Help aligning the Omega DII/D2 Lamp/Condenser to lens centerline

[C-130 Nav]

Photrio members,

I'm new to the forum and hope someone has a tip/fix for a small issue I have with my Omega DII/D2 enlarger. The issue is not one of negative plane, lens plane, or baseboard plane alignment. Those are dialed in and my print results are sharp across the frame. Here's what I've got:

Setup:
Omega D2 (early, probably 1946 version identical to a DII but labeled D2, with fixed condensers)
Condenser: I use the 4.5-inch diameter condenser that collimates light for 120 format negatives. I don't swap condensers for 135 and 120 formats as I don't need the shorter exposure time a 3-inch condenser would provide.

Issue: If I install a negative carrier in the enlarger without a negative and project a focused rectangle of light on the baseboard, the upper right corner of the frame (as seen by the person viewing the baseboard) appears dimmer than the rest of the frame. The effect on final prints is not visible to my eye even when viewing prints with little to no tonal change in that region of the negative (say, a landscape photo with a clear, nearly uniform tonal sky).

If I gently push the lamp housing to the right I am able to eliminate the dim area, indicating to me that the lamp housing/condenser assembly is slightly off the vertical centerline of the lens/negative. I don't know the long term history of this enlarger but it's in very good shape. When I checked the negative/lens/baseboard alignment prior to using it, it needed no adjustments. I do not observe any bent or damaged bracketry associated with the lamp housing.

Question: Is there an alignment procedure that can assist me in realigning the lamp housing/condenser?

Any help is appreciated,

Thank you,

Dan

 

[BradS]

Is the illumination uniform when the lens is stopped down as it is when exposing the print?

If it is not affecting prints, why worry about it?

 

[C-130 Nav]

Is the illumination uniform when the lens is stopped down as it is when exposing the print?

If it is not affecting prints, why worry about it?

You know - not quite sure but I'm thinking it's still there. I'll have to go back and look to be certain. I use the enlarger without a negative in the carrier to expose my proof sheets but I avoid the dim area when I do so. I normally use either a 50mm or 100mm Kodak Ektar projection lens and I stop both down to f11 which is about where they perform the best based on Kodak's original data. I use this f-stop both during proof sheet exposure and in actual printing. The only time I open up the stop is to grain-focus.

I've been running this enlarger setup after my return to film for about 18 months now. Baring my early experiments to get back into the feel of analog photography after my 20 year hiatus, my lowest quality prints now are demonstrably the result of imperfect negatives rather than any apparent process or enlarger issue. If I've got a good negative, the enlarger setup provides beautiful results and I'm largely satisfied.

Perhaps as you suggest I should just leave it alone as I have thus far. Likely, it could just be the perfectionist bug may be hitting me like it does so many photographers (is this lens sharper? is this negative totally flat? etc. etc.).

Thanks again.

 

[Pieter12]

Is the illumination uniform when the lens is stopped down as it is when exposing the print?

If it is not affecting prints, why worry about it?

I'm no expert, but it seems to me if the illumination is uneven wide-open, it will still be uneven stopped down.

 

[BradS]

I’m no expert either but the op states, rather convincingly, there is no observable effect in actual prints so...I guess I’m searching for some way to reconcile the two apparently conflicting states.

still, if there’s no effect on prints, why worry about it?

 

[MattKing]

still, if there’s no effect on prints, why worry about it?

What about when you are printing an image from a cropped portion of that corner of the negative?

 

[removed account4]

they sell "enlarger alignment jigs" .. you can probably get one on Eboink... I have an omega d3v ( military contract version so it is a little different from the stock d3v's ) and I put a level on the different parts that need to be aligned... the light stage... and the negative stage and the baseboard. just tighten them up and as long as your baseboard is sort of level . you should be OK.. the reason you are able to adjust the bellows in these enlargers/disallign them is so you can do perspective control at the printing stage... you can basically do what one does with a LF camera but with the enlarger... its loads of fun

best of luck !
john

 

[Pieter12]

If you have an incident light meter and can remove the dome and replace it with a flat piece of translucent acrylic, you couple try to meter the light at the baseboard, both lens stopped down and wide open.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I assume you’re using enlarging lenses rather than “projection” lenses, since projection lenses don’t usually have adjustable apertures, but if you are really using projection lenses, I’d get enlarging lenses that are optimized for the reproduction ratios associated with making enlargements.

Do you have the right bulb? Condenser enlargers are designed to use a bulb with a centered filament at a specified distance from the base, with no printing on the bulb and a uniform frosting. If not, I suspect the bulb could be the problem. I switched to cold light in my D-II years ago, so I’m not sure about the availability of incandescent enlarger bulbs in the U.S. these days, but if you can’t find one, maybe it’s time to switch to cold light or look at something like a Heiland LED replacement.

 

[C-130 Nav]

Thanks all for the tips.

I'll have to see what happens if I print from that corner of a negative and I'll also attempt to quantify the illumination difference with a light meter. I could also take a picture of a grey card and print a full frame image that is tonally flat corner to corner and see if there is a visible difference. At some point, I'm likely to discover the conditions where variance could be noted visually. Since I haven't observed it yet, I'm probably still operating outside that range.

 

[Pieter12]

One way to check for even illumination is to make a print with the #5 filter, a piece of clear (fog) film in the negative carrier and the lens wide open. The print should be an even gray. You might have to use an ND filter to get a practical exposure time.

 

[C-130 Nav]

I assume you’re using enlarging lenses rather than “projection” lenses, since projection lenses don’t usually have adjustable apertures, but if you are really using projection lenses, I’d get enlarging lenses that are optimized for the reproduction ratios associated with making enlargements.

Do you have the right bulb? Condenser enlargers are designed to use a bulb with a centered filament at a specified distance from the base, with no printing on the bulb and a uniform frosting. If not, I suspect the bulb could be the problem. I switched to cold light in my D-II years ago, so I’m not sure about the availability of incandescent enlarger bulbs in the U.S. these days, but if you can’t find one, maybe it’s time to switch to cold light or look at something like a Heiland LED replacement.

To answer both questions in short, yes.

I am using Ektar enlarging lenses. Early Kodak Ektar enlarging lenses were labeled "Kodak Projection Ektar" and then later labeled "enlarging Ektar". My 1945 Kodak 100mm Ektar is labeled "Kodak Projection Ektar" (see photo). I've since "upgraded" to a 1946 100mm Ektar as it is "lumenized" (Kodak's term for lens coating) vice the uncoated 1945 version. So, when I referred to the "Projection" Ektar, this was what I was thinking. Imprecise to be sure but we can thank running changes at Kodak for the confusion.

I do have the right bulb which is a PH211 (75W). The PH211s are still available new although the one in my enlarger is new old stock from way back. I've heard some reviews of the new bulbs and most comments seem to indicate they're acceptable.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yup, that’s the standard bulb, and those are appropriate lenses. Maybe the filament in the old stock bulb has gotten knocked off center at some point in its lifetime.

 

[MattKing]

Maybe the lamp housing brackets are slightly crooked/bent, and the housing is in the wrong location.
Are the pivots for those brackets working smoothly, and are the attachment points for the housing working smoothly?

 

[removed account4]

do you have the right cone for the lens ? sometimes the wrong cone does weird things like vignette ... I don't use the lens cones but I do use an auxiliary focusing bellows which was originally used to make jewel prints/ reduction prints... if you find one grab it ! you will never need to buy a rail or cone again...
when you are talking about the condensers. are you talking about the auxiliary condensers to put in the light-stage? my enlarger has a pictograph when you flip up the door. make sure your aux condenser is in the right place or it will do weird stuff too. ... and 100mm lens is a bit long for 35mm. ... usually people use a 90 for 120 and 50 for 35mm ( think normal taking lenses ). ...

 

[Pieter12]

How does the lamp house/condensor head fit on the negative carrier stage? Improper alignment might cause uneven illumination (although I doubt it). The reflector in the housing could also be an issue. You might have to improvise some sort of shim to position the bulb/socket in the head.

 

[C-130 Nav]

do you have the right cone for the lens ? sometimes the wrong cone does weird things like vignette ... I don't use the lens cones but I do use an auxiliary focusing bellows which was originally used to make jewel prints/ reduction prints... if you find one grab it ! you will never need to buy a rail or cone again...
when you are talking about the condensers. are you talking about the auxiliary condensers to put in the light-stage? my enlarger has a pictograph when you flip up the door. make sure your aux condenser is in the right place or it will do weird stuff too. ... and 100mm lens is a bit long for 35mm. ... usually people use a 90 for 120 and 50 for 35mm ( think normal taking lenses ). ...

All good points. most of my enlargements are 4x6 or 5x7 and I find the 100mm lens is positioned at a comfortable spot and the choice really is a convenience factor. I use the 50mm for 8x10s as the 100mm would require too high a setting on the enlarger. Conversely, the 50mm sits too low to comfortably do 4x6s. I probably could switch to the 75mm lens and do away with any swapping of lenses.

You are correct, the photo above shows the 100mm lens on the 2-3/4-inch cone with isn't right but that's how it looked when I purchased it. My 50mm, 75mm and 100mm Ektars all now sit on flat lens boards for the D2. I have several other longer enlarging lenses that I currently do not use that are normally mounted on the cones. I also have the auxiliary bellows but I've never used it - I did snag it when I could for the exact reason you stated.

My D2 does not have the variable condenser lamp housing you refer to and has the earlier 'colorhead' version which has a small door to insert 6x6 colored filters (see photo). Unlike the more versatile variable condenser head that came later and to which you refer, my version uses separate condensers which externally looked the same with varying diameters of glass, optimized for the length of lens you were using. While I do have one of each of these condensers, I never change our the 4.5-inch.

Optically speaking, I think my mismatch of lens-to-negative and condenser-to-lens affects only the relative intensity of light hitting the negative. However, that could be faulty thinking on my part.

 

[C-130 Nav]

Thanks, Pieter12 for the graphic - that's more in line with what I might need. From my previous post, you can see my lamp housing doesn't use brackets as the attachment points are cast in. However, the adjustment description looks like it's still valid so I'll give it a try tonight.

 

[jvo]

fyi - harry taylor once told me that they are the same enlarger, (i have a d II), one a military version. i needed the counter balance springs, here's his explanation...

"The only D-Series enlarger that used a CBS with "two bolt holes" was the model originally named Omega D-II. This was the first of the "modern" Omega enlargers and was in production from 1937 to 1955. During the last few years it was sold as "Omega D-2".

Then in 1955 Omega brought out a redesigned model which was also called "Omega D-2" This model was made until 1980.

The new model was an improved D-II (D-2). The parts that made the image, that is the lamphouse, condenser system, negative stage, bellows and focusing mechanism and lens stage were unchanged. But the column, was redesigned into a heavier one-piece column with gear teeth and a crank and gear system to move it up and down the column. They also used a different CBS, with one bolt hole that was mounted on the top of the column. That's the CBS I sent you."

great piece of equipment - have fun and welcome to photrio....

 

[C-130 Nav]

fyi - harry taylor once told me that they are the same enlarger, (i have a d II), one a military version. i needed the counter balance springs, here's his explanation...

"The only D-Series enlarger that used a CBS with "two bolt holes" was the model originally named Omega D-II. This was the first of the "modern" Omega enlargers and was in production from 1937 to 1955. During the last few years it was sold as "Omega D-2".

Then in 1955 Omega brought out a redesigned model which was also called "Omega D-2" This model was made until 1980.

The new model was an improved D-II (D-2). The parts that made the image, that is the lamphouse, condenser system, negative stage, bellows and focusing mechanism and lens stage were unchanged. But the column, was redesigned into a heavier one-piece column with gear teeth and a crank and gear system to move it up and down the column. They also used a different CBS, with one bolt hole that was mounted on the top of the column. That's the CBS I sent you."

great piece of equipment - have fun and welcome to photrio....

Thanks for the information. There are photos on http://www.khbphotografix.com that show both the D-II and D-2 with their respective CBS locations. Further, like you said, the CBS is not interchangeable between the D-II and D-2. Fortunately, mine was complete and I didn't have to find any parts for it to put it back in service with the exception of lenses.

I've used a few other basic enlargers like Beseler and such but the overbuilt D-II has been my enlarger of choice. While not as advanced as later models, it is more than sufficient for my purposes. I'm working strictly B&W and I shoot mostly 135 for the time being. The condenser enlarger is well suited to miniature negatives (reference The Print, Ansel Adams, 1950) and I prefer the higher contrast output of a condenser enlarger vs. a diffusion enlarger for my work.

My first D-II was a military version I obtained years ago. After hauling it through a number of moves and not having a working darkroom for all of that time, I gave it away to an kid across the street (at the time) who was interested in photography. I got it free and gave it away free. Just to show it pays to be nice to folks, after regretting my giveaway and looking to finally build a darkroom, I serendipitously stumbled on my current D-II which I ended up getting for free as well.

 

[Rastehuti]

C-130 Nav,
I was reading your original post concerning the alignment of your D-II lamphead. I recently acquired a D-II and was having the same problem as you with the right edge of the negative board hole being slightly uncovered. I was wondering if the advise you got concerning the adjustment was successful? I have tried to adjust it but I have been unsuccessful in my attempts. Now I'm think the problem may not be with the lamphead so much as with the negative board being out of alignment. Look forward to hopefully hearing your response. ps. it seems that people were all over the place with suggestions.

 

[C-130 Nav]

C-130 Nav,
I was reading your original post concerning the alignment of your D-II lamphead. I recently acquired a D-II and was having the same problem as you with the right edge of the negative board hole being slightly uncovered. I was wondering if the advise you got concerning the adjustment was successful? I have tried to adjust it but I have been unsuccessful in my attempts. Now I'm think the problem may not be with the lamphead so much as with the negative board being out of alignment. Look forward to hopefully hearing your response. ps. it seems that people were all over the place with suggestions.

Rastehuti,
After reviewing the advice here, I looked at the enlarger lamp head mounting and determined it was just slightly off (just a few hundredths of an inch) causing the lamp head/condenser to sit slightly left of centerline. My lamp head version (the "colorhead" version) doesn't use any of the brackets displayed in Pieter12's post above and the fasteners are threaded directly into the casting. As jvo pointed out above, the D-II and D-2 versions of the enlarger had essentially interchangeable lamp heads and several versions of those are out there. As I suspect with my enlarger, I have an early D-II frame with a later D-2 "colorhead" lamp housing. The mere fact that heads may have been changed may have led to misalignment. The only adjustments I could make were to: 1) the arms that raise/lower/hold the lamp head on the enlarger and 2) the vertical sides of the negative stage. See photo.


After minor adjustments to the arms and some tests, I'm getting no noticeable impact to my prints. I suspect the brackets, arms, and/or vertical sides are where you'll have to make adjustments.

I've seen a number of these enlargers over the years in various states of repair. Due to their size and awkward footprint, it's possible many have been damaged or misaligned over the years due to falling over or general disregard for proper storage, use and handling. As an example, my first D-II (not the one I'm currently using) was buried in falling books during a California earthquake. I'm guessing it might have needed adjustment after that but I wasn't using it at the time and never made any adjustments before I gave it away.

In short, here's my advice:
1) Check the alignment of the lamp head brackets (if your enlarger has them) and the arms that hold the lamp housing on the negative carrier. There appears to be lots of adjustment potential here so that should do it.
2) If that doesn't do it alone, I would also check to ensure the vertical bellows/negative stage framework (the two vertical sides) are parallel to each other as well as parallel to the rails.

To affect an adjustment, you may be able to GENTLY bend the parts back to the correct alignment. If it's just a left-right adjustment, you may be able to shim the mounting with washers.

Hope this helps.

One last thing, I think it's possible to incorrectly install the mounting arms on their shafts. Basically if they are on backwards, the whole lamp head will be shifted left or right by about 3/4 of an inch. Might be worth a check there too.