Basic Enlarger Questions (condensers and Setoboxes).

Hi,

I've been used to using colour head enlargers where 35mm to 5x4, you chose the appropriate size negative holder, loaded the film, and in to the enlarger it went. Looking to buy my own, it's a lot more complicated.

* For a "full set of condensers" would that be a set for each format 35, 645, 66, 67, 68, 69, 54? Or does one set have overlap, eg the 645 will also do 66. (Actually why is there different condensers? Is it just most efficient focus of light so 54 would be fine for 35mm just take a longer exposure?).

* For the Setoboxes I phoned the seller but he didn't know. What do they do, and likewise above, do you need one for each format or is there over lap? What would be the outcome of using a 69 Setobox for 35mm for instance? The enlarger also comes with 69 conderser. Does this mean to print 69 you need a 69 Setobox & a 69 condenser?

Setoboxes or diffusion boxes can be used with negatives smaller than the size printed on the box. The advantage of the smaller boxes is that they concentrate the light, and can allow for shorter exposures.
If expense and availablilty are limiting factors, just get the biggest box for the enlarger.

The only thing 'wrong' with simply using 4x5 condensor set to print anything including135 format negs is simply that some of the light is not concentrated within a smaller area, so it is not as bright as it could potentially be.

wiltw said:

The only thing 'wrong' with simply using 4x5 condensor set to print anything including135 format negs is simply that some of the light is not concentrated within a smaller area, so it is not as bright as it could potentially be.

Click to expand...

The condenser set needs to match the lens, not the format.

ic-racer said:

The condenser set needs to match the lens, not the format.

Click to expand...

The condensor illuminates the frame...the lens sees only the illuminated frame which is masked to the format, it does not see the condensor, it sees only the illuminated frame. The lens knows not if the condensor sends light to only cover the opening of the mask, or wastes it in an area much larger than the mask.

If your goal is to maximize the benefits of condenser illumination - maximum potential contrast and perceived "sharpness" than matching the condenser setup to the lens may provide a very slight benefit.
But if that is what motivates you, you have much more specialized needs than most who choose condenser illumination.
The shorter exposure times and relative ease of on-easel composing and focusing - particularly with colour negative film - are more practical benefits of having matched condensers.

Thanks for all replies.

So both these things are to optimise the brightness of the bulb evenly to the film? No other knock on effects?
If I go for the enlarger with the 69 Box and 69 condenser, all smaller formats would print perfectly? Just take longer than a (guessing here) 35 Setobox & 35 Condenser for 35mm?
And are the Setoboxes and Condensers used together or one or the other? (Thinking it could be a choice of Diffusion or Condenser). For that partic enlarger it looks like it has a neg carrier with blades - do these fair well or are they very sub par to carriers actually made for particular formats?

Not quite with you MattKing on the choce of condenser for most people? At the mo just trying to figure out what setup to buy that's good to go, without later finding out I need other parts that will break the bank/are few and far between. But interested to hear.

Lemmythink said:

Not quite with you MattKing on the choce of condenser for most people? At the mo just trying to figure out what setup to buy that's good to go, without later finding out I need other parts that will break the bank/are few and far between. But interested to hear.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of stray light bouncing around inside an enlarger that has a 4x5 condenser setup but a 35mm negative carrier and a 50mm lens.
Not in the form of a light leak, but rather in the form of extra, un-condensed light in the spaces above the negative.
That can make the enlarger behave a bit more like a diffusion source equipped enlarger than a condenser equipped enlarger.
So if your goal is to maximize contrast and apparent sharpness, you will lose a bit of the difference between how diffusion and condenser light source enlargers perform.
Not a huge amount, but some.
Personally, I prefer diffusion sources and am very happy with the results they provide. But if you are one of those "gritty contrast at all costs" type of printers, than you may want that extra set of condensers.

MattKing said:

If your goal is to maximize the benefits of condenser illumination - maximum potential contrast and perceived "sharpness" than matching the condenser setup to the lens may provide a very slight benefit.
But if that is what motivates you, you have much more specialized needs than most who choose condenser illumination.
The shorter exposure times and relative ease of on-easel composing and focusing - particularly with colour negative film - are more practical benefits of having matched condensers.

Click to expand...

Perceived "sharpness; I will have that engraved on my grave marker!
I have had more 'better than the last' enlargers than I can remember.
Currently my Beseler 4x5 condenser is my first choice whilst my LPL 670 CCCE sits unused.
Bigger is better for enlargers no matter what brand.
The extra area of light from a larger format enlarger is seldom wasted no matter what format you use.
In days gone past I used a Durst with two condensers , one for 35mm and one for 6x6.
I used the 6x6 condenser and just used a different lens for 35 or 6x6.

wiltw said:

The condensor illuminates the frame...the lens sees only the illuminated frame which is masked to the format, it does not see the condensor, it sees only the illuminated frame. The lens knows not if the condensor sends light to only cover the opening of the mask, or wastes it in an area much larger than the mask.

Click to expand...

Not sure, but you might be mistaking the physics of a diffusion box and condenser system.

ic-racer said:

Not sure, but you might be mistaking the physics of a diffusion box and condenser system.

Click to expand...

Please explain how the lens sees ANYTING on the other side of the illuminated frame of the film in the holder. The light striking the other side of the frame might be more collimated by a proper size condensor system vs. more multidirectionally striking the film surface with a diffusion source (or a condensor lens whose area of illumination is larger than the cutout.

AFAIK, and please correct me if I'm wrong, there's a difference between a pure condenser system and a hybrid diffuser-condenser setup. In the former, a (quasi) point source projects the shaped light beam through the stack of condensers exactly into the nodal point of the enlarger lens. Thus, the distances between the light source, condenser and the enlarging lens are critical. Since the focal length of the enlarger lens will affect negative-to-lens distance (and thereby lens-condenser distance), the light source will have to be repositioned when changing magnification.

In a hybrid diffuser-condenser setup, the distances are no longer critical because the point source is replaced by a large, diffuse light source that projects into the condenser stack.

The advantage of the true point source setup is that it's highly efficient (you need relatively little lamp power to get the same on-paper exposure) and it optimally achieves the contrast and detail rendering associated with a condenser setup. The hybrid setup isn't quite as sharp and contrasty, but still slightly more so (apparently) than a pure diffusor setup. The hybrid setup can also be more efficient than a pure diffused setup since the condensers can be used to project the light more efficiently onto the desired image area, by using the appropriate condenser setup for the film format. It'll be less efficient than a point source setup due to the losses in the diffuser itself and as a result of increased stray light between the diffuser and the condenser entry point.

AFAIK in both cases, what @wiltw says is correct in the sense that if the optical path is capable of covering a larger area, it will image a smaller area just fine. With the caveat of the critical distances between the optical elements in the point source setup, which is more lax in the hybrid setup.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong in any of the above. I've only worked very, very briefly with a true point source and it was when I just started out with darkroom printing and barely had any clue of what I was doing. I'm also no expert in optics. I figure out light source geometry, diffusion and condenser setup on the basis of trial and error when re-working my LED exposure system.
I still have this hare-brained plan in the back of my mind to try a color quasi-point source on my Durst 138 and see to what extent that's usable. This thread makes want to give that a go, but it'll have to wait for some other projects to finish. Maybe, one day...

A negative is more or less transparent. A lens can see through it. Most of the light wil travel through it without changing direction.

That's a good illustration - and the most creative way I've seen of quoting one of my posts!

Condensers for a point light source are anti reflection coated !

gary mulder said:

Condensers for a point light source are anti reflection coated !

Click to expand...

That's good to know; I assume the glare of uncoated condensers would be a problem when trying to use them with a point source? I suspect that at least some of my condensers aren't coated.

koraks said:

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong in any of the above. I've only worked very, very briefly with a true point source and it was when I just started out with darkroom printing and barely had any clue of what I was doing. I'm also no expert in optics. I figure out light source geometry, diffusion and condenser setup on the basis of trial and error when re-working my LED exposure system.
I still have this hare-brained plan in the back of my mind to try a color quasi-point source on my Durst 138 and see to what extent that's usable. This thread makes want to give that a go, but it'll have to wait for some other projects to finish. Maybe, one day...

Click to expand...

Not saying anything you said is not correct...merely pointing out that the only enlarger with a point source option was Durst...any other brand using a PH140 bulb or PH211 better fit your 'hybrid' description

...and, besides Durst, Omega had a point source on its microfilm enlarger.

wiltw said:

the only enlarger with a point source option was Durst...any other brand using a PH140 bulb or PH211 better fit your 'hybrid' description

Click to expand...

Yes, that's very well possible. I the point source system I used briefly (an old Liesegang enlarger) was really more of a hybrid, too, with a frosted bulb that sat vertically. I don't know if that was ever used or intended to be used with a true point source. The Durst 138 that I presently use can be configured for a true point source with (originally) a 12V/100W halogen bulb. The way it's usually configured, with the kind of frosted bulb you refer to, does indeed make it more of a hybrid setup. In addition, it can be taken even more towards the diffusion side by placing a larger diffusor in the filter drawer, which is conceptually similar to how it's run with the Ilford 500 head and its built-in diffusion chamber (the exit aperture/diffusor sits at the same distance from the upper condenser as the original filter drawer IIRC).

This is a passage from the Durst 138S manual (page 4) that touches upon some of the things discussed so far in this thread:

When maximum focus, reproduction of detail and the shortest pos sible time of exposure are required, it is advisable to use the low voltage point-light source PULAM/PUTRA which is available as an accessory. This consists of a low voltage point-light lamp (12 V/100 W) with Edison socket which is connected to the mains supply via the PUTRA transformer. The L-shaped lamp holder should be replaced by the special PUPLA holder which offers better cen tring facilities for the lamp. Replace also (a) the standard deflecting mirror by the specially treated mirror LASPE P, and (b) the standard glasses in the negative carrier by the specially treated glasses GLAS T. The condenser combinations used in conjunction with opal lamps are not always suitable for point-light lamps. In these cases condensers LATICO 240 P and LATICO 110 will be needed for certain enlarging factors and focal lenghts. We supply, therefore, with the point-light kit a table of suitable condenser combinations. When centring the lamp take care to align the filament helix exactly in parallel with the deflecting mirror. When the enlarging factor has to be altered, move the point-light source forwards or backwards using handle (45) to ensure uniformity of Illumination. Use a large aperture when working with the point-light installation as otherwise Newton rings will be produced. It will be found that in spite of the large aperture, the definition so obtained will be better than that obtainable with a low aperture and an opal light. Furthermore, the time of exposure needed will be considerably shorter.

Click to expand...

This is a bit of a guess, but I think that @Lemmythink is not operating in the rather rarefied domain where the differences between point source illumination and hybrid condenser illumination reside.
I know that in 50+ years I've never wanted to spend time in that zone, and I'm not sure I know anyone personally who does.
A diffusion light source, a condenser light source with condensers set to 4"x5" and a condenser light source with condensers set to match the frame size and lens for that frame size are all capable of working great - it is just that some choices are slightly more convenient to use in some circumstances, and some choices are better suited to unusual requirements.
The Beseler and Omega light sources that offer adjustable condensdsers are a good choice if one is particularly concerned.

Lemmythink said:

Hi,

I've been used to using colour head enlargers where 35mm to 5x4, you chose the appropriate size negative holder, loaded the film, and in to the enlarger it went. Looking to buy my own, it's a lot more complicated.

* For a "full set of condensers" would that be a set for each format 35, 645, 66, 67, 68, 69, 54? Or does one set have overlap, eg the 645 will also do 66. (Actually why is there different condensers? Is it just most efficient focus of light so 54 would be fine for 35mm just take a longer exposure?).

* For the Setoboxes I phoned the seller but he didn't know. What do they do, and likewise above, do you need one for each format or is there over lap? What would be the outcome of using a 69 Setobox for 35mm for instance? The enlarger also comes with 69 conderser. Does this mean to print 69 you need a 69 Setobox & a 69 condenser?

Click to expand...

The different versions of diffuser light sources for different models of Durst enlargers follows the naming ***box naming convention, and different versions of condensor light sources for different models of Durst enlargers follows the naming ***con naming convention...you simply buy the model that fits the chosen Durst enlarger (in the case of Setobox, only for M700/M800 Color Enlargers; the Bimabox 6x6 or 6x9 was only for the Durst L900 enlarger) . The Setobox 6x6 covered only 6x6 negs, while the Setobox 6x9 covered up to 6x9 (including 6x6 and 6x7) Assuming you use the appropriate mask negative holder for that model of enlarger, it will enlarge just fine...and based upon the FL of lens (and negative mask size) and enlarger column height, you are limited to a magnification range that can be achieved on the baseboard. The decision to use a shorter FL lens and smaller format size mask is the individual's choice, the only impact is generally a larger format light source used on a smaller format size is simply less bright.

wiltw said:

The different versions of diffuser light sources for different models of Durst enlargers follows the naming ***box naming convention, and different versions of condensor light sources for different models of Durst enlargers follows the naming ***con naming convention...you simply buy the model that fits the chosen Durst enlarger (in the case of Setobox, only for M700/M800 Color Enlargers; the Bimabox 6x6 or 6x9 was only for the Durst L900 enlarger) . The Setobox 6x6 covered only 6x6 negs, while the Setobox 6x9 covered up to 6x9 (including 6x6 and 6x7) Assuming you use the appropriate mask negative holder for that model of enlarger, it will enlarge just fine...and based upon the FL of lens (and negative mask size) and enlarger column height, you are limited to a magnification range that can be achieved on the baseboard. The decision to use a shorter FL lens and smaller format size mask is the individual's choice, the only impact is generally a larger format light source used on a smaller format size is simply less bright.

Click to expand...

Yes it's a M700 I'm looking at. It's weirdly described as a Colour Head but I can't see any knobs to alter CYM. :confused again: I just thought I'd ask the major questions.

Are they (Setoboxes and Condensors) used together or seperately? I'm still not, sure for instance, if for 66 the Setobox is ideal for 66 by itself or I (ideally) need a Condensor lens for 66 to go with the Setobox? It's why I titles the thread 'basic' altho people are talking about quite detailed aspects.

Lemmythink said:

Yes it's a M700 I'm looking at. It's weirdly described as a Colour Head but I can't see any knobs to alter CYM. :confused again: I just thought I'd ask the major questions.

Are they (Setoboxes and Condensors) used together or seperately? I'm still not, sure for instance, if for 66 the Setobox is ideal for 66 by itself or I (ideally) need a Condensor lens for 66 to go with the Setobox? It's why I titles the thread 'basic' altho people are talking about quite detailed aspects.

Click to expand...

Sometimes condensor heads have a drawer built in for placement of acetate filters of various colors and strengths, for variable contrast or color printing, and they are called 'color heads' even though they do not offer dial-controlled dichroic filters built into the mixing box.
You choose to use -box OR to use -con head, you do not use both together at the same time.

wiltw said:

Sometimes condensor heads have a drawer built in for placement of acetate filters of various colors and strengths, for variable contrast or color printing, and they are called 'color heads' even though they do not offer dial-controlled dichroic filters built into the mixing box.
You choose to use -box OR to use -con head, you do not use both together at the same time.

Click to expand...

I suggest that you read the owner manual for your chosen enlarger...you can readily find them on the web, so you do not need to have made the purchase yet!

wiltw said:

Sometimes condensor heads have a drawer built in for placement of acetate filters of various colors and strengths, for variable contrast or color printing, and they are called 'color heads' even though they do not offer dial-controlled dichroic filters built into the mixing box.
You choose to use -box OR to use -con head, you do not use both together at the same time.

Click to expand...

Brilliant! just the info I was looking for. Never knew that was classed as a colour head. So this enlarger is ideally suited to 68 with condensor or diffusion / 66 with diffusion, and smaller than these two sizes by choice of diffusion or condenser?

OK, you need to exericise CAUTION in your purchase decision!
You mention Setobox yet also enlarger M700. From my very recent investigation into M700, comments from owners mention only Unicon condensor sets for the M700
Condensers;
Yet my prior research into Setobox mentions applicability to M700/M800. And an ad in eBay claims the SESIBOX fits the m700/800.

If you are buying from a single source a 'kit' it is more likely that everything goes together, but if your purchase is piecemea from multiple sourcesl, conduct your own research to verify applicability before making purchase. The M700 is a very old enlarger from about 60 years ago, so this complicates the purchase of accessories that are suited to this model enlarger. Who knows what ad claims are valid claims and which are erroneous.