Condenser vs Diffuser

[BetterSense]

C700 condenser head. I've never used a diffusion enlarger before.

 

[markbau]

It's quite heartening to read this thread as it shows we have moved on from the Picker nonsense about cold light heads. If this question were posed 10 years ago there would have been a small army of Pickerites claiming that Cold light has these mystical, magical qualities and that people who don't use them aren't real photographers. I know, I recall the flame wars in rec.darkroom in the internet's early days.

I've used a colour head (diffusion) for many years now but could get the same results with a condensor head.

Mark

 

[jelke]

i work now mainly with a condensor enlarger, a beseler 45mxt, after years printing with cold light..

the prints with the comdensor enlarger are more brilliant

 

[jelke]

sorry, condensor enlarger..

 

[Blighty]

CONDENSER!!!!!!!!!!Everybody else is wrong!

 

[Henry Alive]

Meopta Opemus 6A - Condenser

 

[jelke]

CONDENSER!!!!!!!!!!Everybody else is wrong!

from now on my photo's will be extra brilliant with my new condenser enlarger

 

[fotch]

Mostly with Diffuser, sometimes with Condenser. Favorite format is 4x5, or 6x9, shoot a lot of 35mm.

 

[steven_e007]

I'm a bit suprised after reading this thread that it wasn't until page four that someone pointed out that most of the condensor enlargers are really diffuser / condensors - and even then no one has really picked up on it. I thought the 'cold light' versus the 'point source' would be the real battle ground for an APUG flame war!!!

I have two Meopta enlargers - axomat for 35mm and opemus 6 for 6 X 6. Both have condensors - but have a large opal bulb and frosted glass in the filter draw. I also have a De Vere 108 for large format - which is cold light, although the tube has now gone so I have made a more conventional diffuser head with opal bulbs.

I've never noticed a massive difference with any of them - other than a slightly softer contrast on the diffuser without condensors.

After reading about point source I got some steel sheet and made up a head for the optimus which held the condensors - removed the ground glass and installed a tiny but powerful halogen lamp behind a small aperture to give me a tiny point. This was mounted on a sliding bracket type affair to get the position right.

The result was gobsmacking!!! There was a massive difference in contrast and the grain showed up REALLY gritty. So did any grit, drying marks, dust, particles in the air, marks on tyhe condensor and bulb, imperfections in the glass, dust on the lens...

I couldn't use it seriously as my metalwork was rather poor and the bulb had to be positioned exactly cenral and at just the correct distance so as not to get 'orrible kidney shaped blobs everywhere. This positioning has to be redone every time you adjust the magnification and focus. It just wasn't good enough - but I decided to make a much better head with proper adjustments and have another go.

That was about 10 years ago - and er... I haven't quite got around to it, yet

Surely someone must have used a proper pro point source condesnsor enlarger, though?

Didn't Ralph Gibson use one? I have heard people complain that they could never get the same effects as he got out of TRI-X and Rodinal. That might be why?

 

[Anon Ymous]

Meopta Opemus 6a, condenser. 135 only for the moment.

 

[Marc Akemann]

Diffuser...
Beseler 45MX II enlarger with an Aristo VCL 4500 variable contrast cold light head (35mm, 6x6, 4x5).
Elwood SP-2 enlarger (thanks to JBrunner) with diffusion glass (5x7).

Marc

 

[Lee L]

I use both diffused and condenser, and sometimes a condenser head with diffusion material between the two condensers.

35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 4x5.

Lee

 

[Tom Reardon]

Both - about 70% 120, 30% 135

 

[bill h]

Condenser, D2, 35, 120, 4x5.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

I use both types

35mm, 6x6 & 6x9 I use a Condenser Enlarger

5x4 I use a Diffuser - but still use the under the lens MG Filters

Martin

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I like to thank everyone for their responses. The results was a surprise to me. Out of all users, roughly 50% use a diffusion enlarger, 25% use a condenser and 25% use both. This means that more than 1/3 of all enlargers are likely to be condensers. Well, that's enough reason to continue our investigation and come up with a deep-dive report, comparing the two enlarging concepts yet again.

 

[darkosaric]

condenser.
35mm 95% and 127 and 120 film 5%

 

[RobertV]

Dunco II 67 120 pro which is a combined diffuser-condenser system.

Format 70% 35mm 30% 6x4,5 / 6x6 roll film

 

[Arvee]

Condenser, 90% 120, 10% 135.

 

[Tony Egan]

I have 2 condensers (Opemus 7, Durst 138) and 1 colour head diffuser (Beseler 45). I prefer the Opemus 7 for 35mm prints up to 11x14 and the Beseler for 120 and 4x5. For 5x7 the Durst is the only choice and much more spotting is required. My "feeling" is the condenser prints look a little bit better but it's hard to be precise about why and I am not a patient or proficient spotter....

 

[perkeleellinen]

Talk about being naïve to this debate; I had to check online to make sure I got the condenser / diffuser difference correct!

So, I have a Meopta Opemus 6a with a Meograde head which is a diffuser and I print 35mm only.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I use cold light mainly, but I keep a condenser head around, mainly because it has a filter drawer, and I could decide to do color again at some point. Of course I could pick up a dichroic head cheaply these days, so maybe I should just get rid of it, but who would want it?

 

[ic-racer]

Condenser light sources in non-point source enlargers actually produce various degrees of semi-collimated light (somewhat diffuse). For a diffuse light source, unless the diffuser is right on top of the negative, the perpendicular rays (relatively collimaed) striking the negative will be favored as the distance between the diffuser and the negative increases. So, keep this in mind while debating .

 

[Arvee]

Ralph,

If you are planning to publish an article about the various enlarger configurations, I would like to see a proper distinction made between the three types: condenser, diffuser, and condenser-diffusion.

I find that most published material on the issue of contrast differences tend to lump into two categories: condenser and diffuser. The adjustments in film development for G-bar/CI for condenser enlargers usually do not distinguish between point source (true condenser) enlarger and the more common condenser-diffusion enlarger, which utilizes an opal bulb and/or diffusion filter. The amount of the diffusion can vary a bit depending on the combination of bulbs/filters.

For example, Contrast Index figures for condenser enlargers are quoted in the neighborhood of 0.43 to 0.45 and diffusion enlargers are quoted as 0.56 to 0.58. In practice, my condenser-diffusion enlargers are in the neighborhood of 0.50 to 0.53. G-bar would have similar placements for the C-D enlarger.

I had to determine these variations empirically; it would have been nice to go to a published reference with confidence and save time and money.

Just a suggestion,

-F.

 

[Rombo]

Diffuser on Durst Pictochrom for 120 and very occasional 35mm.