Condencer VS. Diffusion enlarger

Which of the two of these enlargers do you like the best for black and white printing, and why? I would really like to know what you all think. Thank you for your time.

For the work that I do, having used and owning both types of enlargers, I prefer a well designed condenser enlarger. The reason is that I obtain better local contrast which translates to a greater sense of light from the print.

The downside is somewhat more print spotting.

I use a diffusion enlarger simply because that is what I learned on. I would rather try to get better with this enlarger than try to learn the nuances of a condensor enlarger.

g

I use a condensor enlarger because it gives my prints a little extra sparkle and punch. I did use a diffusion type a long time ago, but my prints always seemed a little muddy in tone.

Thank you Donald and ggriffi for your comments. I started out with a condenser enlarger. I was having trouble with negative popping and the condenser light being so pointed that it brought out every flaw. But now I find myself wanting a more smooth and even illumination. I know that they tend to give a little less contrast, but I tend to keep my film development times short about 4-5 minutes with HC-110 Dil. B using Ilford Pan F Plus, 50 ISO, 120 roll film, and print on a higher grade of paper if need be.

Blighty said:

I use a condensor enlarger because it gives my prints a little extra sparkle and punch. I did use a diffusion type a long time ago, but my prints always seemed a little muddy in tone.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. What did you do to try to remedy the problem.

Diffusion for commercial work (more forgiving and saves spotting)
Condenser for fine work.

Nice photography Neal! I like your signature too, a lot of people are overly fixated about grain.

I use the condenser most of the time. I use old Focomat 1C`s and the V35 sits. D2 gets used and the D6 Chromega sits for 4x5. The prints seen to have better separation in the middles and shadows.

Develope less if they won`t print. Flash the paper in an emergency and burn in bright areas. Last resort is diffusion. The V35 is much better at black and white than other diffusers, but I don`t know why.

Color work goes on a condenser or diffusion Phillips with tri color lamps, Leica V35, or D6 Chromega. They all work about the same except the D6 takes 4x5 color neg.

ilfordrapid said:

Nice photography Neal! I like your signature too, a lot of people are overly fixated about grain.

Click to expand...

Thanks.
There are plenty of fine Large and Ultra Large format advocates here on APUG. I just love 35mm. Grain is a wonderful, natural feature to a photograph and nothing beats the spontanaity of small format. There is a whole religion devoted to a particular high accutance developer here .

Neal, do you have any problems keeping your grain pattern pretty even. Do you get grain clumps that look out of place.

I own and use both. I prefer the diffusion/cold light because I like the "look"
of the print. The only difference between Condenser and diffusion is contrast.
Contrast can be controlled during developing. Grain sharp is as sharp as you can get, you get that with both when used properly! For best results expose and develop your negatives to favor the enlarger you are using. I like beefy negatives and they print well with diffusion!

ilfordrapid said:

Neal, do you have any problems keeping your grain pattern pretty even. Do you get grain clumps that look out of place.

Click to expand...

I'm happy with the smooth, regular grain pattern in the broad, flat tone areas even with fast films.
When I started in photography, I shot and processed transparency film exclusively (All you needed was a tank and a good thermometer). When I finally got an enlarger and started B&W, I suppose that I carried the discipline in critical exposure and process control into it. Many of my fellow students at the time believed that if you got any sort of an image on the neg, you're OK, and their prints often reflected that attitude.

ilfordrapid said:

Thanks for your reply. What did you do to try to remedy the problem.

Click to expand...

Ilf,
When I used the diffusion enlarger, I had to increase the the neg contrast to try and get something like a little sparkle into the photo. This increased the grain somewhat, to the point where the grain minimising property of the diffusion system was negated. Let me add that I'm not against diffusion enlargers, they just don't suit my style.

I have both a cold light and condenser heads for my Omega, most of my personal negatives from the 60s though the mid 80s when I was working were 35mm, high contrast for 1/2 tone, and were developed to be printed with a condenser. For the last 20 years I have done a lot of 4X5 and 6X9 and the negatives were developed for the cold light to be printed on grade 3 paper. I still process 35 for a condenser. If at all possible I would recommend an enlarger with the capacity for both heads.

I think (emphasis on "I") that there is nothing more beautiful than a film with nice, pretty grain souped in Rodinal and printed on a condensor.

Having said that - a friend of mine uses a difuser and his prints blow mine out of the water... so its more of the same old "its not the equipment that makes the photograph".

To be honest, I can't really see much of a difference once I've adjusted the filters to match contrast. The diffusion enlarger softens the image a little, but it's not visible from more than a foot from the finished print.

Which matches my experience perfectly

Negs I print as Grade 2 on my condensor enlarger (Kaiser) need to print as Grade 3 on the diffusion enlarger (Durst M605).

Spots, dust, etc are much less obvious on the Durst due to the diffused light source.

I'm not sure why images are softer using the diffusion enlarger. I don't doubt your tests, but subjectively the images are softer. Maybe it's a lense issue

df cardwell said:

With either, one can obtain equally sharp and equally well toned images if the negatives are correct for the enlarger.

Spotting is reduced greatly with diffusion.

Here is a comparison of curves measured from a kodak step wedge projected through a Focomat V35 and Ic, and read by a baseboard densitometer. The V35 readings are identical to direct reading made of the step wedge, suggesting the diffusion enlarger does not SOFTEN the image, but the Ic ( a condensor enlarger) ADDS contrast.

.

Click to expand...

Thank you for stating your position. I believe that I understand your hypothesis. I have a couple of question about what you have done.

What steps have you taken to verify the consistency of the light intensity as it existed at the surface of the step wedge immediately prior to taking each of the three readings of the transmitted values? What type of instrument, if applicable, did you utilize to measure the test light intensity and what is the degree of accuracy of the instrument?

My experience with the prints that I produce does not correspond to what you indicate. Since I switched from using a Saunders 4550VCCE XLG as my primary enlarger to a Durst 5X7 condenser enlarger my prints exhibit better tonal separation in the mid tones and greater local contrast. This has contributed remarkeably to a sense of light in my work.

All of my negative production for years has been very closely monitored by densitometric evaluation. So I am not operating on some loosely contrived whim based on windage and elevation.

Perhaps with 35 mm negatives you are unable to see the difference, or perhaps your enlargers are sufficiently different from what I use...I certainly could entertain that as being involved. However evaluating prints made with both types of my enlargers from large format negatives, the difference is very noticeable.

You are certainly entitled to your conjecture...by the same token, I would hope that I have the right to respectfully disagree.

df cardwell said:

Sir

There is no conjecture. Trying to understand, yes. Argument ? None.

Now, two clever old coots like us ought to be able to figure out why stuff works, and to justify all this gobbeldygook.

.d

Click to expand...

I have been giving this some thought and the test procedures of the two light sources that I would be more comfortable with would involve the following:

1. Contact print of test wedge on graded paper to establish a baseline reflection density curve.

2. Projected exposure on the same graded through my 150 El Nikkor lens on the Durst 138S condenser enlarger with light integration for precise exposure.

3. Projected exposure on the same graded paper through my 150 El Nikkor lens on the Saunders 4550VCCE XLG with same light control and exposure as two above.

4. Develop the three prints of step table exposure in the same developer with temperature compensated development timer, fix, wash and dry. Read reflection densities of the three samples on my Xrite 810 densitometer.

5. Project resolution tables under the same lens and exposure controls as two and three above onto the same grade paper to determine the differences (if applicable) of local contrast between the two light sources.

I would be interested in doing this testing since it would possibly be the basis for an article. My problem is that I am just installing my darkroom after a fairly recent move to Phoenix. Additionally the daytime temps are still fairly high here and I would prefer waiting until things cool down a little more.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Donald Miller said:

I have been giving this some thought and the test procedures of the two light sources that I would be more comfortable with would involve the following:

Click to expand...

Donald - do you have a copy of "Controls in Black and White Photography", 2nd Ed. by Henry? He spends quite some time examing this issue. He found that he could make prints of identical tonality with both diffusion and condenser enlargers. For his particular enlargers, he need to have a 0.41 CI for the condenser, and 0.59 CI fo the diffusion to get matching print tones. These neg CIs rendered very similar densities as can be seen from the graphs in his book.

He also found that he could take the 0.41 and 0.59 CI negs and place then in the same enlarger and by matching the grade of the paper to the neg he could yield matching print tones.

You should review his findings and then perhaps repeat some of his tests to see if you find similar results.

By the way - I find my Saunders 4500 gives nearly the same print tones via enlargement as I get from contacts with the Stouffer wedge. Don't have a condenser to compare.

Your proposed test will not give similar print tonality without first matching the neg CI to the enlarger light source, or, matching the paper contrast range to the negs in a particualr light source.

By the way, what happened to DF Cardwell's post?

Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

Kirk Keyes said:

By the way, what happened to DF Cardwell's post?

Click to expand...

He seems to have deleted them himself.

Kirk Keyes said:

Donald - do you have a copy of "Controls in Black and White Photography", 2nd Ed. by Henry? He spends quite some time examing this issue. He found that he could make prints of identical tonality with both diffusion and condenser enlargers. For his particular enlargers, he need to have a 0.41 CI for the condenser, and 0.59 CI fo the diffusion to get matching print tones. These neg CIs rendered very similar densities as can be seen from the graphs in his book.

He also found that he could take the 0.41 and 0.59 CI negs and place then in the same enlarger and by matching the grade of the paper to the neg he could yield matching print tones.

You should review his findings and then perhaps repeat some of his tests to see if you find similar results.

By the way - I find my Saunders 4500 gives nearly the same print tones via enlargement as I get from contacts with the Stouffer wedge. Don't have a condenser to compare.

Your proposed test will not give similar print tonality without first matching the neg CI to the enlarger light source, or, matching the paper contrast range to the negs in a particualr light source.

By the way, what happened to DF Cardwell's post?

Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

Click to expand...

Kirk,

My intent was not so much in matching tonalities as it was to visit the issue if the condenser enlarger increased contrast or it a diffusion enlarger decreased contrast. The other gentleman contended that condenser enlargers increased contrast above what was present on the step wedge. I questioned his hypothesis because I can't readily accept that a light source has the capability of increasing something beyond it's basis.

As I mentioned, if I have time and graded paper, when it cools off a little here, I will do the testing as I outlined.

I fully agree with your thoughts that tonalities can be matched. What can not be matched in my experience, owning and using both enlargers, is the local contrast and sharpness.

Donald Miller said:

My intent was not so much in matching tonalities as it was to visit the issue if the condenser enlarger increased contrast or it a diffusion enlarger decreased contrast. The other gentleman contended that condenser enlargers increased contrast above what was present on the step wedge. I questioned his hypothesis because I can't readily accept that a light source has the capability of increasing something beyond it's basis.

Click to expand...

OK - hard to tell at this point with DF's posts missing.

"The other gentleman contended that condenser enlargers increased contrast above what was present on the step wedge."

I would suggest reading up on on the design of densitometers as this may give some insight into this question. There are basically 4 ways to design the geometry of a densitometer - going from the film side to the sensor side:
1) diffuse - diffuse
2) diffuse - specular
3) specular - diffuse
4) specular - specular

Each design will give slightly difference density readings. Item 1, diffuse - diffuse, gives the lowest densities, items 2 and 3 give intermediate densities, and item 4, specular - specular, gives the highest density reading if any particualr step of a wedge is measured with each type of denistometer design geometry.

A condenser enlarger is closest in geometry to the specular - specular geometry, while a diffuse - specular is similar to a diffusion enlarger (diffuse light next to film, collimated light going to paper). If contact printing with a single light source that is a significant distance from the paper/film, then that is similar to specular-diffuse geometry. And finally, contact printing with a light bank directly above the film/paper is similar to the diffuse-diffuse geometry.

This geometry issue accounts for why my diffusion enlarger gives very similar density on paper as I get when I contact print the wedge under the enlarger.

The condenser enlarger, being similar to the specular - specular gometry should in fact give higher contrast than the other light sources. The light is collimated coming from the condensers, and then some of it passes through the film (and some is scattered by the silver). The unscattered light then passes from the film through the lens and onto the paper. ONly the light that passes directly through the spaces in the silver grains make it to the paper. - this increases the contrast. (This is why when people try to use a spectrophotometer as a densitometer, they get densities comparable to a standard diffuse-diffuse densitometer, but the density results are higher.)

By including a diffuse step in the transmission of the light from the film to paper on either side of the film the contrast is less. The larger light source of the diffusion head funnels more light into the film (from all angles, not just straight in like the condenser does) and then the light goes into the lens and straight to the paper. Or the paper gets more light funneled to it from the contact print despite the collimated light source coming onto it because the paper is right up next to the film to "catch" all the light that is being scattered by the silver grains.

As to whether you can get more "contrast" than what's on the wedge, sure, when you compare the appearant density that you get from each of those 4 geometries I described above.

You say "beyond it's basis" - I say it all depends on how you are measuring the densities and what you are comparing.

Whether you can exceed a wedge? I not sure what that means. Get a denser wedge?

I hope that all made sense - hard to describe with only words and no diagrammes.