was a Fred- Picker mythone -VI productsbut I also find diffuson enlargwrs a bit easier to print with.|That said,with a well-made negative,you can make a perfect print with either light source.I never noticed a clearly visible gain in sharpness with condenser headsover diffusion and keeping the negatives and work area dust free and clean should be a given anyway!

 

[Ian Grant]

Do they?

Yes, most use incandescent bulbs which have a white coating (usually internal), the diameter of these lamps is significant so the bulb itself gives quite diffuse light output in modern enlargers. So when you compare say a Durst M601 (or later) enlarger with a condenser set to the same enlarger with a colour head there's not as significant difference in contrast that you perhaps expect.

Ian

 

[AgX]

see post #15 .

 

[Ian Grant]

see post #15 .

Sorry I missed your post. Yes, of course there were more specialist enlarger light sources and these do give higher contrast, I built one in the 1970's.

Ian