gary in nj
Allowing Ads
This is not a “how-to” story. There are just a small handful of people in the world who own my model of Bogen enlarger. It was a throw away enlarger when new, and given the quantity of quality equipment that now sell for pennies-on-the-dollar, I don’t expect anyone to follow my path. So the obvious question here is “with very good enlargers available for $100-$200, why in the world would you invest any time or money into a Bogen T-35?” That’s a really good question. Story time!
I got into photography and darkroom work when I took a photography class in 8th grade, circa 1976-77. In 9th grade I was the lead yearbook photographer and before that year was up I actually got a photography job doing assignment work for a newspaper that had 4 different brands. It was at this point I had to set-up my own darkroom. My first enlarger was purchased for $35. I have no idea what it was - but it was a real pile. I started to make good money from the newspaper ($40-$75 a week – that was a lot of money for a 15 year old in 1977 - by the time I was in 10th grade I was the “go-to” photographer for the company) and I was constantly buying new camera equipment. I wanted to invest in a real good enlarger, but the reality was most of my assignment work resulted in 5x7 prints, so rather than spend $250-$500 on a good used enlarger I talked myself into a new Bogen T-35 for $115. For larger prints I used the school lab. The T-35 served its intended purpose but it always bothered me that I made a short-sighted decision. A few years later I was off to college and my darkroom only got used a few times a year. Without the school lab to use, I was stuck with the many limitations of the T-35. I just didn’t use my darkroom enough to justify the purchase of an expensive enlarger – and at that time my money was being used for other interests. Then I was married, my parents sold their house (which was home to my dedicated darkroom) and it all got packed away. I always knew I’d break it out again someday, so I kept all of my equipment. Now is “someday” and once again I’m lucky enough to have a dedicated darkroom in my home.
It only took me a few hours in the dark room to remember how disappointing the T-35 is to use. Looking at craigslist and ebay, it was very tempting to spend a $100-$200 and have an enlarger of my dreams…but…for 40 years I always had this plan in the back of my head to improve the T-35. Why not invest a little money and see if my plan worked. After all, I’ve owned this piece of equipment for 40 years and it has moved all over the place with me. Using this enlarger afforded me the finances to buy great camera gear, buy my first car and afford flying lessons. Simply replacing it did not feel like the right thing to do.
The first order of business to improve this enlarger was to replace the Voss 50mm f3.5 lens. The image quality from the Voss is almost OK, but thing I always hated about this lens was the lack of click stops. After focusing at f3.5, stopping down to f8 was always an approximation. My eyes aren’t what they used to be, so click stops are no longer a “nice to have” feature. I scored a perfect EL-Nikkor 50mm f2.8 (the original one with the LARGE numbers printed on it) for $25 on craigslist. The improved glass in and of itself helped to improve the image quality and the click stops made for easy adjustment. The 2.8 aperture also makes for easier focusing.
The next issue to correct on the T-35 was enlargement range. As originally equipped, the T-35 has a tower shaft that is only 21 inches (around 17-1/2 inches above the base when focused). This results in a maximum image size of 8x10 with no further extension for cropping. This same or similar head was used on various Bogen enlargers (B22, 22A, 22A Special), Fujimoto (Lucky 60M) as well as the Vivitar E-series units, so I knew it had enough focal length to go to 28-30 inches (about 24-25 inches focused above the base). The simple remedy was to obtain a tower shaft from a 22A and install it on my enlarger. I found such a unit on ebay for $20 and asked the seller to confirm that the shaft measured 1-1/4 x 1-1/4 by 28 inch. His reply was disappointing; “it is 28 inches in length, but it measures 1.5” square”. It was immediately obvious to me that in order to provide the necessary rigidity to go to 28 inches, the designers used larger square tubing. Was my plan scuttled?
The wall of the chromed steel tubing that was used on the T-35 is only 0.040”, not very thick to provide the required support at 21 inches. What if I used aluminum T-6063 square tubing with a wall thickness of 0.125”? Certainly this material will provide enough support and rigidity. For $10 I purchased a 36” length of square 1-1/4”x 0.125 tubing. I was easily able to drill, tap and install this so it works on the support/base bracket. Moreover, it’s stable with the enlarger head fully extended. Checking with an inclinometer, the angle of the head does not change from its lowest setting to its heighest. Raising the enlarger head to its maximum height produces an image that measures over 14x21 inches. I’ll never make a print this size, but it’s nice to know that I can now crop an 8x10 or make an 11x14. I spent a lot time making sure that the film plane is parallel to the base. I got it to within 0.20 degree on the long side and 0.0 degree on the short side – much better than it was from the factory. At maximum height the top side of the image measures 21-1/2” and the bottom is 21-5/8”. I’ll have to use paper to shim it to perfection – it’s that close.
The final problem to resolve with the T-35 was the size of the base plate. My goodness, if anything about this enlarger is just a flat-out poor design, it’s the base. At 12x14 inches (12x10 working) it doesn’t provide enough surface area to place a combination paper frame (I use a 4-in-1 frame; 8x10 on one side and a combination 5x7, 3-1/2x5 and 2-1/2x3-1/2 on the other). When using the 3-way side on this small base I have to push down on a corner of the frame with one hand during focusing and exposure. The potential for misalignment is significant. I made thousands of photos this way – time to cut this crap out. I have all sorts of furniture quality plywood and solid woods around my house that I could use, but portability is not a requirement for this enlarger. So I elected to mount the enlarger tower directly to my 2’x10’ work table. Now I have an “infinite” (ok, 18” from the table edge to the tower shaft) amount of workspace for my 4-in-1 frame. Using all of the available workspace under the enlarger head as my base allows me to place the frame anywhere there is an image.
So what did my $40 ($25 for the lens, $10 for the shaft and $5 for hardware) investment get me? A very usable enlarger that makes as good a print as any other condenser enlarger (the dual lens condenser in this enlarger is actually quite good). It allows me to keep and make use of a piece of equipment that has significant sentimental value to me. For $40 I got to put into motion a plan that was thought about almost 40 years ago. I have Kodak and Ilford filters that are cut to fit the 2-7/8 tray, so I don’t have to replace those because of the purchase of a new enlarger. And because this enlarger uses a 75w “equipment” light bulb, it’s economical to keep operational. If it ever needs to become “portable”, I can simply screw it to a piece of 20x20 oak.
The moral of this story…there is none. I’m basically a cheap person and it makes me happy when I can take something and make it better.
I got into photography and darkroom work when I took a photography class in 8th grade, circa 1976-77. In 9th grade I was the lead yearbook photographer and before that year was up I actually got a photography job doing assignment work for a newspaper that had 4 different brands. It was at this point I had to set-up my own darkroom. My first enlarger was purchased for $35. I have no idea what it was - but it was a real pile. I started to make good money from the newspaper ($40-$75 a week – that was a lot of money for a 15 year old in 1977 - by the time I was in 10th grade I was the “go-to” photographer for the company) and I was constantly buying new camera equipment. I wanted to invest in a real good enlarger, but the reality was most of my assignment work resulted in 5x7 prints, so rather than spend $250-$500 on a good used enlarger I talked myself into a new Bogen T-35 for $115. For larger prints I used the school lab. The T-35 served its intended purpose but it always bothered me that I made a short-sighted decision. A few years later I was off to college and my darkroom only got used a few times a year. Without the school lab to use, I was stuck with the many limitations of the T-35. I just didn’t use my darkroom enough to justify the purchase of an expensive enlarger – and at that time my money was being used for other interests. Then I was married, my parents sold their house (which was home to my dedicated darkroom) and it all got packed away. I always knew I’d break it out again someday, so I kept all of my equipment. Now is “someday” and once again I’m lucky enough to have a dedicated darkroom in my home.
It only took me a few hours in the dark room to remember how disappointing the T-35 is to use. Looking at craigslist and ebay, it was very tempting to spend a $100-$200 and have an enlarger of my dreams…but…for 40 years I always had this plan in the back of my head to improve the T-35. Why not invest a little money and see if my plan worked. After all, I’ve owned this piece of equipment for 40 years and it has moved all over the place with me. Using this enlarger afforded me the finances to buy great camera gear, buy my first car and afford flying lessons. Simply replacing it did not feel like the right thing to do.
The first order of business to improve this enlarger was to replace the Voss 50mm f3.5 lens. The image quality from the Voss is almost OK, but thing I always hated about this lens was the lack of click stops. After focusing at f3.5, stopping down to f8 was always an approximation. My eyes aren’t what they used to be, so click stops are no longer a “nice to have” feature. I scored a perfect EL-Nikkor 50mm f2.8 (the original one with the LARGE numbers printed on it) for $25 on craigslist. The improved glass in and of itself helped to improve the image quality and the click stops made for easy adjustment. The 2.8 aperture also makes for easier focusing.
The next issue to correct on the T-35 was enlargement range. As originally equipped, the T-35 has a tower shaft that is only 21 inches (around 17-1/2 inches above the base when focused). This results in a maximum image size of 8x10 with no further extension for cropping. This same or similar head was used on various Bogen enlargers (B22, 22A, 22A Special), Fujimoto (Lucky 60M) as well as the Vivitar E-series units, so I knew it had enough focal length to go to 28-30 inches (about 24-25 inches focused above the base). The simple remedy was to obtain a tower shaft from a 22A and install it on my enlarger. I found such a unit on ebay for $20 and asked the seller to confirm that the shaft measured 1-1/4 x 1-1/4 by 28 inch. His reply was disappointing; “it is 28 inches in length, but it measures 1.5” square”. It was immediately obvious to me that in order to provide the necessary rigidity to go to 28 inches, the designers used larger square tubing. Was my plan scuttled?
The wall of the chromed steel tubing that was used on the T-35 is only 0.040”, not very thick to provide the required support at 21 inches. What if I used aluminum T-6063 square tubing with a wall thickness of 0.125”? Certainly this material will provide enough support and rigidity. For $10 I purchased a 36” length of square 1-1/4”x 0.125 tubing. I was easily able to drill, tap and install this so it works on the support/base bracket. Moreover, it’s stable with the enlarger head fully extended. Checking with an inclinometer, the angle of the head does not change from its lowest setting to its heighest. Raising the enlarger head to its maximum height produces an image that measures over 14x21 inches. I’ll never make a print this size, but it’s nice to know that I can now crop an 8x10 or make an 11x14. I spent a lot time making sure that the film plane is parallel to the base. I got it to within 0.20 degree on the long side and 0.0 degree on the short side – much better than it was from the factory. At maximum height the top side of the image measures 21-1/2” and the bottom is 21-5/8”. I’ll have to use paper to shim it to perfection – it’s that close.
The final problem to resolve with the T-35 was the size of the base plate. My goodness, if anything about this enlarger is just a flat-out poor design, it’s the base. At 12x14 inches (12x10 working) it doesn’t provide enough surface area to place a combination paper frame (I use a 4-in-1 frame; 8x10 on one side and a combination 5x7, 3-1/2x5 and 2-1/2x3-1/2 on the other). When using the 3-way side on this small base I have to push down on a corner of the frame with one hand during focusing and exposure. The potential for misalignment is significant. I made thousands of photos this way – time to cut this crap out. I have all sorts of furniture quality plywood and solid woods around my house that I could use, but portability is not a requirement for this enlarger. So I elected to mount the enlarger tower directly to my 2’x10’ work table. Now I have an “infinite” (ok, 18” from the table edge to the tower shaft) amount of workspace for my 4-in-1 frame. Using all of the available workspace under the enlarger head as my base allows me to place the frame anywhere there is an image.
So what did my $40 ($25 for the lens, $10 for the shaft and $5 for hardware) investment get me? A very usable enlarger that makes as good a print as any other condenser enlarger (the dual lens condenser in this enlarger is actually quite good). It allows me to keep and make use of a piece of equipment that has significant sentimental value to me. For $40 I got to put into motion a plan that was thought about almost 40 years ago. I have Kodak and Ilford filters that are cut to fit the 2-7/8 tray, so I don’t have to replace those because of the purchase of a new enlarger. And because this enlarger uses a 75w “equipment” light bulb, it’s economical to keep operational. If it ever needs to become “portable”, I can simply screw it to a piece of 20x20 oak.
The moral of this story…there is none. I’m basically a cheap person and it makes me happy when I can take something and make it better.
