Diffuser vs. Condenser Enlargers Using Pan F Plus

[DF]

Without my realizing it, I've been printing with a "diffuse" enlargers since I began 4 years ago. My prints from Pan F Plus negatives turn out fine.
I'm in a different darkroom these days, and, my prints from my PanF+negs are terrible!! Stark looking - light/white areas almost washed out, dark areas too dense. I didn't know it, but at this new place the enlargers are "condensed".
Does this sound normal? Have I a lot to learn ?!

 

[RobC]

Without my realizing it, I've been printing with a "diffuse" enlargers since I began 4 years ago. My prints from Pan F Plus negatives turn out fine.
I'm in a different darkroom these days, and, my prints from my PanF+negs are terrible!! Stark looking - light/white areas almost washed out, dark areas too dense. I didn't know it, but at this new place the enlargers are "condensed".
Does this sound normal? Have I a lot to learn ?!

Yes condenser enlargers print with a higher contrast than diffusion enlargers. If you're using variable contrast paper you can compensate to an extent by using a softer grade setting/filter in the enlarger.

The difference is caused by the "Callier effect". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callier_effect

How much difference between the two types of enlarger is variable depending on how well the condenser enlarger collimates the light and how diffuse the diffusion enalrger is. i.e. it ain't a hard and fast amount. I mention this because if you are developing your negs to suit a particular enlarger, its best if its your own which you know you can keep indefinitely and not someone elses which may or may not be available to you in future.

 

[ic-racer]

Try printing on a lower contrast paper and report back.

 

[RobC]

you could put some diffusion material below the condenser to reduce the effect if you really need to.

http://www.leefilters.com/lighting/colour-details.html#400&filter=dc

this stuff will lose you a stop and a half of light but is cheap enough to buy if you think you really need it

http://www.samys.com/p/Color-Filter...-400-Lee-Lux-Lighting-Filter-21x24/85680.html

 

[Hatchetman]

I suspect your negative might be the problem rather than the enlarger. Pan F+ is prone to excessive contrast if not worked with carefully.

 

[chris77]

you could put some diffusion material below the condenser to reduce the effect if you really need to.

http://www.leefilters.com/lighting/colour-details.html#400&filter=dc

this stuff will lose you a stop and a half of light but is cheap enough to buy if you think you really need it

http://www.samys.com/p/Color-Filter...-400-Lee-Lux-Lighting-Filter-21x24/85680.html

interesting, havent thought about that yet..
would opal glass do the trick?

 

[RobC]

interesting, havent thought about that yet..
would opal glass do the trick?

yes opal glass should work. But be warned you want proper "opal" plexi/glass which does not contain grain in it becasue it will show in the print if its there. (Under the condenser is usually very close to the neg). You could try on top of the condenser too but it will have less affect.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

As mentioned, a condenser enlarger will yield more contrast, all other things being equal.

So, all other things can't be equal if you want to make a less-contrasty print. Use a lower paper grade or contrast setting, use a softer-working print developer, etc. for negs you already have.

If you plan on making a condenser enlarger a permanent part of your life, then develop your negatives less to compensate. Testing will tell you how much.

FWIW, tests have been done and show that, with development compensation, you can make practically identical prints on both a condenser and diffuse light source enlarger.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Paul Howell]

[I'm in a different darkroom but at this new place the enlargers are "condensed".
Does this sound normal? Have I a lot to learn ?![/QUOTE]

I take it you are working in school or some sort of shared darkroom? What make and model enlargers? If a shared darkroom the owners may not allow you to modify the enlargers.

 

[RobC]

[I'm in a different darkroom but at this new place the enlargers are "condensed".
Does this sound normal? Have I a lot to learn ?!

I take it you are working in school or some sort of shared darkroom? What make and model enlargers? If a shared darkroom the owners may not allow you to modify the enlargers.[/QUOTE]

True, but slipping in a sheet of Lee Lux 400 above the negative is hardly a "modification".

 

[Paul Howell]

I take it you are working in school or some sort of shared darkroom? What make and model enlargers? If a shared darkroom the owners may not allow you to modify the enlargers.

True, but slipping in a sheet of Lee Lux 400 above the negative is hardly a "modification".[/QUOTE]

2 issues with a sheet of Lee Lux, you lose speed, and second will a sheet of Lee Lux perform as well as a true diffusion head? I have not tired it so I cant say it will not, but not sure if it will.

 

[RobC]

2 issues with a sheet of Lee Lux, you lose speed, and second will a sheet of Lee Lux perform as well as a true diffusion head? I have not tired it so I cant say it will not, but not sure if it will.

I already pointed out the light loss and yes it should perform as well as a diffusion head. I haven't tried it but I have a sample of Lee Lux 400 and it will do the job fine I think. Its just a suggestion to try if the neg is really too contrasty. Lee Lux 400 is cheap and can be cut to any size you like. Opal plexi/glass would be a more permanent solution.

Note: If you put a sheet of Lee Lux 400 in direct contact with some black text, you can read the text through it. Lift it 5mm above the text and you can't see the text at all it is so diffuse. So providing Lee Lux is not actually resting on top of neg it should work fine.

And also note that the condensor should already be providing even lighting so adding a sheet of quality diffusion material such as lee lux below it, will just scatter light in all directions evenly.

 

[Paul Howell]

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Luis-F-S]

I'm in a different darkroom these days, and, my prints from my PanF+negs are terrible!! Stark looking - light
Does this sound normal? Have I a lot to learn ?!

Welcome to the real world! Go back to a diffused enlarger!

 

[dwross]

A piece of Yupo synthetic watercolor paper works very well to diffuse condenser light. Easy to find and inexpensive. I can't tell the results from a diffusion enlarger. It makes a condenser enlarger the best option for a small darkroom. (Just my opinion, of course.) They usually less expensive to buy and maintain. With a few tricks, you can work with almost all negatives.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Fussing around with enlarger heads and/or diffusion styles isn't going to help you a lot. You either need to learn to expose and develop Pan F differently, or realize its limitations. It has a strong "S" characteristic curve with a relatively short straight line, so simply isn't capable of
handling high contrast situations well. The shadows aren't well differentiated, and the highlights block up. You can salvage some of the
highlight reproduction by switching to staining pyro developers, and get a bit more cooperation in the shadows by exposing at ASA 25 instead of 50, but don't expect Pan F to be something it is utterly incapable of. I shoot a lot in the high mtns and in the desert, and it a very difficult film to use in bright sun. Give me some soft rain, falling snow, or coastal fog conditions, and Pan F can really sing.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Drew is right on this one. Funny that this topic comes up now since I just shot two rolls in two separate Rolleiflex cameras. I wanted to test the cameras to figure out which one to keep and which to give a new home. I used a heavy tripod with a two camera bracket to shoot identical scenes at the same time. I shot half the roll on a bright day at Lake Michigan and the other half on an old white clapboard one room school house in full sun. A good test for both camera and film. I developed both in Xtol replenished for the same time and temp.The Lake Michigan scene came out very good since the contrast range wasn't very large(every thing was bright), but the school house was a problem with PanF+. I had the cameras pointed at the front corner so as to get the front and one side. The front was shaded from the sun and the side was in full sun. The shadow area of the scene was the steps and grass and the brightest part of the scene was the steel roof(reflected sunlight). I exposed the scene to have texture in the grass and developed for detail on the sunlit clapboard. Here's what I got when I made a wet print with my Ilford multi-contrast head. The shadows and white sunlit clapboard came out perfect and the steel roof was exactly where it should be, but the shaded front of the white school house was far to dark and dull. If I tried to mess with exposure time or contrast grade I could get one, but lost the other. I just couldn't have my cake and eat too. The best way for me to get a really nice print was to expose for the sunlit clapboard and the shadow grass while dodging the whole front of the school. I was surprised the scene was that difficult to expose and develop for. I'm sure FP4+, Acros or Delta 100 would not have given me the same problem. Actually I'll know since I'm going to shoot the school again tomorrow with both FP4+ and Delta 100 just to see. That's just what happened to me and it might be different for you. John W