Just got a D2 Enlarger!

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,711
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
kfed1984 said:
My Besseler 23 has a weird little dark spot in the middle, maybe because of the smaller bulb.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with that enlarger, but is it a regular frosted bulb with the writing at the end? I had an enlarger where someone had put such a bulb in it - when you turned it on, you could read GE in the middle of the easel.

The lens you have is good for up to 6x9, I think - but definitely for up to 6x7.
This is a great light source for contact printing - it's what I use. I put the filters in where the variable condenser goes.
I usually use a Rodenstock 150mm for 4x5. I think I have a Wollensak somewhere or other. I can't remember who made the 135mm I have. I don't make big prints, so I'm not too picky about the enlarger lens.
 

Rick A

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,921
Location
Laurel Highlands
Format
8x10 Format
I have a glassless 4x5 carrier for that, it can be had for the cost of postage. Send me a PM if you want it.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,290
Format
4x5 Format
Rick A said:
I have a glassless 4x5 carrier for that, it can be had for the cost of postage. Send me a PM if you want it.
Click to expand...

Take him up on the offer! It’s a good choice for 4x5.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,290
Format
4x5 Format
Cones are plentiful and cheap. The enlarger was engineered to be used with cones for the 4x5 (135mm) lenses.

Look for the one that’s 2 3/4”
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,673
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format

I have both, the this version of the 135, it will not cover 4X5, the 162 was made in either a 4 or 6 element vision I have the 6 element pro version which is a fine lens, saying that the four element version will work well for enlargement up to 11X14 inches, the pro version was designed for up to 20X24 and may not be as sharp as the 4 element in the 5X7 to 11X14 range. In addition to the Wollensake 135 I have a Rodenstock that will cover 4X5. Here is a link to list of enlarging lens that you might find useful.

https://www.photocornucopia.com/1061.html

I have both the glass and glassless 4X5 and tend to use the glassless carrier now that I use a standard LED bulb, if for some reason I need to print grade 4 which is not within range of my LED bulb and switch to a hot bulb I use the glass carrier.

You need to make sure you are getting a standard 4X5 carrier and not a carrier designed for film pack negatives.
 
OP
OP

kfed1984

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2023
Messages
285
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Format
Multi Format
Just saw a video on the D2, with a color head. Is there a color head option for the D2 I have or it's a different D2? Is this a modular enlarger design?
 

Roger Cole

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
I have two D2Vs, picked up a second rough one for a parts chassis, and used them until I just bought a Saunders LPL 4500II. They are real workhorses. I have an LED light source for mine but I bought it years ago from an add on the large format photography forum and I've no idea if the guy is still making them.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,673
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
There are the Omega color head, needs to be complete kit including power supply, Omega also made a cold head, used florescent tube with a electric shutter, once turned and brought up to working temp then rather than turn the light on timing is regulated with the shutter. Omega also made a point source head. There are also 3rd party cold and LED heads. The color heads and cold heads are diffusion types, dust does not show as much, softer contrast. For hard contrast and very sharp prints some use the point source head.
 
OP
OP

kfed1984

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2023
Messages
285
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Format
Multi Format
When you say enlargement up tp 11x14, this is the image size on the paper? does not seem like much for a 4x5 negative lens.

Also, what's a film pack negative?

Thanks
 
Last edited:

mwdake

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
779
Location
CO, USA
Format
Multi Format
kfed1984 said:
Just saw a video on the D2, with a color head. Is there a color head option for the D2 I have or it's a different D2? Is this a modular enlarger design?
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly the arms for attaching the heads are different between condenser and color heads. So if you track down a color head make sure it comes with the arms.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,619
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Bill Burk said:
Cones are plentiful and cheap. The enlarger was engineered to be used with cones for the 4x5 (135mm) lenses.

Look for the one that’s 2 3/4”
Click to expand...

I thought the cones were for making reductions, like a wallet size print from a larger negative??
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,290
Format
4x5 Format
mshchem said:
I thought the cones were for making reductions, like a wallet size print from a larger negative??
Click to expand...

There is a bellows attachment for that. I have one and use it to make lockets. They usually run about thirty bucks if you’re lucky.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,290
Format
4x5 Format
kfed1984 said:
When you say enlargement up tp 11x14, this is the image size on the paper? does not seem like much for a 4x5 negative lens.

Also, what's a film pack negative?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Paul Howell was talking about a four element enlarger lens being good enough for 11 x 14. Film pack was a daylight loading package of film that was a little thinner base than usual so it could make it through the holder mechanism.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,643
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format

I had one of those before they bought the Durst L1200. Of course, it is no comparison the design of the D2 is somewhat mediocre, but by securing the top end to the wall can be made quite sturdy.
 
OP
OP

kfed1984

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2023
Messages
285
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Format
Multi Format
Bill Burk said:
Paul Howell was talking about a four element enlarger lens being good enough for 11 x 14.
Click to expand...

Still, sounds kind of small considering you can enlarge 35mm to 8x10 no problem with a cheap lens. While a 4x5in negative, relatively speaking, should be able to go somewhat larger that 11x14 at the least.
 
OP
OP

kfed1984

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2023
Messages
285
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Format
Multi Format
RalphLambrecht said:
I had one of those before they bought the Durst L1200. Of course, it is no comparison the design of the D2 is somewhat mediocre, but by securing the top end to the wall can be made quite sturdy.
Click to expand...

well I just upgraded from a Besseler 23, for me it's a personal step up to 4x5.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,848
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
kfed1984 said:
Still, sounds kind of small considering you can enlarge 35mm to 8x10 no problem with a cheap lens. While a 4x5in negative, relatively speaking, should be able to go somewhat larger that 11x14 at the least.
Click to expand...

Better lenses will provide more even response - the corners of the negative will be imaged almost as well as the centre.
Enlarging lenses need to have really good flat field performance. It is a challenge to do that with all that film to deal with.
 
OP
OP

kfed1984

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2023
Messages
285
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
Better lenses will provide more even response - the corners of the negative will be imaged almost as well as the centre.
Enlarging lenses need to have really good flat field performance. It is a challenge to do that with all that film to deal with.
Click to expand...

Yes but the 4x5 lens is proportionately farther from the film. 162mm lens to a 4x5in negative, is like a 50mm lens for 35mm negative. Enlarging 4x5 neg to 11x14 is like enlarging a 35mm neg to a 100 mm postcard photograph, which should not cause any issues.

But I don't know, maybe the lens effects don't scale up linearly. As apparently, the depth of field effect of large-format lens focal-length to negative ratio does not scale up proportionally from a 35mm negative. Maybe this has got something to do with this effect.
 
  • Melvin J Bramley
  • Deleted
  • Reason: off topic - needs to be in its own thread

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,619
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Bill Burk said:
There is a bellows attachment for that. I have one and use it to make lockets. They usually run about thirty bucks if you’re lucky.
Click to expand...

That's cool. I had an extension bellows for an Eastman Auto Focus 5x7 enlarger. I think the extension bellows were 20 inches. Crazy
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,673
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
Enlarging lens are designed for optimal performance at different magnification, for armatures or home use, most folks were enlarging 5X7 to 11X14. When I taught photography at a community college I had the class do a project by printing from the same negative with 3, 4, 6, element lens and one term a student had an APO lens. These prints were judged in blind showing for sharpness by other students and staff. Every term, the 3 element lens were out performed, the 4 elements were as good or better than the 6 elements lens up to 11X14, past 11X14 the 6 element lens and the APO were much better. As we did not print color the APO lens was not really evaluated for it full potential. I have 4 and 6 elements lens, the one advantage of my 6 element 50mm is that it a stop faster at 2.8 than my Wollensake 50 and is easier to focus, at this point my largest prints are 11X14 so a good 4 element lens works just as well.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,673
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
No from 35mm. But saying that, Wallensake made both a 4 element and 6 element 162. I don't have the downloads at my fingertips, both Rodenstock and
Schneider had tables that listed which lens were optimized for which magnification. Nikon on the other hand made very few 4 element lens, most were 6 elements along with the 8 element APO lens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…