Lamp upgrade for Durst 138S enlarger

[Donald Miller]

I have been considering the lamp upgrade that was advertised and offered by Durst Pro/Jensen Optical at one time. Has anyone here converted their enlarger to this new 1200 watt lamp? If so what have your experiences been? Aside from that is there another way of converting a 138S to a point light source? Will the current condensors work with a point light source? What is the current URL for Jensen Optical/Durst Pro? I don't seem to be able to locate it. Thanks for your help.

 

[Clueless]

What are your intended uses of a Point Light Source?

 

[Peter Schrager]

Durst

I know that aristo has a lamp that will fit the 138 which is a 5x7 enlarger. Maybe even the VCL lamp they make will fit. Check with them. I have a V-54 lamp and it's really works well with VC paper.
Peter

 

[Jon King]

Is this the lamp you were looking at?

Dead Link Removed

 

[wfwhitaker]

Jensen Optical is at http://jensen-optical.com/. They still offer a "lamp kit" for the 138S albeit with a price tag in excess of $800. Their web site is all but unnavigable; good luck trying to find it.

The bulb which Durst specifies for the point source is the "PULAMP". It is a 12-volt bulb and requires the proper power supply. According to a Jensen representative I spoke with just this week, they do stock the PULAMP bulb at $75 apiece. I'm investigating other bulb possibilities.

The correct condensers for the point source are the coated condensers which are designated by a "T" suffix. A coated mirror was also supplied with enlargers intended for point source use. I wonder how important the coated condensers are. It would be interesting to compare.

Also see (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Bob Carnie]

Don

I am considering this upgrade as well for my enlarger, If you do go ahead could you post your thoughts on the differences and advantages that you notice, I would very interested in your experience

 

[Donald Miller]

Is this the lamp you were looking at?

Dead Link Removed

Yes, that is the one. Thank you for the link.

 

[Donald Miller]

What are your intended uses of a Point Light Source?

Printing of my black and white negatives.

 

[Donald Miller]

I know that aristo has a lamp that will fit the 138 which is a 5x7 enlarger. Maybe even the VCL lamp they make will fit. Check with them. I have a V-54 lamp and it's really works well with VC paper.
Peter

I am not at all interested in a diffusion light source for an enlarger. Having printed with the Durst condensors, I can see a definite improvement in sharpness and local contrast with the opal lamp/condensors.

 

[Donald Miller]

Jensen Optical is at http://jensen-optical.com/. They still offer a "lamp kit" for the 138S albeit with a price tag in excess of $800. Their web site is all but unnavigable; good luck trying to find it.

The bulb which Durst specifies for the point source is the "PULAMP". It is a 12-volt bulb and requires the proper power supply. According to a Jensen representative I spoke with just this week, they do stock the PULAMP bulb at $75 apiece. I'm investigating other bulb possibilities.

The correct condensers for the point source are the coated condensers which are designated by a "T" suffix. A coated mirror was also supplied with enlargers intended for point source use. I wonder how important the coated condensers are. It would be interesting to compare.

Also see (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Thanks for the link to their site. I will need to check with Jens about the condensor and mirror considerations.

 

[Donald Miller]

Don

I am considering this upgrade as well for my enlarger, If you do go ahead could you post your thoughts on the differences and advantages that you notice, I would very interested in your experience

Bob, If I decide to pursue this then I will keep you informed.

 

[Mark Noble]

For your protection I would only purchase by COD or credit card. What They say is in stock ain't necessarily so -- Jens is a nice guy but over a year and $9K Later.....still have yet to see the goods.

 

[Clueless]

Found and copied article on DIY point light source from "Darkroom" by Rudy Bender (some time back) Don't have issue, date, Etc., just the clipped article of 2 pages.

 

[Bob F.]

For your protection I would only purchase by COD or credit card. What They say is in stock ain't necessarily so -- Jens is a nice guy but over a year and $9K Later.....still have yet to see the goods.

Anyone who is interested can follow the details of Mr Noble's remark, and Jensen Optical's response on this thread: http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/498016.html. He pops up about 3/4 of the way down. Frankly however, I do not recommend it...

Bob.

 

[Thilo Schmid]

Don,

this sounds interesting, but I wonder if such a powerful light source is usable for "normal" print sizes without a shutter. This has always been a problem with my CLS300 (2x1000W), besides the heat radiation during summertime. Do you rally think, the 138 Condenser Head is dim or do you consider the light characteristics as "upgrade"?

 

[Claire Senft]

coated condensers

I believe that coated condensers would give you higher contrast with less flare. I believe that going to the point light source w/o condensers would still yield a print that would be very close to the coated condensers.

If the Pulam with point light sorce transformer is bought new it will be even more expensive.---see B&H. However the 1200watt unit will probably require an exhaust fan due to heat.

Coated condensers are hard to find as is the varipoint on Ebay.

I have an S45...similar to the Li38. I have both an aristo cold light head and a regular consenser setup. Mighty nice enlargers.

Going to a point light source with a particular paper grade or filter number for an aim point will require a somewhat lower film speed and reduced development.

Of course cleanliness requirement will be even more ridgid. Tiny scratches that do not show with regular condensers will show with the point light source.

Good luck.

 

[Clueless]

Two articles, 4 pages, of "Darkroom Photography" ('83 and '82) about Rudy Bender's experiences with PLS and Durst and a DIY version have been sent but were rejected, bounced etc. I asked about your intentions because it seems to me it is an "extreme" solution for "extreme" negatives. Moreover, the side effects tend to be glaring if the negative isn't rather tailored to the source.