Diffuser or Condenser

[cliveh]

To help re-establish my street cred in the analogue silver printing world, can I ask a question that has probably been asked before on this forum, but perhaps not in this way. Given two negatives of an identical subject, but one exposed and developed to suit a diffuser enlarger and one exposed and developed to suit a condenser enlarger, which would you prefer to print on? For me it would probably be the condenser to give that snap to the print that only a condenser or point source can do.

 

[Mike Wilde]

Diffusion. Way less dust hassles most of the time. Handy to buy as a dichroic to dial filtration in and out, since most of todays paperas are multi-graded.

I do have condensor enlargers as well. One has option for point source, but I have read up, and they have too much of a pain in the ass to align issues to make me ever try it.

 

[djhopscotch]

If both negs are exposed and developed to suit the enlarger, light source doesn't makes any real difference. I have and use both, the differences are minor to say the least. I would use a diffuser so i don't have to fiddle with a filter drawer.

 

[fotch]

Diffuser VC, Color head, dust. A good photo is a good photo.

 

[jp498]

I don't depend on a condenser to give "snap" to a photo.

I've used condenser head in school, but it didn't jump out at me and proclaim it's awesomeness. Instead I had to put grubby filters under it.

I like dichroic color heads, which would be diffusion. The contrast adjustment and less dust is valuable to me.

 

[ic-racer]

Condenser enlargers are more economical. More lumens at the baseboard for Watts in the bulb. Smaller power supplies, less heat, less expense. The drawback is that darkroom dust can be very well represented in your final prints. Also, continuously variable filtration is not easy to implement, thus usually not offered.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Diffusion/Color head. Not only the dust problem but the ability to dial in a filter value between suggested grade values.

 

[clayne]

Diffusion/Color head. Not only the dust problem but the ability to dial in a filter value between suggested grade values.

I would also choose diffusion.

Btw there are some hybrid diffusion/condenser enlargers (kaiser) that permit full VC control.

 

[George Collier]

As others have said - less dust showing in the print, more even illumination across probably any format size, focus remains stable (most of these cold lights have a heating element to maintain bulb temperature and performance), and highlights print more easily. Read up on Callier effect (no relation) for why this is so. And the contrast difference is not linear, so development adjustment is probably not really a perfect one, so contrast adjustments are probably needed anyway.
What I did experience when switching from condenser to cold light (at the time both were used with graded paper, so filtration didn't enter into things at the time-for me) was that I could add 15% - 20% to my film development time, to bring highlights up, along with better mid-tone separation. I looked at it as a way to increase tonal range in the negative.
I had heard about the "snap" thing too, but never saw it. Grain is also less pronounced, in my experience - a good or bad thing depending upon your "grain politics".

 

[Paul Howell]

I use all 3, point source, condenser and diffusion, both cold light and color head. I like point source for some
35mm for a gritty look, grain really stands out but very sharp, cold light for 4X5, condenser for 6X6 and 6X9 and a color head for multigrade RC. If I had to chose just one it would be condenser, I print on graded paper most the time. I dont have any issues with dust and I can spot quickly spot a print.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

diffusion, even spread of light across entire mixing box to the negative, one less source of dust contamination, dial in filtration, dont have to worry about switching condensers out when changing formats.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

ditto

 

[skahde]

At one point I had a Durst L54 (condensor only) and a L1000 with colour head side by side. When adjusting contrast, prints from the same negative came out almost identical. The grain was no snappier from the condenser but in fact looked slightly larger und a wee bit less sharp under a loupe which I suspect is caused by diffraction of the direct light on the grain-pattern. But as you can read in Barry Thorntons Edge of Darkness, bigger grain can make for the impression of a snappier picture.

In the end I sold the L54 and switched to the diffuse light source entirely as it meant a lot less time wasted on spotting.

 

[sandermarijn]

Condenser.

You can use a higher grade paper with a diffusion enlarger but it just doesn't look the same.

I love hard gritty grain.

Dust is all a matter of being careful, having good eyes and using A-grade film; it's perfectly avoidable, even with six surfaces.

 

[Ian Grant]

Most modern condenser enlargers use a coated bulb so are already somewhat diffuse so the differences in local contrast between them and a fiffuser enlarger with a dichroic head is minimal. They do show up any dust though.

However if you use a more intense small light source, usulally refered to as a point source enlarger with condensers you can increase the local contrast but setting the lamp needs to be done every time you change the enlargement to get the best illumination, the lamp housing needs to be quite tall (on a vertical enlarger).

A dichroic head enlarger is far better all round whether it's a dedicated VC head or Colour head.

Ian

 

[cliveh]

Condenser.

You can use a higher grade paper with a diffusion enlarger but it just doesn't look the same.

I love hard gritty grain.

Dust is all a matter of being careful, having good eyes and using A-grade film; it's perfectly avoidable, even with six surfaces.

Are, now you raise another moot point. In my own darkroom I always use glassless carriers, even on my diffuser enlarger.

 

[mr rusty]

And then there's the Vivitar V1 which I acquired knowing little about enlargers, but the more I read and use it the more I think this is a nice piece of kit. Dichroic colour head through a "light pipe", which insulates all heat, then condensers and glassless neg carrier. The little I've used it so far, dust hasn't been a problem.

 

[ooze]

I have both a condenser and diffuser enlarger but almost always use the diffuser. Reasons are similar to what others have said.

 

[Roger Cole]

I have condenser but have printed on both and would prefer diffusion.

There's nothing special about the contrast of a condenser head, nor anything especially bad about it (no matter what Fred Picker said to sell his cold lights.) It's just contrast. With negatives developed to suit the prints won't know the difference, tonality wise. And even with negatives not adjusted, the difference is well within the range of paper contrast adjustment. The one big difference is that the diffusion source will show less dust and surface defects. That makes it worth wanting for me, but condenser is what I have.

I did recently buy an LED light source lamphouse and it's an improvement. It doesn't do anything for the sharper rendition of dust, but it does eliminate heat and negative popping as a variable. I too use glasseless carriers. Dust is enough of a problem with two surfaces. I'd probably give up photography or go hybrid rather than mess with six!

 

[Richard Jepsen]

If the negatives were developed to adjust to the light source a dichro/VC head would be the best. But enlarging is not that simple.

1. Most of us have many negatives with a range of negative densities. Some look better printed on a condenser and others print easily on a dichro head. MF negs printed on a condenser does not result in grain with my print sizes.
2. There are variations in enlarger ergonomics and quality. My favorite enlarger is a Leitz 1c, semi diffused light source.
3. My LPL 670 XL (condenser) has even illumination; producing a bright image on the baseboard. It weights less and easier to move than my 670 MXL dichro. The condenser avoids long print times when making large prints.
4. A dichro softens the edge of dust. One should use several non enlarger techniques to minimize dust issues. Eliminating dust reduces one dichro advantage.
5. Some images look better on my condenser head, more micro contrast in low tones with mid tones shifted up the scale a bit. That may help an image or may not.
6. Having flexibility to use a dichro or condenser on the LPL is useful, especially with graded paper. With the LPL modular design I switch heads leaving the carrier, baseboard and column in place.

 

[removed account4]

i like both so much that
i still have the condensers for my d3v
and i bought a set of condensers for my omega e4

i used to sweat the small stuff like this, but now i don't care ..

 

[clayne]

i like both so much that
i still have the condensers for my d3v
and i bought a set of condensers for my omega e4

i used to sweat the small stuff like this, but now i don't care ..

Yep. You're on the right track on that one.

 

[thefizz]

I would also choose diffusion.

Btw there are some hybrid diffusion/condenser enlargers (kaiser) that permit full VC control.

For years I preferred diffuser over condenser but then got a Kaiser, so now I have the best of both worlds

 

[jonasfj]

The "extra snap" that some mention in this thread is probably related to the higher contrast you get from a condenser head vs a diffusion head using the same negative and paper grade.

However, the starting point of the thread was that the negatives were developed according to the different types of heads and thus the print should be more or less identical.

Condenser heads require a smaller light source to give the same exposure. Therefore, they use less power, produce less heat (probably the most important aspect as it prevents the negative from buckling) and the power supply is smaller and cheaper.

Diffuser heads are less sensitive to dust.

It's a little bit like the discussions on topics like Tri-X vs T-Max 400, D-76 vs Xtol or SLR vs range finder. Obviously T-Max 400, Xtol and SLR:s are superior! ;-)

 

[MDR]

Jonasfj the lightsource of a diffusion enlarger is a 12V low voltage lamp that is smaller in size than an Opal Bulb, the wattage is about equal as the Halogen lamp has a higher Lumen than the Opal Lamp. A condenser focuses the light therefore it also focusses the heat a diffusion enlarger as the name says diffuses the light and spreads it over the whole neg it is usually less hot. I have use both and like both equally. Imo the differences are usually vastly exagerated.