Enlarger advice

[razocaine_07]

I've been on the lookout for an enlarger that allows me to print b&w in medium format and 4x5.
My two options available within my budget are the De Vere 504 Dichromat and an LPL 7451. Theyre around the same price budget wise but I've no experience of either models so was wondering if anyone could put forward any pros or cons of either.

 

[Jayd]

I don't know much about the DeVere but LPLs are very well made units and what I would replace my Durst M600 with. Be patient as enlargers are declining in price all the time.

 

[tedr1]

I have the LPL 4x5 model 4550XLG, this is the same basic chassis but with a slightly taller column, a slightly larger baseboard, it will make larger prints.
There are three light-projection heads, a simple head for B&W without facility for variable contrast filtration (filters can added below the lens); a color head (dichroic) that can be used for variable contrast B&W by conversion of the color dial settings (three) into contrast filtration factors (Ilford publishes such conversion tables among others); the third head is purpose made for variable contrast B&W printing with a single dial for contrast and automatic compensation for the change of speed for grades 3.5 - 5 (VCCE). This is a dream to use and is the one to have, they are sought after and cost more. The filtration modules for the VCCE and dichroic heads are interchangeable.

Shipping one of these needs extra care, it splits into three parts, base, column and head, and the head is heavy and delicate.

Make sure the power supply is included.

Operation of the focus control when making large prints requires the accessory focus extension shaft.

One of the best online sources of information is the website of KHBphotographix in Canada, they also have enlargers and parts for sale most of the time http://store.khbphotografix.com/

 

[Mick Fagan]

I would use the LPL as a starting block to get to almost any De Vere 504 enlarger, whether that be a free standing or a table top unit.

If the De Vere is a Mk IV with a single globe head, then it is probably around the 80's vintage. There were/are quite a few of these units in Australia and presumably NZ as well.

I had the first version of the LPL 7450 enlargers, wall mounted, they are well made, but not a patch on the De Vere enlarger.

The De Vere enlargers are amongst the best enlargers ever manufactured. Just the bellows extension alone on the De Vere, opens up considerable possibilities that most other enlargers dream about.

You can adjust the De Vere enlarger to get super critical alignment for almost any stage of the enlarging process. The LPL enlargers do not have any possibility to do adjustments. That doesn't mean they are bad, just that the factory setting is very good, as near to perfect as it can be. However, if over the life of the enlarger it is manhandled incorrectly, as in getting knocked over or dropped when being moved, you have no way of re-aligning your enlarger other than to pull it apart and re-bend any bent metal/alloy.

If the De Vere hasn't been worked to death, I would seriously consider it over the LPL 7451.

In Australia the two best enlargers that crop up, are the LPL units, mostly 6x7 with a fair sprinkling of their various 7450 units, and the ever present De Vere units.

Tedr1 has explained the LPL enlargers very well, they are excellent enlargers, but not quite as excellent as a good De Vere; they are the top of the tree.

Any pictures?

Mick.

 

[tedr1]

The LPL 4550, and possibly the 4x5 family, includes alignment adjustment of the lens mount, this is done with two or three small screws, this is not documented in the instructions however it is present. The head alignment is set at the time of manufacture. The column can be shimmed if necessary.

 

[razocaine_07]

These are the only images that don't really tell you much. They are from a company rather than private sale and can request further images if needed.
I am kind of leaning towards the De Vere if only because I've used them in the past.

 

[voceumana]

I have the Saunders LPL 4500-II, which was the USA version of the LPL7451 at the time I bought it. I've been more than happy with its operation. I've never met an enlarger that operated so smoothly.

Useful accessories include the extension focusing wand--it lets you bend down to focus but not have to reach up to focus, and the 4-blade masking platform. Permits masking the edges of the negative to reduce potential flare.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have a 4550 and it is a good enlarger. It is true that they don't have any adjustments for alignment, except for the latest ones which have an adjustment at the lens stage. You can just shim it though. Mine needed a little shim under the column and the lens stage has one as well. Works fine and doesn't go out of alignment. One little thing that bugs me about the 4550 is the 4x5 glass carrier cuts into the neg a little. Not sure who the nincompoop was who designed that little gem of a fault. One other thing to mention is if you have lenses that are non standard 39mm mount you could have trouble finding lens boards for them. They should be easy to machine though, so you could always get that done.

I've never used a DeVere, but they look like tanks. Frankly, either one should be fine.

 

[Down Under]

The DeVere is a nice enlarger but somewhat ancient now.

The color filters in most enlargers can degrade with time,which means you won't be able to get the contrast you dial in, whether with color or B&W. I had to use my LPL 7700 (not a 4550, I realise, but an LPL/Saunders nevertheless) with under-the-lens Ilford B&W Multigrade filters (purchased new at horrendous cost) for two years as the original B&W filters had shifted considerably in color rendition and did not produce the contrast or tones I wanted. Eventually I found a new filter unit to fit the LPL head and am now using the enlarger with its excellent inbuilt filtration.

A point well worth remembering. If it was used properly and not abused, the DeVere will last a long time with a little care, tho' I'm not sure if spare parts are still available. You may have to do what I did with my second enlarger (a Leitz Focomat 1c) and buy a second enlarger to strip down for parts...

 

[Patrick Robert James]

There is a difference between dichroic filters and Ilford filters which are similar to gelatin filters. Dichroic filters shouldn't fade over time.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've been on the lookout for an enlarger that allows me to print b&w in medium format and 4x5.
My two options available within my budget are the De Vere 504 Dichromat and an LPL 7451. Theyre around the same price budget wise but I've no experience of either models so was wondering if anyone could put forward any pros or cons of either.

another model within your budget might be a used Durst L1200; a German tank amongst enlargers!

 

[tedr1]

For LPL lens holders I recommend KHB Photographix in Canada http://store.khbphotografix.com/

Regarding LPL negative carriers and masks, my preference is for the glass 4x5 carrier which I mask down to the neg size in use using black tape on the upper glass. This has three advantages. You always have the right negative carrier. The negatives are always flat. The separate (and expensive) LPL adjustable mask is not required.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

For LPL lens holders I recommend KHB Photographix in Canada http://store.khbphotografix.com/

Regarding LPL negative carriers and masks, my preference is for the glass 4x5 carrier which I mask down to the neg size in use using black tape on the upper glass. This has three advantages. You always have the right negative carrier. The negatives are always flat. The separate (and expensive) LPL adjustable mask is not required.

I do the same, but with thin aluminum shims for 6x12, and flocking backed thin aluminum masks for 6x6 and 35, though I never really print 35 anymore on it. The masks can just be dropped in the space above the glass. Another way to do it is with red litho tape.

 

[M Carter]

I do the same, but with thin aluminum shims for 6x12, and flocking backed thin aluminum masks for 6x6 and 35, though I never really print 35 anymore on it. The masks can just be dropped in the space above the glass. Another way to do it is with red litho tape.

And another option - I use a 4x5 glass carrier; I exposed a couple sheets of 4x5 ortho-litho film to light and developed them, then cut masks for various MF sizes. The masks are cut where the negs are centered, so I can use an 80mm lens for 6x7 vs. needing the 135 for everything. I just keep the masks in a glassine envelope; they can go in the space atop the glass or in the carrier itself. I don't like taping anything to the glass carrier due to the cleanup steps to get tape residue off.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use a 4"x5" glass carrier and 4"x5" and 35mm glassless carriers.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I would totally lean towards the Devere .

 

[Mick Fagan]

That De Vere has the power supply, it also has a mixing chamber alongside, presumably the other one is in the head. They came with two mixing chambers, 4x5" and 6x7cm or 6x9cm (cannot remember which size it is). I leave my 4x5" mixing chamber permanently in the head and use it for everything from 35mm through to 4x5".

If you've used a De Vere in the past, why are you still hesitating over which one?

Mick.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

And another option - I use a 4x5 glass carrier; I exposed a couple sheets of 4x5 ortho-litho film to light and developed them, then cut masks for various MF sizes. The masks are cut where the negs are centered, so I can use an 80mm lens for 6x7 vs. needing the 135 for everything. I just keep the masks in a glassine envelope; they can go in the space atop the glass or in the carrier itself. I don't like taping anything to the glass carrier due to the cleanup steps to get tape residue off.

That is more better, as they say. Cutting aluminum is a pain.

 

[Luis-F-S]

That DeVere is a pretty old one with an older style dichroic head. I have both a DeVere 5108 and both the LPL 4550-II and the XLG version. I'd get the LPL because it is a much simpler enlarger with much less to go wrong. The simplicity and the light source interchangeability gives it my nod. Also, the VCCE head is a joy to use. My DeVere is a very recent one (bought new in 1996) which is the enlarger I normally use, but it's a totally different beast than the one you're looking at.

I'd look at them both and get the one in the best shape. Parts for the LPL are going to be cheaper and more readily available than for the DeVere. If you're going to be msotly printing medium format the LPL with the VCCE head is going to be much easier to use for B&W.