- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 9,327
- Format
- 4x5 Format
Sorry Richard, I wasn't being very helpful.
There are clear differences in contrast between Diffusion and Condenser enlargers. You know it by what you said.
The argument that isn't settled is whether the qualities of two prints that were each made from negatives best for each light source is identical.
Fred Picker argued strongly that a Diffusion light source produced a better print. It would make sense because he had a lot of negatives good for Grade 2 on Diffusion enlarger... I am sure his negatives looked awful printed on a Condenser enlarger. Some say his opinion was skewed by marketing (he wanted to sell Zone VI enlargers). So with those suspicions, I'd listen to different opinions...
It's important to carefully choose your light source. My personal finding is that there are clear differences in quality between light sources. Uneven light coverage is sometimes hard to see in individual prints, camoflaged by the image contents. Oddly on the computer or over the Internet, you can see uneven light coverage as you flip images.
Many of my earlier prints from 4x5 were made from an Omegalite D which is a round fluorescent tube in a dome housing. Clearly in my prints you can see light fall-off in the center. I was driven to the Omegalite D because the original 4x5 Condensers of the Omega DII were clearly worse.
There are clear differences in contrast between Diffusion and Condenser enlargers. You know it by what you said.
The argument that isn't settled is whether the qualities of two prints that were each made from negatives best for each light source is identical.
Fred Picker argued strongly that a Diffusion light source produced a better print. It would make sense because he had a lot of negatives good for Grade 2 on Diffusion enlarger... I am sure his negatives looked awful printed on a Condenser enlarger. Some say his opinion was skewed by marketing (he wanted to sell Zone VI enlargers). So with those suspicions, I'd listen to different opinions...
It's important to carefully choose your light source. My personal finding is that there are clear differences in quality between light sources. Uneven light coverage is sometimes hard to see in individual prints, camoflaged by the image contents. Oddly on the computer or over the Internet, you can see uneven light coverage as you flip images.
Many of my earlier prints from 4x5 were made from an Omegalite D which is a round fluorescent tube in a dome housing. Clearly in my prints you can see light fall-off in the center. I was driven to the Omegalite D because the original 4x5 Condensers of the Omega DII were clearly worse.