Condenser vs Diffusion

Dave Krueger · Apr 24, 2007

How many people currently have both a condenser and diffusion enlarger and which do you use the most?

I've been reading and experimenting with accutance and edge effect developing processes and was just wondering which enlarger type people prefer when they have both options available. I have both and have been doing some comparison studies, but haven't reached a conclusion as to whether it's worth having both available.

I would also be interested in hearing of you have done any experiences about point source lamps in condenser heads.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Apr 24, 2007

Many, many, threads on APUG. The short answer is: there could be a difference, but if you don't see it, then it does not matter. Some do, some don't.

Dave Krueger · Apr 24, 2007

mhv said:
Many, many, threads on APUG. The short answer is: there could be a difference, but if you don't see it, then it does not matter. Some do, some don't.

I was specifically thinking that those who are fanatic about accuatnce developers would be heavily opinionated about the use of condenser enlargers. Also, I've been reading through some stuff about Ralph Gibson so grain is the subject of the week for me.

Neal · Apr 24, 2007

Dear Dave,

"How many people currently have both a condenser and diffusion enlarger and which do you use the most?"

I have both (Omega Ds), but I put away the condenser version several years ago.

"I was specifically thinking that those who are fanatic about accuatnce developers..."

This may disqualify me for your survey as I don't really fall into that category.

Neal Wydra

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Apr 24, 2007

Dave Krueger said:
I was specifically thinking that those who are fanatic about accuatnce developers would be heavily opinionated about the use of condenser enlargers.

Say, are you trolling?

Dave Krueger · Apr 24, 2007

mhv said:
Say, are you trolling?

I'm asking a simple question about enlarger preference from people I believe would be most sensitive to the issue of grain sharpness. The reason I'm asking is because I'm genuinely interested in hearing their opinions because I have also been experimenting with accutance and edge effect developers. If that's trolling, then the threshold is pretty low and I would have to say I'm as guilty as they come.

John Simmons · Apr 24, 2007

I have had both and currently use a Saunders 4500II...a diffusion color head. The differences are very subtle in my opinion. I just love being able to dial in the contrast using the color head. With my condenser enlarger I got tired of fumbling with the different filters, the filter drawer, etc. I too am a fan of Ralph Gibson and I have no problems getting that gritty style of photo using my diffusion enlarger and tri-x.

Regards,
John

Dave Krueger · Apr 24, 2007

Neal said:
I have both (Omega Ds), but I put away the condenser version several years ago.

I am pretty much in the same boat in that I used to use a condenser enlarger exclusively, but then switched to a color head when I went to 4x5. But, I brought the old condenser enlarger back out last week and have been making comparisons. I have read several threads on here about this topic, but the topic of enlarger type seems to be strangely divorced from the topic of accutance developers (maybe just because the topics are usually posted in separate forums). It seems to me that the topics go hand in hand.

The fact that dust and scratches are less obvious using a diffusion head is a powerful incentive, but convenience is never enough of a reason by itself when it comes to someone who is really trying to squeeze out as much grain sharpness as possible. I'm not that much of a fanatic about it myself either, but I think I can learn from those who are.

Jim Noel · Apr 24, 2007

I have all three types of light sources including a variable contrast diffusion head. It has been years since I used anything but diffusion on any of my enlargers.

Dave Krueger · Apr 24, 2007

John Simmons said:
I have had both and currently use a Saunders 4500II...a diffusion color head. The differences are very subtle in my opinion. I just love being able to dial in the contrast using the color head. With my condenser enlarger I got tired of fumbling with the different filters, the filter drawer, etc. I too am a fan of Ralph Gibson and I have no problems getting that gritty style of photo using my diffusion enlarger and tri-x.

Regards,
John

I can sympathize completely. I love dialing in the filtration instead of having to use the plastic filters.

What I noticed in my experiments was that dust and scratches were obviously more pronouced with the condenser head, but I didn't see ANY better grain sharpness. Granted, the two enlargers are not the same. One is a Super Chromega and the other a Bessler 67SC, but I used the same lens. Also, the Omega is bolted to the wall and table whereas the Bessler was just sitting on the counter top which might have introduced some tiny vibrations.

Also, I happened to pick a negative that was developed in Pyrocat HD which might obscure the grain slightly because of the stain. I wish I had picked a TFX-2 or Rodinal negative. I will probably have to redo the experiment with one of those before I'm satisfied. In any case, I still feel like I'm doing something wrong if I'm not able to bring out the grain better with the condenser enlarger...

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Apr 24, 2007

Dave Krueger said:
I'm asking a simple question about enlarger preference from people I believe would be most sensitive to the issue of grain sharpness. The reason I'm asking is because I'm genuinely interested in hearing their opinions because I have also been experimenting with accutance and edge effect developers. If that's trolling, then the threshold is pretty low and I would have to say I'm as guilty as they come.

Well, perhaps you should join the f/63 group instead, so that you might see the light on the role of fine differences in photography

Lee Shively · Apr 24, 2007

My first enlarger was a condenser model. So was my second, third, etc. Somewhere in there was a diffusion model with color head that I used for variable contrast black and white printing. I hated it and went back to a condenser enlarger. My current enlarger is a condenser model.

Despite my preferences, I think the type of enlarger you use is less important than being able to effectively use the type of enlarger you have. Over the years, I've biased my film development toward what prints well to my eyes on a condenser enlarger. Others are happy with diffusion enlargers because it fits into their methods.

As far as developers go, I'm not much for the gritty look. I admire Ralph Gibson's work tremendously. I've read that he achieves his look, in part, by over exposing and over developing his film. This gives him a dense, contrasty negative to work with. I prefer working with a sharp, but thin, lower contrast negative that still maintains detail in the shadow and highlights. Like most things in photography, it's really personal preference--not set-in-stone rules.

Eric Rose · Apr 24, 2007

I have one of each and use both of them. Depends on the neg.

MurrayMinchin · Apr 24, 2007

Condenffusion is the only way to go

Murray

Dave Krueger · Apr 24, 2007

MurrayMinchin said:
Condenffusion is the only way to go

Murray

I'm almost there. I'm at confusion.

WarEaglemtn · Apr 24, 2007

If you aren't willing to use a larger format and contact print your next option is a point light source enlarger. Brett Weston images are a good source of inspiration and information as to what can be accomplished using this type of setup.

GeorgesGiralt · Apr 25, 2007

Hi !
My Durst Laborator is capable of condenser, cold light, point source and color head.
I own the condenser, cold light and color head.
I only print B&W, having dropped color years ago.
I can get the same print quality whatever head I use. Tested. Even now, I can't tell which was printed with which setup without cheating and reading the writing on the back of the print.
But, I only use condenser head. Why ? Because due to the lighting options I have, it is a little on the diffuse side (the lamp surface seen by the condenser is about 10 cmx10 cm size, far from point source !). As I love punchy prints, it is somewhat easier to get them with the condenser. And last but not least, changing contrast with variable contrast paper is easier with filters on the condenser head than with the cold light or fiddling with the dials on the CLS 450 color head. It is also more powerfull than the color head.
IMHO, this is (like split grade printing) a false problem. Of course, if you use an overdevelopped neg on a condenser enlarger or an underdev. one in a diffusion enlarger you're going into trouble but that's another story.
I knew a guy doing a lot of Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) which used a point light source enlarger and a set of discrete color filters. He had wonderfull results printing huge size. But what a PITA !

firecracker · Apr 25, 2007

I only use a condenser-head now for 35mm negs with a regular glass-less carrier, and I get happy results with this system. Scratches and dust spots still show on a diffuser type, which is one of a few reasons why I don't consider using it as much...

thefizz · Apr 25, 2007

I own a Fujimoto enlarger which has a reversible head with both light sources. I once printed a shot both ways to compare and the biggest difference I could see was all the dust marks from the condenser print.

Needless to say I have used the diffuser ever since.

Peter

Dave Krueger · Apr 25, 2007

Well, I looked up more articles today and I think I've eliminated point source enlargers as having any place in my future. haha!

I think I may do some more experimentation with grainy films and developers. I came across a number of threads about that as well.

I think I'll try a few tests to see if I'm even getting the most out of my enlarging lenses. I've always been pleased with the sharpness of my prints, but I haven't seriously analyzed what I could do to improve the sharpness more than it is already. I should at least find out what the optimum aperture is for my lenses.

I appreciate the replies.

John Bragg · Apr 26, 2007

Hi Dave.

I use a Kaiser enlarger these days with a Multigrade head and diffuse light source set above a condenser. It has all the characteristics of a condenser, with the advantage of being able to steplessly dial in the required contrast. the only problem I encountered was a noticeable increase in contrast with negatives I had previously developed for use on my old Jobo diffuser colour enlarger. It took me a while to adjust, and now I develop to print on grade 2.5 or slap in the middle of the variable contrast range. I use a double glass negative carrier to ensure neg flatness in both 35mm and MF. My preference is for crisp, honest grain and this enlarger delivers,as long as I excercise due care in making negatives to suit it.

Regards, John.

nathantw · Apr 26, 2007

Dave Krueger said:
How many people currently have both a condenser and diffusion enlarger and which do you use the most?

I have a 23CII-XL with a dual-dichro head. I've basically settled on the condenser head for color and black and white. The reason was I found that I liked having the grain in my pictures look sharp and not diffused. I usually remove dust pretty well from my negatives and slides so having the diffused light to help eliminate dust isn't necessary.

It's really a matter of taste and what you like.

steven_e007 · Apr 27, 2007

I am envious of the members who have access to a true point source condenser enlarger to play with. I think some of the confusion here has been caused by pro photographers with access to point source enlagers making claims that some of us with modest amateur equipment can't reproduce.

I have used both diffuser and what I considered at the time to be "condenser" enlargers because they had condenser lenses in them. They are Meopta series (I've a 35mmm and a medium format version).

These have large opal bulbs, a filter draw with ground glass in it and a set of condenser lenses. So, the condensers are being fed with well diffused light and the design is perhaps best called "condenser / difuser" or something.

When I had my own encounter with the 'which is best' question I found the contrast a bit softer with a diffuser (colour head with no condensers) but nothing to get excited about...

Then I read up about point source

The Meopta is not designed to be a point source enlarger but I removed the diffuser and colour filter tray and rigged up an infernal contraption that allowed me to suspend a tiny halogen lamp above the condensers and adjust for position.

I then found the difference to be striking - and I got an idea of what the fuss was about.

Alas, my DIY point source wasn't good enough for regular use (too difficult to set up and adjust and I'm not sure my lenses were up to it) but I made a mental note to try a proper point source enlarger one day...

...when I get round to it.

Steve

nathantw · Apr 27, 2007

steven_e007 said:
Alas, my DIY point source wasn't good enough for regular use (too difficult to set up and adjust and I'm not sure my lenses were up to it) but I made a mental note to try a proper point source enlarger one day...

In this day and age of when people are basically giving condensor enlargers away (check Criagslist.org) there's no reason to not have the enlarger you want. I'd say get what you want and use it. You won't regret it. If you don't get it you'll just be wishing you had it. Might as well satisfy that urge.

Dave Krueger · Apr 27, 2007

nathantw said:
I have a 23CII-XL with a dual-dichro head. I've basically settled on the condenser head for color and black and white. The reason was I found that I liked having the grain in my pictures look sharp and not diffused. I usually remove dust pretty well from my negatives and slides so having the diffused light to help eliminate dust isn't necessary.

It's really a matter of taste and what you like.

Well, that's basically what this thread was meant to be all about. Grain. Seems like choice of enlarger is just as important as developer selection when it comes to grain appearance. I have now categorized developers into two groups. Fine grain (lots of sulfite) and course grain (very little sulfite). I have an equally simple answer for world peace, of course. haha!

Since my first experiments comparing condenser with diffusion didn't show any apparent difference in the grain appearance, I thought I might be doing something wrong, but the Bessler 67SC has the typical frosted opal bulb which may be giving it something of a diffusion character. The inside of the lamphouse is black, but my old Vivitar condenser enlarger had a white lamphouse which would have had even more of a diffusion effect.

In Barry Thornton's book "Edge of Darkness" he describes the addition of a mask that reduces the effective size of the light source. It's just a piece of metal with a hole in it that mounts right inder the lamp. I might try that since the light output on my Bessler is so high that I usually have to use short exposure times and small apertures. Seems like it would be fairly simple to install a temporary mask just to see what happens.

I started down this path after looking at the Ralph Gibson book, "Ex Deus Machina". It's hard to know how much of the grain appearance in those pictures is due to the processes involved in producing the book. What I would really like to see is a Ralph Gibson exhibit where I can press my nose up against the glass and evaluate individual grain particles. Screw that "normal viewing distance" nonsense. LOL!

Condenser vs Diffusion

Dave Krueger

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Dave Krueger

Neal

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Dave Krueger

John Simmons

Dave Krueger

Jim Noel

Dave Krueger

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Lee Shively

Eric Rose

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

Dave Krueger

WarEaglemtn

GeorgesGiralt

firecracker

thefizz

Dave Krueger

John Bragg

nathantw

steven_e007

nathantw

Dave Krueger

Condenser vs Diffusion

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency