Returning to wet printing, have a few quesions. Omega B-8, under lens filters, paper..

[phreon]

Hi,

I haven't produced a wet print in 12-15 years. Much has changed over the years including paper availability, my preferred format, enlarger I intend to use, chemistry, etc. I'd very much appreciate feedback from you fine folks as I resurrect darkroom.

• I have a Vivitar E34 and Durst M601 with dichro head, but neither can cover larger than 6x6. I inherited my friend's, mentor's super clean Omega B-8 that includes 6x6, 6x7 and 6x7 carriers - convenient since I'm using my C330, RB67 and a Moskva IV (6x9) folder for film photography these days. I know there were supplemental condenser lenses for these, but the manual is unobtanium; are they necessary for 6x6 - 6x9 coverage? Sadly, the f4.5, 90mm Ektar he made razor sharp prints with developed fungus. I've performed a poor man's test with my 80mm f4 and 105mm f5.6 Rodagons on 2" cones by racking the head up to about 11x11 (6x6, 80mm) and 11x17-ish (6x9, 105mm) sizes respectively and measuring the center and far corner projected on white paper with my Mintolta spotmeter - I'm measuring a maximum 0.2 EV variance from center to corner, which seems inconsequential to me. Would you consider this to be a reasonable test and results?
• In the past, I used both VC and graded paper, but preferred graded. Graded paper isn't as common anymore, so I'll grab a box of Ilford MG IV to start with. Is Oriental Seagull still viable? Foma paper worth a try? Any other brands worth checking out? I'm open to suggestions. I primarily used Kodak paper back in the day. It seems pointless to say, but I prefer jet blacks and bright whites with well separated mid-tones. I'm developing my film in Rodinal or HC-110, dilutions and technique to suit the subject/contrast.
  
• Since the B-8 has no filter drawers, I'll be using a below the lens set-up. I'm not going to argue the relative merits, but suffice to say I had no problem with below the lens filters and neither did Ctein per tests he performed. However, some lunk-head (me) managed to get fingerprints on some of the filters. How would you suggest cleaning these w/o risking scratching them?
• Dektol was my preferred print developer, but I've moved away from powdered chemistry. Is there a quality liquid equivalent available you trust?
  
  Thanks

 

[MattKing]

If you haven't seen it, KHB is your friend: http://www.khbphotografix.com/omega/Enlargers/B8.htm
They have a reprint of the manual for sale.
Oriental Seagull has gone through changes, and is most likely manufactured by Harman (Ilford).
Ilford MGIV has been replaced by Classic.
The Ilford multigrade filters should be replaced every few years because they fade. They aren't cleanable.
My preference for liquid print developers is my favourite print developer - Kodak Polymax T. I'm not sure about its current availability, as there is a lot of current disruption in the supply of Kodak black and white chemistry.

 

[Alan9940]

You will find that the graded papers of today aren't what you remember from the past. Forget Oriental, IMO. I've tried it and it ain't even close to the old Seagull. Foma Fomabrom and Ilford Ilfobrom Galerie are about the only available graded papers left. Both are good papers, but be ready to tame the contrast, if you don't want/need a higher contrast look. I used gallons and gallons of Dektol back in the day, but nowadays I mix my own paper developers or will use Ilford PQ Universal. I would recommend staying with multigrade papers; try a few small packs and see which you like.

 

[ic-racer]

6x9 CM coverage in enlargers sometimes comes in the form of a 4x5" enlarger.
Modern Multigrade papers are excellent. I use them exclusively for my fine prints.
I don't like powder. I used Ilford MG paper developer, but the bottle still goes bad after you open it, even if you don't use it, so I went back to Dektol.
Currently I'm splitting Dektol bags in half and vacuum sealing the remaining. This is an experiment and I'm not recommending it, though I'm doing it.

All enlarging lenses have light falloff, so, you will have to deal with it even if you own a 8x10 Durst CLS with the finest lenses.

 

[DWThomas]

Since the B-8 has no filter drawers

Hmmm -- mine does?! There's a slide at the bottom of the lamphouse with a curved front and a little red knob on it. It takes the Ilford 3x3 filters with a little snip off each corner. This is with the simple incandescent bulb lamphouse, I suppose there may have been some alternates over the years.

I don't have the manual handy (it's in a "safe" place! ) but from memory the setup without any supplemental condenser is for the 6x9, there's a thin one for 6x6 and a thicker (shorter focal length) for 35mm. One would have to check how even the illumination is, but I suspect one could operate without the supplementals, just getting a little lower light output on the smaller formats. My experience has been that even with the 75W PH111 lamp there is plenty of light. I use a 2-stop ND filter when making small prints to avoid times too short to dodge a print!

I have not delved into it too deeply, but "6x9" is a loose descriptor. Apparently the "9" dimension can range from about 82 to 87 mm. The frames from my Ercona II are toward the wide extreme, and I did experience some light fall-off at the corners in the B-8. It's excellent on 6x6 and presumably great on 6x7. For normal work I use an 80mm and the thin supplemental for 6x6, 105mm for 6x9, and 50mm and thick supplemental for 35mm.

 

[phreon]

Hmmm -- mine does?! There's a slide at the bottom of the lamphouse with a curved front and a little red knob on it. It takes the Ilford 3x3 filters with a little snip off each corner. This is with the simple incandescent bulb lamphouse, I suppose there may have been some alternates over the years.

I don't have the manual handy (it's in a "safe" place! ) but from memory the setup without any supplemental condenser is for the 6x9, there's a thin one for 6x6 and a thicker (shorter focal length) for 35mm. One would have to check how even the illumination is, but I suspect one could operate without the supplementals, just getting a little lower light output on the smaller formats. My experience has been that even with the 75W PH111 lamp there is plenty of light. I use a 2-stop ND filter when making small prints to avoid times too short to dodge a print!

I have not delved into it too deeply, but "6x9" is a loose descriptor. Apparently the "9" dimension can range from about 82 to 87 mm. The frames from my Ercona II are toward the wide extreme, and I did experience some light fall-off at the corners in the B-8. It's excellent on 6x6 and presumably great on 6x7. For normal work I use an 80mm and the thin supplemental for 6x6, 105mm for 6x9, and 50mm and thick supplemental for 35mm.

What length cone is your 80mm mounted in?

The filter drawer was optional early on and became standard later in the B-8's production run. Mine is apparently an early one; I seem to remember being told it was purchased in the mid 50's. I'm the 2nd owner. I inherited everything, the entire darkroom including a perfect drum ferrotyper (needs new muslin and a cord), his prints and negatives. The prints I have were made on this enlarger with the 90mm Ektar mounted in a 2" cone. I see no fall-off and they're "holy crap" sharp. His primary camera was a Retina. Lovely equipment I wish I would have come into ownership of in a different way.

I've stuffed a few of my 6x9s in it with the 105 mounted and from what one can tell with my grain focuser, they're sharp at all 4 corners. Oddly, the falloff seems worse with the 80mm and 6x6 holder than 105 and 6x9 holder, but measuring reflected, projected light with a spotmeter seems a little sketchy. I have 2 cones, but they're both 2" I suppose the real proof is just making prints.

Thanks,

 

[phreon]

I dug up my copy of "Post Exposure". I'll read through it before burning through paper, chemistry. It has been a long time...

 

[DWThomas]

What length cone is your 80mm mounted in?

My 80mm is mounted on a 1.5 inch cone. I purchased my B-8 through ePrey and picked it up from a guy in NY state. As I received it, it was outfitted for 35mm, with an EL Nikkor 6 element (the better one) and the thick supplemental condenser. After months of trolling ePrey looking for "official" cones, I ended up fabricating a 1.5 inch and a two inch using rolled copper flashing and copper-clad glass-epoxy circuit board material. Soldered them all together and spray painted them flat black.They look like a top hat with two keyhole slots in the brim and replace a flat disk that holds the 50. (there's a hole in the top of the top hat to mount the lens with a threaded lock ring.)

(When I just now went down to the darkroom, I found the 2" cone and 105mm mounted on a spacer, on a plate with a larger diameter 2 or 2.5 inch "cone" which I don't even remember buying, let alone when! Guess I need to poke around some more!) What little enlarging I do is about 97% 6x6, and most of what's left is 35mm.

You've got me thinking here -- the filter drawer in mine is a stamped sheet metal frame with a second frame to lay over it to hold the gel filter flat. I should put one of my Ercoona negs in the machine without the filter drawer and see if perhaps the drawer frame is nipping the width a little. Enh -- mayhaps when I trim a quarter mile off the current do-list!

 

[Dan0001]

For 6 X 9 negs it is not necessary to have a supplemental condenser...You may be able to get away with no supplemental condenser for 6X6. 35mm must have the thick supplemental though. Here is a copy of the IM.

 

[DWThomas]

Here is a copy of the IM.

Thanks! I know there's one around here "somewhere," but this I can keep in my at least slightly more organized computer file system.

 

[phreon]

For 6 X 9 negs it is not necessary to have a supplemental condenser...You may be able to get away with no supplemental condenser for 6X6. 35mm must have the thick supplemental though. Here is a copy of the IM.

Thanks for the manual! Interesting it mentions using filter gels by just sticking them on top of the heat absorbing glass. I suppose it would work, but would be a pain w/o the drawer/door on the front.
My B-8 has the supplemental IR/heat filter, which honestly, seems completely useless given how cool this enlarger runs. I had considered stacking a section of frosted/opal glass on the absorber glass to further diffuse the bulb. The B-8 is indeed a condenser enlarger, but with the PH111 opal bulb, it's sort of a semi-hybrid.

Also, it kind of blows my mind they came up with the interchangeable cones. Had they just installed longer bellows with a longer throw focusing mechanism, there'd be no need for different cones.


Thanks,

 

[Dan0001]

I wanted to include my whole write-up on the B-8 but for some reason Photrio won't let me include the whole file. Here is a a portion about the supplemental lens:



1. Use of Supplemental condensers, 3 inches in diameter. The use of these condensers is for more even light distribution:

a. For 35mm (for 50mm lens) with flat lensboard the thicker supplemental condenser, 13/16” thick, is inserted at top of condenser set on the inner rim, flat side up, after lamphouse is removed. There is a small section of the condenser squared off that assists in removal with a popsicle stick.

b. For 2 ¼”X 2 ¼” (75/80mm lens) with 1 ½” cone the thinner supplemental condenser, 5/8” thick, is likewise placed above the standard condensers flat side up on the inner top rim after lamphouse is removed. Removal is same as above.

c. For 2 ¼” X 3 ¼” (90/100mm lens) with 2”cone, there is no need of supplemental condensers.

d. When switching formats always remember whether the supplemental condenser should be remove or not.

 

[phreon]

I wanted to include my whole write-up on the B-8 but for some reason Photrio won't let me include the whole file. Here is a a portion about the supplemental lens:





b. For 2 ¼”X 2 ¼” (75/80mm lens) with 1 ½” cone the thinner supplemental condenser, 5/8” thick, is likewise placed above the standard condensers flat side up on the inner top rim after lamphouse is removed. Removal is same as above.
t.

I have no supplemental thin condenser and these are incredibly difficult to come by at a sane price. The previous owner used a 90mm on 2" cone for every print he ever made. The 1.5" would be better with my 80mm, but I can still achieve focus using a 2" at all magnifications.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've used the B series and have a D3, what I like about Bessler is that they use a double bellows, no cones or swapping out condensers. My D3 allows me stack VC filters on the condenser, sometimes I think an under the lens filter set might work better if split printing. In terms of paper, I use Ultrafine and B&H Multitone RC papers for working prints and Foma FB graded papers for final prints. Only grades left 2 and 3, normal and hard. My current developer is Clayton P20 a liquid developer I mix 1:7. When printing a few prints I use a motor base and print drum, for long print sessions trays. Clayton is pretty close to Dektol, short lived, an open bottle will only last a few months. I use a bag of glass pebbles to bring the level of the remaining developer close the bottle mouth, then use a wine vacuum device to remove the reaming air gives me a little more time.

 

[Paul Howell]

I misspoke, Foma makes grade 3 and 4, making grade 2 is wishful thinking on my part.