diffusor enlarger versus condensor

Willie Jan · Oct 3, 2006

Hi,

I am using a lpl 7451 diffusor enlarger currently. last week a friend printed one of my 4x5 negs on his laborator 1000 and it looked much sharper.

is there a way (overdevelop negs for example) for diffusor enlargers to get the same result or is the only way to get a condensor enlarger.....

Wilie.

Marco Gilardetti · Oct 3, 2006

Why are you ruling out the different lens being used?

Plus, which head was your friend using on the Lab 1000 (that's just the name of the column + head holder block). Are you sure it wasn't a diffuser-type as well?

I am towards diffuser enlargers, Ansel Adams was, and rest assured that my prints have no sharpness issues (and AA's have even less).

Tony Egan · Oct 3, 2006

I have printed the same negative with same lens on my LPL diffuser and Meopta condensor and really can't see any difference (Nikon 50mm lens, 35mm neg. 11x14 print with about 1.5 inch border) I stopped worrying about it but use the condensor primarily because I prefer manual multigrade filters rather than dial-up colour head and have better quality neg. carriers for 120 film on the Meopta.

don sigl · Oct 3, 2006

This is an age old argument. I have used a condensor enlarger for over 20 years. I ardently believed that they produced crisper, more detailed prints. I thumbed my nose at the diffusion users.
Then I got a Fotar 8x10 enlarger with a color dichroic head. I had no choice but to use it for 8x10 work. To my amazement.... it produced prints as good as anything I was doing with my Omega d6. And it seemed to be easier to control contrast with that head. I made a 70 mm mask for it and a lens board for my 80mm Apo Rodenstock, and did a little comparing. The differences were extremely subtle. And the color head was easier to use. No more split printing. Just tweak the filtration until I get the contrast I'm looking for.
So... my bet its not the light source. Probably the lens. have your friend print something using your lens and see what happens.

Willie Jan · Oct 3, 2006

my friend has a double condensor on his system
he uses a componon-s 150 5.6 lens

i use a rodagon 150 5.6
(type where the diafragm is lit when the enlarger light is on)

We did make a photo on his system with the two lenses and could not see a difference. Now we want to make a photo from the same neg to see the difference.
What i have been told is that a neg printed with a diffusor should have a somewhat higher gamma than a condensor. Is this true.

srs5694 · Oct 3, 2006

Another possibility is that your enlarger is slightly out of alignment. This will produce a drop in sharpness, likely more in some parts of the print than in others.

raucousimages · Oct 3, 2006

I have both types of enlargers, the biggest difference I see is more dust spots with the condenser.

don sigl · Oct 3, 2006

Generally, a negative printed on a diffusion enlarger should be a little more contrasty than a negative printed on a condensor. However, the contrast differences between the two enlargers can usually be compensated with adjustments to contrast filtration/developemnt. I use the same negatives on both types of enlargers and can get almost identical results. The differences are so subtle, you really have to look for them.
Granted, you will need to adjust factors like exposure and contrast filtration to get the same negative to match, but it is not hard to do.
A Componon S is a middle level lens. The next step up is the apo version. The S is a little better with contrast than the standard Componon. The Rodenstock should be pretty comparable. Interesting that you would notice this issue with these two lenses. However whatever it is, its probably an issue with enlarger type.

Regards,

Donald Miller · Oct 3, 2006

This really has been discussed before and often ends up in "mine is better than yours" types of arguments.

I own both types of enlargers and don't use my diffusion enlarger (Saunders 4550 XLG) any longer because I prefer the results from the condenser enlarger (Durst 138S).

I believe that there is a difference and to answer the original question, no, I don't think that you can gain the same results from a diffusion enlarger. It has to do with the scattering (diffusion) versus the collimation of the light beam(condenser) as it is presented to and passes through the camera negative.

While the issues of overall contrast can be easily compensated for by developing the camera negative to optimal density, the matters of lower local contrast can not be corrected in a diffusion enlarger.

That having been said, everyone should use what pleases them.

Tach · Oct 3, 2006

Donald Miller said:
This really has been discussed before and often ends up in "mine is better than yours" types of arguments.

I own both types of enlargers and don't use my diffusion enlarger (Saunders 4550 XLG) any longer because I prefer the results from the condenser enlarger (Durst 138S).

I believe that there is a difference and to answer the original question, no, I don't think that you can gain the same results from a diffusion enlarger. It has to do with the scattering (diffusion) versus the collimation of the light beam(condenser) as it is presented to and passes through the camera negative.

While the issues of overall contrast can be easily compensated for by developing the camera negative to optimal density, the matters of lower local contrast can not be corrected in a diffusion enlarger.

That having been said, everyone should use what they please.

I do also have one enlarger of each type (a durst 370 and a Leitz Valoy II with small/maked bulb).

In my trials, the condenser is about 1 1/2 paper grades more contrastier than the diffusion enlarger. Paper was Agfa MCP 312.

Resolution of small detail is the same. The grain looks grittier/sharper on the condenser on big prints.

hka · Oct 3, 2006

Willie Jan said:
What i have been told is that a neg printed with a diffusor should have a somewhat higher gamma than a condensor. Is this true.

That's correct you need a higher density for a diffused light source. An average gradient around 0.57 will be oké.

Willie Jan · Oct 4, 2006

the next step will be to put the componon-s from my friend on my enlarger to find out if there could be a problem with the lens.

hka · Oct 4, 2006

Willie Jan said:
the next step will be to put the componon-s from my friend on my enlarger to find out if there could be a problem with the lens.

I think you will not see much differences between the Rodagon and the Componon S. They are both good lenses. You don't need APO's. APO's are only better when using them at full aperture. After stopped down two blends there will be no significant difference. Maybe you have to look at your way of developping the films.

Marco Gilardetti · Oct 4, 2006

Donald Miller said:
This really has been discussed before and often ends up in "mine is better than yours" types of arguments.

I own both types of enlargers and don't use my diffusion enlarger (Saunders 4550 XLG) any longer because I prefer the results from the condenser enlarger (Durst 138S).

I believe that there is a difference and to answer the original question, no, I don't think that you can gain the same results from a diffusion enlarger. It has to do with the scattering (diffusion) versus the collimation of the light beam(condenser) as it is presented to and passes through the camera negative.

While the issues of overall contrast can be easily compensated for by developing the camera negative to optimal density, the matters of lower local contrast can not be corrected in a diffusion enlarger.

That having been said, everyone should use what pleases them.

Funny Donald, you've been the only one who said that yours was better than the others...

Bob Carnie · Oct 4, 2006

I agree totally with Donald Miller

I use both Condensor and Diffusion Enlargers, and for the bulk of my work I use the Condensor. I will use the Diffusion for portrait or skin tone as the diffusion lightsource is more forgiving and the wrinkles ect. are less pronounced.
I have considered a point light source for my 8x10 durst as a exact opposite effect on portraits that I would get with the diffusion light source.

Willie Jan · Oct 5, 2006

i did the test to find out if the lenses had differences.
The componon-s 150 5.6 has no visible difference with the rodagon 150 5.6. Both are the latest model lenses.

After that i took the print from my friend and tried to create the same image from the same negative. I was able to create the same tone/sharpness/crisp.
So indeed i am able to create the same picture with my diffusor as with a condensor head. maybe when enlarging 10x there would be a difference, but with a 2x-4x i can not see any difference.

The only difference is that with the condensor the print was made at #3 where i had to use #4. So i will have to develop my negs longer for a diffusor head.

Willie Jan.

Bryce Parker · Oct 5, 2006

Not very scientific, but here's my $.02...
I started printing on a diffusion enlarger, a "Nikor by Rollei". No misspellings there, that's the name. Seems to have been an inexpensive beastie aimed at the beginner color printing crowd back in the day.
Anyhow, I printed with it for a year or two, and constantly fought to get sharper and contrastier negatives.
Then I found a condenser head for the unit for sale, really cheap, and bought it.
The difference, with the same lenses (Nikkor 50, Nikkor 75, and no name 105) was NOT subtle. Printing for pinpoint grain from 35mm and medium format negatives became possible. I even sometimes partially expose the paper through a layer of pantyhose to dumb down the crispness...
Later, I replaced the enlarger with a Beseler 23c for a variety of reasons. Results from the Beseler and the condenser head on the Rollei are indistinguishable.
For my subject matter and printing style, I prefer a condenser. I use small and medium format film only and consider grain sharpness an important feature in my images. I'd guess that with sheet film the difference would be much less noticeable.

blansky · Oct 5, 2006

Somebody should mention cold light enlargers and really get the party going.

Michael

tbm · Oct 6, 2006

I started my darkroom experiences 7 years ago with a Saunders LPL condensor enlarger and faced frustration throughout all my sessions because of dust spots on my prints from dust impacting my negs while they were in the holder. Two years ago I switched to a Saunders LPL dichroic enlarger, still using my Companon-S 50mm lens, and the dust problems have essentially disappeared. I have found, though, that I need to add time to the standard film development recommendations because the dichroic enlarger needs more contrast on negs than the condensor.

vet173 · Oct 6, 2006

Willie Jan said:
my friend has a double condensor on his system
he uses a componon-s 150 5.6 lens

i use a rodagon 150 5.6
(type where the diafragm is lit when the enlarger light is on)

We did make a photo on his system with the two lenses and could not see a difference. Now we want to make a photo from the same neg to see the difference.
What i have been told is that a neg printed with a diffusor should have a somewhat higher gamma than a condensor. Is this true.

Standard developing times are usually for a condencer light source. A contrast index of .45, increase development to a contrast index of .60 for the same contrast on a diffused light source.

Paul Howell · Oct 6, 2006

blansky said:
Somebody should mention cold light enlargers and really get the party going.

I have a Omgea D3 with a both a cold light (not a very good cold light at that) and condenser heads, I have Durst with a color diffusion and condenser heads and I converted an old russian 35mm enlarger to a point source. I have negatives that span 40 years from 1/2 frame 35 to 4X5, I match the negative to the light source and paper grade depending on the look I am after. I think it is worth while to have several heads available to fine tune your prints. My 35mm negatives from the 60s and 70s were intended to be high contrast and grainy so I print those with the point source, 4X5 softer with a long tonal scale cold light, 6X6 and 6X9 somewhere in the middle condenser or cold light. That being said if I were to limit my light source to one type it would a be a color head.

Donald Miller · Oct 7, 2006

In the interest of a discussion of light source characteristics, it should be noted that one can always diffuse the collimated and focused light output from a condensor enlarger. However, there is no way to collimate and focus the light output from a diffusion source enlarger. The only way to do that is to insert condensers into the light path prior to the negative.

Having used both cold light heads and diffusion heads...I personally saw no difference between the two because both are diffusion sources.

There is a reason that one notices an increased incidence of spots on a print made on a condenser enlarger...the reason being that a diffusion source does not present a perpendicular light bundle to the negative interface. This scattering of the light bundle with a diffusion source effectively diffuses the effects of the dust as it exists on the negative. Therefore one can make the point that if the dust is diffused away, that some detail must by consequence be removed as well. With the condenser enlarger, dust along with an increased appearance of grain that the detail and therefore the local contrast is also improved with a condenser enlarger.

There is no one best enlarger light source. They each have their benefits and their idiosyncrocies. I prefer the point light source condenser for my work. However if I were doing portraiture, I would prefer a diffusion light source.

Bob F. · Oct 7, 2006

It is worth noting however that a dust particle that is sitting above the film allows diffused light to pass under it from the side (both because of its shape and because of the thickness of the film base), hence reducing it's ability to block light and therefore cast a shadow on the paper. The image forming silver however is in the emulsion, and far "shorter" than a dust particle, so non-perpendicular light will have a lesser effect. The idea that diffused light sources make dust less apparent, so therefore must cause loss of image sharpness is I think, flawed because of this.

How much effect diffused light does have, I have no idea: I'm sure there must be some, but how much, is open to debate. The fact that some see a difference and others do not suggests that any difference is slight. No doubt enlargement ratio is also a factor with small format printers seeing a greater difference because of the greater multiplication factor when going from a small negative to a large print.

I wonder if anyone has done a serious study of these effects?

Cheers, Bob.

Matthew Gorringe · Oct 20, 2006

Not to flog a dead horse but I think there are probably huge differences in the quality of condensor systems used on enlargers too.

I only use a diffused light source because I prefer it, many of the middle range condensor systems I've used have produced prints that I feel are scratchy and lack smooth tone gradations. Maybe a better printer could get better results. On the other hand I've seen some fantastic prints made on larger condensor systems that look smooth.

One question for people using condensors on 4x5 or larger; Do you use glass or glassless neg carriers?

Ole · Oct 20, 2006

Mattg said:
One question for people using condensors on 4x5 or larger; Do you use glass or glassless neg carriers?

Both, depending on negative size. I have glassless holders for 5x4", 9x12cm and half-frame, and use glass for 5x7" and 13x18cm - and all other formats larger than 6x6cm.

diffusor enlarger versus condensor

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency