Condenser vs diffuser

[alex millman]

Are there any particular advantages of one over the other for black and white work?

 

[Jim Noel]

This discussion was carried on for years in some of the old magazines. There are positives and negatives on both sides but no definitive answer.

 

[ic-racer]

Are there any particular advantages of one over the other for black and white work?

If using a glass carrier, then there are less headaches with dust when using a diffusion head. A dichroic head saves one from fiddling with individual filters.
Condenser enlargers can have less electrical trouble because frequently the lamp is powered off the main power line.

 

[gzinsel]

I use an ilford head that has only green and blue light for the mixing chamber box which has a diffuser- glass. I am very happy with it. I know others who do not like diffuser enlargers. but i do. I have used in the past a condenser but I like like my ilford better.

 

[Chan Tran]

They said that condenser is sharper and that's about the only significant advantage over diffusion. Yes condenser is more efficient but if I have a diffusion with enough light power it's no problem. Diffusion is more complex but really isn't that much complex.

 

[Ian Grant]

They said that condenser is sharper and that's about the only significant advantage over diffusion. Yes condenser is more efficient but if I have a diffusion with enough light power it's no problem. Diffusion is more complex but really isn't that much complex.

I've used both and my images are no sharper with a condenser enlarger, in fact there's little difference except the dust/scratches are more of a problem with a condenser enlarger. This is because most condenser enlargers use large diffuse bulbs.

However if you use a more specialist light source (in a condenser enlarger) there can be a significant increase in contrast but you have to fine tune the bulb alignment (position) to suit the degree of enlargement and ensure even illumination. I had a light source like this 1976-86 and it needed a large housing (around 36" from the film plane) which was practical as the enlarger was used horizontal, and the darkroom was very large.

Ian

 

[cliveh]

There is no real difference, it is more a question of personal taste. Do you prefer to drive a Morgan or a merc.

 

[ic-racer]

There is no real difference,

I guess I don't agree. The differences are quite large in all the following areas:
Expense
Complexity of power supply
Complexity of filter mechanism
Accentuation of dust and scratches
Lamp availability
Heat generation
Setup for individual formats

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've used both and my images are no sharper with a condenser enlarger, in fact there's little difference except the dust/scratches are more of a problem with a condenser enlarger. This is because most condenser enlargers use large diffuse bulbs.

Yes, what he said.

 

[cliveh]

I guess I don't agree. The differences are quite large in all the following areas:
Expense
Complexity of power supply
Complexity of filter mechanism
Accentuation of dust and scratches
Lamp availability
Heat generation
Setup for individual formats

Yes, but I am talking about the outcome in terms of the final print.

 

[NB23]

There was a big diff between my IIc and V35. Mainly the whole contrast. Hard to describe but it was there, all over. I prefer my IIc by far.

 

[Xmas]

They used to quote two development times for negative film to allow for the difference in enlarger contrast, when grade 2 printing was desirable ie before variable contrast paper.
(hybrid alert)
Bit like today where if you are only going to scan you need to avoid 'overexposure' or 'over development'.
(/end)
a long time ago...

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I frequently use both, where I teach and at home. I find there is a bit more snap or contrast to the images printed with the condenser. But I prefer diffusion though as I use a dichronic machine to adjust for filtration and don't worry about having to swap and clean condensers when changing negative sizes.

 

[removed account4]

it really depends what your film is developed for
condenser heads don't mind thin negatives or
"normal" negatives, but if you put that film
in an enlarger lit with a cold light head
you won't be a happy-camper.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There have been so many arguments over this subject for the past 75 years that it would probably take the Library of Congress to house all of
them. Diffusion enlargers are certainly more common, esp since the proliferation of colorheads. But a condenser enlarger can easily be converted into diffusion if desired. And the name of the game is a little different nowadays because VC papers are quite good and have largely
replaced graded papers. Whatever ... mostly a big fuss over small change. I work primarily with diffusion colorheads cause you can do anything
with them.

 

[cliveh]

There have been so many arguments over this subject for the past 75 years that it would probably take the Library of Congress to house all of
them. Diffusion enlargers are certainly more common, esp since the proliferation of colorheads. But a condenser enlarger can easily be converted into diffusion if desired. And the name of the game is a little different nowadays because VC papers are quite good and have largely
replaced graded papers. Whatever ... mostly a big fuss over small change. I work primarily with diffusion colorheads cause you can do anything
with them.

I agree with your first statement and Diffusion enlargers are probably more common as they are used more in education because students don't know how to look after their negatives (store them in sandpaper). However, I don't understand (if I am reading your post correctly) why diffusion enlargers may use VC papers more effectively.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's not that diffusion vs semi-collimated light has any advantage per se. It's simply the case that colorheads, which are almost universally diffusion sources, are a helluva lot easier to print VC paper with than by using a filter drawer. And cold lights are also by definition diffuse sources.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Exactly!!

 

[ic-racer]

Yes, but I am talking about the outcome in terms of the final print.

Of course, and given that then one is then left to choose based on the other criteria; some of which can make a big difference to one's workflow and ease of use.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

The literature says there is no difference in contrast....if you adjust development for the type of light source. But, I have negatives that print better with a semi-condenser. The low values print with more contrast and the prints are sharper. Un-manipulated, the same neg will print with less high value detail.

I prefer the illumination of a Leitz 1c. For medium format I use an enlarger that lets me switch to a color head.

Having two enlarger light sources gives me contrast control. A color head prints one grade softer. As good as VC is, at times graded Galerie gives the best print.

If buying an enlarger consider a color head power supply can be defective if buying off an auction site. The simple semi-condenser has advantages for the home hobbyist who is a careful worker.

 

[Bill Burk]

The literature says there is no difference in contrast....if you adjust development for the type of light source.

Wait! If you adjust the development for the light source... Then by definition you have adjusted for the difference between Condenser and Diffusion!

So there is a literal difference. If you want to hit Grade 2 paper... you better decide whether your setup is Condenser, Diffuser, Contact or Alt. Process.

Because they are different targets. But once you hit your targets.... then the difference is subtle.

For example, retouching by "roughing" the back of a negative... Big FAIL for Diffusion light source because the light works around the roughness you added. A Condenser light source will be blocked by your retouching job and you effectively eliminated a black spot on the print.

 

[mr rusty]

Every time this subject comes up I wonder where I fit because I use a Vivitar v1. For those who don't know this uses a focused halogen light source through dichroic filters and then through a "light pipe" which ends in a semi diffused light source above a condenser set. It uses glassless neg holders because the light pipe provides perfect thermal insulation between light and neg.

Didn't set out to get this beast but it seems to work really well, and as I have never used any other enlarger I don't know whether it is closest to a diffusion or condenser

 

[Truzi]

I've a Vivitar 356 that also uses the "light pipe;" very similar to the VI. I think they're closer to a condenser.

 

[ic-racer]

Every time this subject comes up I wonder where I fit because I use a Vivitar v1. For those who don't know this uses a focused halogen light source through dichroic filters and then through a "light pipe" which ends in a semi diffused light source above a condenser set. It uses glassless neg holders because the light pipe provides perfect thermal insulation between light and neg.

Didn't set out to get this beast but it seems to work really well, and as I have never used any other enlarger I don't know whether it is closest to a diffusion or condenser

That Vivitar is such a clever design. The fibers in the light pipe mix the colored light much more efficiently than bouncing the light around in a styrofoam box

There is another one similar that I just picked up. The Philips 130/150. It uses 3 RBG lamps that aim at a diffuser plate which acts as the light source for a pair of condensers.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Wait! If you adjust the development for the light source... Then by definition you have adjusted for the difference between Condenser and Diffusion!

So there is a literal difference. If you want to hit Grade 2 paper... you better decide whether your setup is Condenser, Diffuser, Contact or Alt. Process.

Once you dial in development for your light source the prints from diffusion and semicondensor are very similar, especially if using VC paper. But, we all have file negatives that for one reason or another are less dense or thinner. These negs tend to print better with a semicondenser and exhibit sharpness and reduced grain (lower density). Low tones have better separation at the expense of less detail in the higher tones.

If your neg prints with a touch of unwanted grain a diffused light source can mask the grain at the expense of sharpness.

If you use both graded and VC papers I found it helpful to have both light sources for contrast control. My development produces easy to print negs on a diffused light source with ilford WT grade 3-3.5. I need a semicondensor light source to print those negs on grade 3 Galerie or a harder developer. Because of limited tray space, I use only one developer.