Besler 45 MX light source

[Joe Dahlgren]

I would like to ask those who have used the Beseler 45 MX about light sources. I have not printed on this enlarger yet as I don't have the ability to set it up at this time.

What I am wondering is if there will be much differnce in prints in B&W from a diffused enlarger. I have a Beseler 67 color enlarger that I have been using for years and just wondering about getting a cold light for the 45 MX. Do any of you think that the cold light will make that much difference?

I print 6x7 negs up to 16x20 prints, but usually 11x14. I am not looking for the so called "magic bullet" Just would like to know from users if there is that much of a difference to justify the added expense.

ALso would like to know anyone who uses Beseler 45 how they like it.
Thanks

 

[ann]

i have several and love them. One has a color head and one a cold light head. at the lab we have several with condensor heads as well.

I have used cold light heads for over 35 years and love them.
Just make your negatives to fit the light source.

The battle over which is better has been going on forever and you will get a variety of answers all of which will be "correct"

 

[Peter Schrager]

cold lights

I have 2 cold lights. an older zoneVI type and the newer v54 lamp made for vc papers. using the older one more often now as I went back to using graded papers. I'm not 100% sure but I think they only (aristo) make the newer lamps
this stuff works very well...
Best, Peter

 

[Joe Dahlgren]

Thanks Ann for your answer. I have been researching this, since I posted the question and realize that your last sentance is true.

 

[Joe Dahlgren]

Anyone using Beseler 45 MX with Aristo D2-HI ?

 

[Peter Williams]

I'm using the MX, but with the condenser head. I like using the enlarger on the whole, but it is very difficult to align.

 

[underbyte]

Beseler MX with Aristo D2

I am using a Beseler MX with an Aristo D2, according to Aristo's site, the D2-HI Series has 50% increase in light output. Mine is the standard version. I bought this set-up used and have been using primarily the condenser head for the last 6 months because of the difficulty using VC filters with the MX and a cold light. Recently, a friend gave me a filter holder that attaches to the lens board to use filters under the lens. (FYI - when I say attaches, I mean that I drilled holes and threaded them to screw the filter holder to the lens board.) I was skeptical but really wanted to use the cold light so I attached this holder and printed some prints today using an old set of Kodak polycontrast filters on Ilford MGIV fiber paper. I used the Kodak filters because it was an old set and I don't really want to cut up my Ilford set.

Guess what? the results were outstanding. The Kodak filters under the lens actually worked with the Ilford paper and the tonality was great and dust was less of an issue too. I have only printed one negative and it is a pinhole image, so it wasn't the most technical test. However, the print was better than the condenser version so I am going to do some more printing with this set-up and see if there are any obvious differences in sharpness or print quality between the Aristo D2 and condenser head.

I like my Beseler MX, I think it is the CRX version and the D2 looks promising. Old Kodak filters under the enlarging lens for Ilford paper, what has the world come to? Surprisingly, it looks pretty good.

 

[juan]

I have an MCRX and have used both the condenser head and a Zone VI cold light. Both give good results. The condenser head fits my existing negatives better, so I've elected to stay with it. Pick one and go take pictures.
juan