Visual differences in print, Condenser vs Difuser (Stupid Q warning)

[Soeren]

Hi all
Im trying to get back on the horse and build a darkroom for printing. When I closed down I gave my enlarger(s) away. They where Opemuses with condenser heads. Now I have been given a Durst AC 707 Autocolor. This is ofcource a diffuser and I know the basics about the differences. BUT, how does it show in prints ( I know, TRY IT STUPID. But Im not able yet)
Will I have to adjust development?
How about grain? Will they be mushy?
Will a certain dev/film combo suit diffuser better and another suit condenser better? NB!!! I am not after XX/YY answer but more generel guidelines.
Hmm This probably need more explaining to pinpoint what I exactly want to know.
Cheers
Søren

 

[George Papantoniou]

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi all
Im trying to get back on the horse and build a darkroom for printing. When I closed down I gave my enlarger(s) away. They where Opemuses with condenser heads. Now I have been given a Durst AC 707 Autocolor. This is ofcource a diffuser and I know the basics about the differences. BUT, how does it show in prints ( I know, TRY IT STUPID. But Im not able yet)
Will I have to adjust development?
How about grain? Will they be mushy?
Will a certain dev/film combo suit diffuser better and another suit condenser better? NB!!! I am not after XX/YY answer but more generel guidelines.
Hmm This probably need more explaining to pinpoint what I exactly want to know.
Cheers
Søren

Dear Soeren,

You'll need to increase development OR use harder paper; grain will be suppressed but sharpness will also be reduced; so will scratches; no, they needn't look muddy or mushy; dev + film combos are so much a matter of personal choice that this part of the question borders on meaningless (which is not the same as stupid -- it just means that you'll get a ot of widely differing answers, which can still tell you something). My own view is that by adjusting development times you should be just as happy with the same combo as before but there will be others who disagree.

If I recall aright, the Opemus is not a point-source condenser enlarger but rather a condenser/diffuser with an opal bulb, and the differences between a condenser/diffuser and a pure diffuser are often overstated. The differences between point-source condenser enlargers and pure diffusers are MUCH bigger.

Cheers,

.

 

[Soeren]

Dear Roger
The point in last Q was rather, Is there a point in using a true finegrain developer or a high acutance developer that enhances grain
It's this point of "masking scratches and grainstructure" that puzless me.
As I recall your Magnifaxes are equiped with MG heads, right?
Would you (or rather Frances) choose those to make prints where grain is an important feature of the image?
Kind regards
Søren

 

[ooze]

I've been using a Meopta Opemus 6 with the Meograde diffuse head for a fairly long time and recently acquired a Focomat 1C, with the regular condenser head. On both I use high quality, 6 element enlarging lenses.
Having printed quite a few negatives on both enlargers, I can say that one can easily make identical looking prints from them. Enlargements of the same negative on 30x40cm paper can be made to look very very close and I can't see any difference in terms of grain appearance.

However, there are a few differences:
- The condenser requires one grade contrast reduction. I'm usually around grade 3 with the diffuser and grade 2 with the condenser.
- Scratches+dust spots are a lot more apparent on the condenser prints, which require more spotting work.
- The condenser prints may require a bit more work around the highlights. The diffuser tends to pull in highlights slightly better. But this is all a matter of getting to know your equipment. If you have a condenser, over time you will learn what you need to do with the highlights.

If I had to choose one enlarger type, I would chose a diffuser only because they show less scratches/dust.

 

[catem]

I use a Durst M605 Classic (up to 6 x 7) after using only condenser enlargers. I find like the previous poster I can get prints to look like previous prints without difficulty. I do tend to use split-grade printing as a matter of course. I've got into the habit of it and it gives great fine tuning for contrast, and means I don't have a difference in approach with the diffuser.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

If you develope the film to get proper contrast for either on the same paper, the prints are so close you have to have them side by side to tell which is which.

The condenser will have slightly more apparent grain and more contrast in the shadows. The diffuser will have better separation in the highlights.

Diffusers do not hide dirt and require less spotting. If they did, the images would be less sharp and they are not, although they appear to have less edge contrast ( just a bit- remember what I said at the beginning).

you will need top quality lenses on both to see these effects, my choice being Leica. I have done this more times than I remember with different films and it always turns out the same.

Printing a single neg on 2 grade condenser and 3 grade diffusion yield different results. You must use properly developed negs for both, same subject, same time , same roll, same developer, just changing the time.

 

[Soeren]

So all in all these effects is subtle and overrated?
Cheers
Søren

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

So all in all these effects is subtle and overrated?
Cheers
Søren

Yes. I have an old Vivitar condenser enlarger and a Zone VI cold light head for it, which is of course a diffusion source. I have once made a side-by-side comparison of the condenser vs. diffusion print using 35mm negative (400TX in XTOL) and graded paper (Nuance Normal) using the excellent El-Nikkor 50mm f2.8

There are differences. I could extract about 1/3-1/2 grade more contrast by using the condenser. But if I gave you one print, and then the other, I'm not sure you could readily identify which is which, unless you know exactly what to look for.

I have read Fred Picker's "The Fine Print" in which he shows side by side a condenser vs. diffusion print. The difference is clear, but I think it's mostly because he uses the same negative, developed for the diffusion head, so that highlights are obviously blown out on the condenser one. But then, in my case, using the same negative did not result in the massive difference exhibited by Picker.

I don't know if the effects are more visible when using a larger format because I can't print bigger than 35mm with the cold light.

The other thing is that using modern products might perhaps lessen the differences than it used to.

I would not lose too much sleep on it. Just print, see, and then if it's not satisfactory you know at least what to do. Otherwise, if it's not broken...

 

[Roger Hicks]

So all in all these effects is subtle and overrated?
Cheers
Søren

Dear Soeren,

Yes. I've answered this question rather than the other one because a LOT more depends on the printer/lens/materials than diffuser-condenser vs. pure diffuser. As I say, true point-source condenser is another matter but you have to be a bit obsessive to use one.

Actually, it doesn't take long to answer the other one. We have (had? I don't know where it is) a condenser head somewhere but we NEVER use it. The differences are too small to bother with and the dial-in filtration on the MG heads is wonderful.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Eric Rose]

In my darkroom I have two 4x5 enlargers. One condenser and one diffusion. When I am looking at creating an image part of the mental process in the pre-visualization is to determine which type of light source will give me the results I want. I then expose the neg and develop accordingly. Obviously a neg exposed and developed for the diffusion enlarger will not print effectively in the condenser enlarger and vis-a-versa. It's all part of the creative process. Each type of light source has it's own distinctive look which can be factored into the final fine print.

Some have noted the difference is subtle. It probably is for them if they are not exposing and processing their negatives to match the system.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Some have noted the difference is subtle. It probably is for them if they are not exposing and processing their negatives to match the system.

I think perhaps the consensus among those who have taken this stance (including myself) is that it IS subtle if you are exposing and processing to match the system; it's only obvious if you don't.

Alternatively, you can accentuate the differences by exposing and developing for the two systems.

In fact, on checking back through the thread, I find it's not so much 'some' as 'all' who have said something to this effect.

Several of us have and can use both diffusion and condenser heads and apparently do not see as much difference as you do -- though of course, there are wide variations of sensitivity to a given phenomenon, e.g. grain, bokeh, tonality...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Some have noted the difference is subtle. It probably is for them if they are not exposing and processing their negatives to match the system.

I have found that the more subtle differences of the printing process are visible only to the printer herself or to the discerning public. Usually, the printer is the only person who knows whether the exposure is maximizing the capabilities of the materials because she has compared all the different settings and variations.

But I still think that the general public can see the overall difference between a photo printed with all the minute care and one printed with only basic attention to details. A non-technical person could not say that the developer needed 1.3g of sodium sulfite, or that the paper should have been processed in a glycin developer, but when all these details are taken care of, a photo will feel more "right" than when it's not.

So in my opinion, the condenser v. diffuser difference is not of the order of switching between B&W or color, it's more a question of working within narrow tolerances to make a product that fulfills one's vision. I'm not there yet, so I stick to what I know and what I can do, and I know also that I couldn't tell whether something was printed on either, unless it's badly done.

 

[Eric Rose]

Several of us have and can use both diffusion and condenser heads and apparently do not see as much difference as you do -- though of course, there are wide variations of sensitivity to a given phenomenon, e.g. grain, bokeh, tonality...

Cheers,

R.

Your right of course, the difference can be as great or as little as you want it to be depending on the circumstances and the overall feeling you want to impart on the image. That's all part of the creative process. It's just a tool that a skilled photographer can use to their advantage. The difference between a stunning print and a just "ok" print is very little. The masters, of which I don't consider myself one, have learned to utilize all the tools at their disposal to achieve the glowing impactful prints they create.

 

[Eric Rose]

So in my opinion, the condenser v. diffuser difference is not of the order of switching between B&W or color, it's more a question of working within narrow tolerances to make a product that fulfills one's vision. I'm not there yet, so I stick to what I know and what I can do, and I know also that I couldn't tell whether something was printed on either, unless it's badly done.

Exactly. It should not be obvious which system is used, just that it "worked".

 

[Roger Hicks]

The masters, of which I don't consider myself one, have learned to utilize all the tools at their disposal to achieve the glowing impactful prints they create.

Dear Eric,

A large part of this must surely be a form of Darwinian selection; we only see their very best prints, partly because that's what they show us, and partly (with the really big names) because those are the ones that come to market for very large sums. I have surprisingly often been a good deal less impressed than I expected when I have seen original 'great' prints by 'great' photographers.

I also believe that an enormous part of their impact is completely independent of the print quality, e.g. a lot of AA's stuff looks stunning even in photomechanical repro.

For some time I've been trying to analyze what makes a picture 'bulletproof', i.e. able to survive even being printed in a newspaper. I think it's just (just!) the interplay of quite large areas of light and dark, with astonishingly little owed to tonality, but I'm still thinking about it. A lot of Bill Brandt's work is in this category, as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Paul Howell]

I agree with Rodger, for me Film and Paper have more impact on a print than does a light source. The only light source that seems to make a very noticable differnce is point source which I use for my 35mm from the 60s which were intended to look very harsh. I tend to favor cold light for 4X5 and condenser for 35mm and 6X6. 6X9 it just depends on the negative. But as Rodger has pointed out the differnces are very slight and unless you had 2 prints side by side would not notice.

 

[Allen Friday]

Dear Eric,


For some time I've been trying to analyze what makes a picture 'bulletproof', i.e. able to survive even being printed in a newspaper. I think it's just (just!) the interplay of quite large areas of light and dark, with astonishingly little owed to tonality, but I'm still thinking about it. A lot of Bill Brandt's work is in this category, as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

Could you explain this further? I have to wonder why it matters all that much that a fine art photography should look good in a newspaper. It seems that you are using the lowest common denomenator as your standard, instead o the highest.

I am reminded of the first time I visited the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam. I had seen reproductions of the work in text books and art books, and never really cared for them. When I saw the paintings, I was blown away. Was Van Gogh a failure because his paintings don't reproduce well?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

Could you explain this further? I have to wonder why it matters all that much that a fine art photography should look good in a newspaper. It seems that you are using the lowest common denomenator as your standard, instead o the highest.

I am reminded of the first time I visited the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam. I had seen reproductions of the work in text books and art books, and never really cared for them. When I saw the paintings, I was blown away. Was Van Gogh a failure because his paintings don't reproduce well?

Dear Allen,

Yes, I am using the lowest common denominator, simply because it fascinates me that some pictures can survive this. I fear I did not make myself clear: I'd not suggest for an instant that this is a measure of greatness; there are countless great picture that don't survive even good repro, let alone bad repro. But what is it that enables SOME pics to stand up to this?

Cheers,

R.

 

[PatTrent]

I think perhaps the consensus among those who have taken this stance (including myself) is that it IS subtle if you are exposing and processing to match the system; it's only obvious if you don't.

Alternatively, you can accentuate the differences by exposing and developing for the two systems.

In fact, on checking back through the thread, I find it's not so much 'some' as 'all' who have said something to this effect.

Several of us have and can use both diffusion and condenser heads and apparently do not see as much difference as you do -- though of course, there are wide variations of sensitivity to a given phenomenon, e.g. grain, bokeh, tonality...

Cheers,

R.

Roger - Do you think the slight difference is due to the popularity of VC paper?
Pat

 

[Soeren]

Thanks for all your replies, they are comforting (if one can say that)
Another think. The darkroom will be located in a shed and though its gonna be insulated and we are facing global warming I suspect the "cold" and wet winters here in DK won't do the equipment any good. Any susgestions.
Cheers
Søren

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger - Do you think the slight difference is due to the popularity of VC paper?
Pat

Dear Pat,

I don't think so, but it's hard to be sure.

My own belief (after adhering to graded until the 1990s) is that with the exception of a few specialist papers, VC overtook graded well before I made the change. I am by nature a 'late adopter' -- though both my 1972 Land Rover and 1978 BMW now have electronic ignition...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Soeren]

>SNIP
I am by nature a 'late adopter' -- though both my 1972 Land Rover and 1978 BMW now have electronic ignition...

Cheers,

R.

??? Even though that hasn't proven to be reliable yet??? Thats quick
Cheers
Søren

 

[Steve Smith]

??? Even though that hasn't proven to be reliable yet??? Thats quick

I think Roger is become a techno geek. He'll be replacing his door knocker with one of those new electric door bells soon!

Steve.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think Roger is become a techno geek. He'll be replacing his door knocker with one of those new electric door bells soon!

Steve.

Dear Steve

Believe it or not, I've used cordless radio doorbells for 7+ years. A combination of big houses and poor hearing means that they have proved very useful. Mind you, in my last house, the previous owner had wrecked the proper, bell-crank-operated, wire-driven door bell...

When adopting anything new it's always a question of trying to guess which will (a) work better and (b) annoy me less.

Cheers,

R.