Film holder clamp springs Beseler 23c II

[lowleft]

I just got a 23C II (according to the tag, but it takes the ph111a bulb not the ph140...) and noticed odd skewing on my first print. The film holder sounds are not tight anymore and I need new ones.

Does anyone have a replacement recommendation that isn't the full rebuild kit? Or could I find since springs that are close enough? Not sure how precise they need to be, doesn't seem like it matters too much as long as they have enough travel and tension.

 

[Ian C]

Generally, nothing needs “rebuilding” unless you find damaged parts.

The 23C and the early versions of the 23CII condenser lamphouse used the bayonet mount PH-111. The later versions of the 23CII used the vertical-burn E26 (standard household screw-in mount) PH-140 bulb. Both are 120-volt 75-wattt opal photo lamps.

Here are the PH-111 lamps. Note: the price is for 6 bulbs, so, they’re reasonably priced.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...osram_11624p_ph111a_75w_125v_lamp_6_pack.html

We need more information with regard to

” . . . odd skewing on my first print. The film holder sounds are not tight anymore and I need new ones." What do you mean by "odd skewing"? We need more detail to understand the question, diagnose the problem, and offer suggestions

Are you referring to the two extension-type coil springs on either side of the upper plate that holds the negative carrier to the negative stage and blocks stray light from spreading outward? The hold-closed springs are shown in Figure 4 on page 3 of the following manual. They are Reference #38, part number 562-70-09.

These are made from 0.025” diameter spring wire. The free length of the coil is 3/4”. The overall length appears to be about 1”. They are of the fully closed mounting loop type. These are common hardware items.

http://www.jollinger.com/photo/cam-coll/manuals/enlargers/beseler/Beseler_23C_II.pdf

Before doing anything with the springs, verify that both of the opening cams are properly oriented and secured on the shaft. Be careful that you don’t overtighten the setscrews that secure the cams to the shaft, The cams are made of a fiber and resin construction. The threads can be stripped or the cams cracked by overtightening the setscrews.

 

[lowleft]

Generally, nothing needing “rebuilding” unless you find damaged parts.

The 23C and the early versions of the 23CII condenser lamphouse used the bayonet mount PH-111. The later versions of the 23CII used the vertical-burn E26 (standard household screw-in mount) PH-140 bulb. Both are 120-volt 75-wattt opal photo lamps.

Here are the PH-111 lamps. Note: the price is for 6 bulbs, so, they’re reasonably priced.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...osram_11624p_ph111a_75w_125v_lamp_6_pack.html

We need more information with regard to

” . . . odd skewing on my first print. The film holder sounds are not tight anymore and I need new ones." What do you mean by "odd skewing"? We need more detail to understand the question, diagnose the problem, and offer suggestions

Are you referring to the two extension-type coil springs on either side of the upper plate that holds the negative carrier to the negative stage and blocks stray light from spreading outward? The hold-closed springs are shown in Figure 4 on page 3 of the following manual. They are Reference #38, part number 562-70-09.

These are made from 0.025” diameter spring wire. The free length of the coil is 3/4”. The overall length appears to be about 1”. They are of the fully closed mounting loop type. These are common hardware items.

http://www.jollinger.com/photo/cam-coll/manuals/enlargers/beseler/Beseler_23C_II.pdf

Before doing anything with the springs, verify that both of the opening cams are properly oriented and secured on the shaft. Be careful that you don’t overtighten the setscrews that secure the cams to the shaft, The cams are made of a fiber and resin construction. The threads can be stripped or the cams cracked by overtightening the setscrews.

Thank you so much! Yeah I did find the #38 part last night but couldn't find details on the spring itself and what I could get as a replacement. It was loose enough that it wasn't keeping the negative carrier closed, the handle had about a half inch gap at the end since it wasn't getting enough pressure from the stage.

I did also notice a thin beam of light on my walls as well last night coming from there, so I think it's definitely the issue.

You can see here in the top left corner (and right too, not sure if you can tell from the photo) it veers outward and the edge is rather soft/distorted.

 

[lowleft]

Also for other in the future these are the springs I'm talking about (generic internet pic, not my enlarger).

 

[Ian C]

The second photo of Post #2 shows the upper negative stage hold-down plate and its spring. The condition looks approximately correct. There is little spring extension (almost no spring force) in the closed position on the 23C enlarger.

I don’t believe that a small amount of light spilling horizontally from a tiny gap between the negative and the upper open/close plate are causing the problem. I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with the spring. The springs shown in the Internet photo look like mine. I have several 23CII enlargers. If your springs are in the same condition, then there is likely nothing wrong with them.

If by skewing in the print, you’re referring to the fact that the edges of the image are not perfectly parallel with the edges of the paper, nor perfectly centered, and the transitions are fuzzy, I must ask: How are you projecting the image onto the paper? I see that the image is square. Suggesting a 6 x 6 cm negative. The usual practice is one of the following:

1. Using a borderless easel, raise the head high enough to cover all four edges of the paper. This makes a borderless print and omits whatever part of the projection falls outside of the paper.

2. Make a print with unexposed white borders. This can be done with a masking easel. In this case, the borders are straight lines and are placed where you want them. Even with this setup, there is generally a small amount of edge overlap where the projection extends slightly onto the masking blades. Very little of the image recorded on the negative is lost in this manner. It is the placement of the masking blades relative to the paper that determines the location and placement of the borders. It is the sharp transition from the image to the edge of the masing blades in CONTACT with the paper that forms sharply defined edges between the image and the white of the paper.

But what I see in the example print shows a somewhat haphazard placement of the image onto the paper with somewhat fuzzy edges. Could it be that you projected the entire opening of the negative carrier with the hope that the cutoff between negative and carrier would create a well-centered square image on paper with crisply defined transition to the unexposed paper? If so, that won’t work properly. You need an easel. Or you can make a borderless print.

 

[lowleft]

Ok that makes sense, I didn't think about not having a clean border. Previous to this I've only done 35 mm enlarging and have always gone larger than the easel itself.