Beseler 23c series modifications

[MTGseattle]

Hello.
I'm standing on the cliff edge so to speak regarding setting up a darkroom. The enlarger I have is as near mint a 23cII as I have seen. As you all know these machines have been around for a while and in great numbers. It's not my "dream" enlarger, but the price was right, and I've printed quite a bit with them in the past.
Modifications: different bulbs, diffusion pack instead of condenser pack, heat absorbing glass, any "strange" mods or "hacks" people have done that work. Is there a definitive post for these things? I've done some searching, but all I've found is some dead links, and as often happens a few very longs strings of light source debates, etc.
I will be printing on MG papers, and no bigger than 11x14 at home. My negatives range from 35mm to 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and some legacy stuff from family and antique stores in various sizes.
I'm interested in any links you could point me to, or some friendly tips on a more effective google search term, as I feel like the amount of info floating in cyber-space is a bit thin on this subject. Or perhaps I should just leave the thing as-is?
Thank you.

 

[Jeff Bradford]

Glass negative carriers are always better. Heat-absorbing glass is helpful, but you will still get neg-pop with regular carriers. Someone recently recommended a "new-style" two-chamber light house for the 23C, said the old style projected a halo from the bulb reflecting off the top. I switched to a cold light head. Alignment was a chore with mine because it had been one of 25 darkroom stations at a university, then stored and moved a few times. All in all, it's good enough to do everything I need to do.

 

[samcomet]

Hello.
I'm standing on the cliff edge so to speak regarding setting up a darkroom. The enlarger I have is as near mint a 23cII as I have seen. As you all know these machines have been around for a while and in great numbers. It's not my "dream" enlarger, but the price was right, and I've printed quite a bit with them in the past.
Modifications: different bulbs, diffusion pack instead of condenser pack, heat absorbing glass, any "strange" mods or "hacks" people have done that work. Is there a definitive post for these things? I've done some searching, but all I've found is some dead links, and as often happens a few very longs strings of light source debates, etc.
I will be printing on MG papers, and no bigger than 11x14 at home. My negatives range from 35mm to 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and some legacy stuff from family and antique stores in various sizes.
I'm interested in any links you could point me to, or some friendly tips on a more effective google search term, as I feel like the amount of info floating in cyber-space is a bit thin on this subject. Or perhaps I should just leave the thing as-is?
Thank you.

I've made a yardstick (or in my case a metre ruler) calibrated in f stops with the zero point being the height that a full frame 35mm neg will fill a 10 x 8 print (and where I usually do my first test strip). I've mounted this on the left column of the enlarger so that if I raise the enlarger to any degree I get a "quick start" f stop number adjustment from the original test strip time. I use a fixed f stop on my lens so I adjust the time in stops to suit the new elevation. Hope this does not sound too muddled but it does work for me. I have found over time the original scale on the right hand column inaccurate for my tastes ............
cheers,
Sam

 

[tedr1]

Here's some notes from 23C user Conrad Hoffman http://www.conradhoffman.com/beseler01.htm

 

[M Carter]

I used a 67C for years (Beseler). My favorite mod? I bought an extra lens board, some threaded metric thumb screws and some black foam, and made my own "Bes-Align" lens board. With the 67 having such limited alignment, my ghetto board has gotten me perfect corner focus. Even with decent alignment, it can give you a nice finishing touch. Very simple to make and use, if you have a drill press and the right bit and tap for the screws.

 

[MTGseattle]

Thanks.
Those were all useful reading. I appreciate it!

 

[bdial]

Folks have converted (hacked??) 23C's to accept 4x5. I can't find any current links to the build process though.

 

[David Brown]

Or perhaps I should just leave the thing as-is?

It's a perfectly capable enlarger for your needs. Why re-invent the wheel?

 

[MTGseattle]

David Brown;
I'm not looking to re-invent, I was just curious if over 60+ years, people had found anything that made it more capable or even more user friendly.
Like an led bulb in the lamp house to reduce heat, simple things like that. Since I have framing and electrical and plumbing to do, I have a bit of time to research "fun" stuff before I have to put an enlarger into service.
Odds are that I will leave it in stock form though.

 

[ic-racer]

You will get more benefit by restoring it to its original state, rather than modifying it without purpose. You can confirm evenness of illumination, locate a good lens, aligning the lens, center the negative on the light source and lens, check the bellows and head for light leaks, inspect and adjust the focus and column movement mechanisms, ensure the bolts are tight, inspect and or replace old wires, switches, sockets and connectors, clean everything in the light path, etc.

 

[MTGseattle]

I do appreciate the replies everyone.
ic-racer; The one I have seems to be in mint condition, so leaving it alone is where I am leaning. It's funny though, in the tendency to keep amassing gear that many of us fall victim to, I scooped up another lot of darkroom gear which contained among other things, a 23cIII xl with VC head.
I set it up on a table next to the older 23cII and did some comparative fiddling, and the 23cIII has me unimpressed.
1. move the whole lamp house up/down to insert remove negative?? This seems like a big step backwards.
2. range of adjustment for the lamp house height is only from the 8,16,35mm mark to the 6x6 (2-1/4x2-1/4) mark. The lamp house bottoms out against the negative stage and doesn't give me the range for 6x7 or 6x9.
3. the mixing chamber/s ..."comes with the 6x9 mixing chamber installed..." I see there are part numbers for other mixing chambers that look the same, but only in reference to the Dichroic head. Is there a need to change mixing chambers?
I grabbed the equipment lot due to a couple of decent lenses, extra lens boards, negative carriers, a bunch more trays, and a versalab parallel so the enlarger was just something I thought could be another decent useable option with built in filters, but this thing seems a bit hokey to me after a few minutes of messing with it. Also, the baseboard is a bit thicker, but narrower than on my 23cII. it seems logical to me that the baseboard should have grown a bit in relation to the xl chassis to provide added stablility.

 

[darkroommike]

I have access to a 23Ciii VC and frankly I'm not impressed for a number of reasons that parallel yours. Add to that that the image is dim when the filters are engaged and that the thing is SLOW compared to any 23 condenser enlarger. I do like the lever that sets the VC numbers to correspond with three families of VC papers and the white light focusing. Past that, though, the thing is a bit of a kludge.

 

[studiocarter]

Take it apart and clean the glass parts. Then you will get clear pictures. I was surprised at how dirty mine was.

 

[mgb74]

3. the mixing chamber/s ..."comes with the 6x9 mixing chamber installed..." I see there are part numbers for other mixing chambers that look the same, but only in reference to the Dichroic head. Is there a need to change mixing chambers?

As a general rule, you can use formats smaller than the rated size of your mixing box (i.e. 35mm with a 6x9 mixing box), but there will be some loss of light output compared to the "proper size" mixing box.

 

[nworth]

I bought my 23CII in 1971. Yes, they have been around for a while. I'm not sure exactly what you got. A variety of light sources were made for the 23. Mine originally used a P111 bulb and had an adjustable condenser. The adjustable condenser was a nice feature for maintaining even light intensity over various negative sizes. The enlarger is a little slow, but not really bad in that respect. You still have enough light to focus easily, and you have time to dodge and burn at reasonable f/ stops. My enlarger now has a dual dichro head in the diffusion configuration. A little less light, but convenient. Other dichro heads and third party cold light heads were also common with this enlarger.

A pretty big selection of negative carriers was made for the 23 series. All 23 series negative carriers are interchangeable. I'm not sure, but I think 67 negative carriers also work. Most of the carriers hold the film in tension and reasonably flat, but loading them can be a pain if the film is curled. Two very good glass negative carriers were also made for the 23. The 23 will take negatives up to 6X9 (2-1/4 x 3-1/4 roll film). Carriers were available for at least 18x24 (half frame), 35mm, 1-5/8x1-5/8, 645, 66, 67, 69, and 2-1/4x3-1/4 sheet film. There were probably others.

Mechanically, the 23CII is very sturdy. Adjustments are easy and positive, with little or no backlash. But alignment is difficult and in some cases impossible. The baseboard is limited to about 11X14. For larger work, the head can be tilted to horizontal.

The 23 uses the standard Beseler lens board and 39mm Leica threaded lenses. Lens boards for the 23, 67, and 45 enlargers are all the same. Excellent lenses are available.

 

[M Carter]

I'm not sure, but I think 67 negative carriers also work.

Nope... I believe that beseler negative carriers work like this:

Printmaker 35, printmaker 6x7 (the 35 with a condenser kit, rare), and 67 use the same carriers;
23c uses a different carrier;
And 45MX uses the big round carriers.

Lens boards for the 23, 67, and 45 enlargers are all the same.

Nope again... printmaker and 67's use the 3"-ish boards;
23C and 45MX series us the 4" boards.

(In my house are a printmaker 35, a 67c, and a 45MXT... that's how it works in my experience).