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

[Donald Miller]

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,

I'm afraid that I probably don't fit into your self designated consensus on this matter. I have printed with cold light (Aristo on Omega D2VXL)...more recently with a Saunders 4550 VCCE (diffusion) and still more recently with a Durst 138S (condenser). I use a densitometer (Xrite 300 TR) to arrive at the suitable negative density range to fit the papers that I use. I find a very distinct difference in prints from both types of light sources. The difference lies in the area of sharpness and local contrast. It is my strongly formed opinion that photographs exhibiting the greatest "presence" are those that exhibit the greatest local contrast...for it is that matter that contributes the greatest extent to the "glow" possible in a well exposed and well printed silver gelatin print.

I still own the Saunders enlarger (acknowledged by most to be a very good enlarger) but have not used it in over two years because it simply does not provide what I want in a print.

While this is addressing another thread that you have posted on "idiot proof prints" and I apologize to those that read this for comingling the two threads, I will address this matter under this thread since I think that it is not the large regions of light and dark tones that I understand you to describe as being most formative to prints with large or long lasting acceptance...it is the presence that is possible from a well printed print...at least from a technical standpoint...more important is the vision of the artist...To wit: does the photographer evidence the ability to produce distinctive and original work...not simply redundant copies of what has gone before?

I apologize for this lengthy and perhaps disjointed response...I am "out of pocket" at present...sitting in an internet cafe in Laoag City. The weather is cool...the streets are full of interesting photographic opportunities.

 

[Paul.]

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

Soren, My darkroon is olso in an insulated shed, I combat the damp by running a de-humidifier 24/7 This keeps every thing dry and except for the coldest of weather snug enough to not need additional heat.
Regards Paul.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I see a difference.

I used to swear by condenser enlargment. (That was when I only had a condenser enlarger!) Using the Beseler adaptor, I was easily able to adapt my D2V condensor head I'd been using to a Zone VI enlarger. But after trying diffusion for a while, I haven't used my diffusion head since.

 

[Donald Miller]

To expound on the differences a bit more. It would be a simple matter of matching negative density range to match the exposure scale of a given paper if that were all that were involved. Unfortunately that is not the case.

The collimation of light rays that occurs in a well designed condenser optical system makes the quality of light far different with a condenser than with a diffusion type light system. There is a marked increase in apparent sharpness and hence local contrast because the light passes through the negative perpendicularly with a condenser light source...whereas there is no way that this can occur with a diffusion/cold light head. There is no collimation of light rays in a diffusion light source and therefore the light can not pass through the negative purely perpendicularly. (It passes through the negative in a variety of oblique angles) This must by consequence affect print density demarcations and hence sharpness. With the deterioration of sharpness comes deterioration of local contrast. There is no way that this can not occur.

Not all condenser enlargers are equally well designed. Omega and Bessler have as much similarilty to a Devere and Durst condenser system as a Model T Ford does to a new Porsche Turbo Carrera.

I have spent a great deal of time studying the variances in light types as applies to photographic enlarging. There is a reason that some people choose diffusion light systems...first comes the parroting of what some long dead person said....next comes less spotting and control of process...not easy matters especially for those who are not inclined to strive for optimal results.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

I'm afraid that I probably don't fit into your self designated consensus on this matter. I have printed with cold light (Aristo on Omega D2VXL)...more recently with a Saunders 4550 VCCE (diffusion) and still more recently with a Durst 138S (condenser). I use a densitometer (Xrite 300 TR) to arrive at the suitable negative density range to fit the papers that I use. I find a very distinct difference in prints from both types of light sources. The difference lies in the area of sharpness and local contrast. It is my strongly formed opinion that photographs exhibiting the greatest "presence" are those that exhibit the greatest local contrast...for it is that matter that contributes the greatest extent to the "glow" possible in a well exposed and well printed silver gelatin print.

While this is addressing another thread that you have posted on "idiot proof prints" and I apologize to those that read this for comingling the two threads, I will address this matter under this thread since I think that it is not the large regions of light and dark tones that I understand you to describe as being most formative to prints with large or long lasting acceptance...it is the presence that is possible from a well printed print...at least from a technical standpoint...more important is the vision of the artist...To wit: does the photographer evidence the ability to produce distinctive and original work...not simply redundant copies of what has gone before?

Dear Donald,

I fully accept your point that there are other viewpoints, and I cheerfully accept that they are entirely valid; I was merely pointing out that of those who had responded before my post, all had taken the viewpoint I reported.

I'm slightly puzzled about your statement about the densitometer, because obviously the density range of the negative is a matter of the brightness range of the subject and the contrast to which the film is developed; only after this does the densitometer come in to it. Or did you mean you establish film speeds/development regimes with the densitometer, before shooting?

By 'local contrast' do you mean microcontrast (at boundaries), in which case I'd be disinclined to agree, or the distribution of tones, which is a lot closer to the sort of thing I had in mind?

As for your other point, 'presence' does not so much answer the question as restate it -- what is 'presence'? --and 'redundant copies' doesn't really say much either: I can think of a number of 'faux wilderness' photographers of the school of Ansel Adams whose work is endlessly repetitive from an aesthetic viewpoint, but still exquisitely presented.

I find your second post somewhat dismissive. Are you really saying that no printer who is proud of his work, or trying to obtain optimum results, would use diffuser light sources? If so, I do not think you will find many who agree with you. I know that users of point source condenser enlargers tend to hold very strong views, but I have yet to see that they are better photographers or make better prints, and I reiterate my point that condenser/diffuser enlargers (large source) are much closer to pure diffusers than to point source condenser enlargers.

Not trying to be combative: we're dealing with some very slippery concepts here.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Soeren,

I have a 1C and LPL dicro. If small format is all you enlarge, a 1C is small, fun, and effective. It produces a contrast balanced between a double condensor and dichro light source. The key is to develop negs to fit the entire image chain including paper selection. Diffused light hides dust but you can eliminate dust on any neg. If you print large and use slow paper, a condensor will shorten exposure times by 30% or more. With 5x7 inch enlargements, you may not see any meaningful difference between the two light sources with proper development of the negative.

 

[firecracker]

The real difference between the two systems is that it takes a real long time to do pre-flashing and trying to print at a higher contrast with a diffusion-head enlarger as far as I can tell based on my own experience. And the result is not always nearly as sharp as the one produced with a condenser-head type. Also, with a diffusion-head, I have to always stay with fresh Dektol 1:2 or something equivalent to keep the contrast high enough, but with a condenser-head, I can go slower on the dilusion of the developer such as 1:3, and sometimes I can even mix with used developer from the last session and still get a decent result, which is econimical and good.

The other thing I know is the image sizes, for 6x9" and bigger, dust spots and scraches on my negs will usually show on both types. For 5x7", which I hardly print, it really doesn't matter becasue it's too small to see the real difference anyway. So, I usually choose a diffusion-head for up to 6x9" and a condenser-head from 6x9" and going bigger.

Currently I have a Fuji FD690 (condenser), which I've been mainly using, very trusty, and a LPL6700VCCE(diffusion), a cheapo but still good enough.

 

[Neil Miller]

I have a condensor, cold-light and diffusion enlarger and I always thought I could see a marked difference in the quality of the prints made with each system. I once made duplicate prints on each enlarger (my negs are always on the dense side out of personal choice), matching each print as closely as I could, then showed them to others - who struggled to see the differences that were very plain to me. I suspect that those who could see them were humouring me.

While people were sorting through the prints, the order I had left them in got altered - I was blissfully unaware of this and still thought I could see the differences which I supposed were inherent in each system. Looking at the back of the prints (which I had marked) taught me a salutary lesson - the differences I had sworn I could see were largely fanciful.

After some years, I am no longer able to see the "differences" that once marked each print so clearly for me, and have to resort to turning them over to see what is written on the back to be totally sure. The differences are now marginal to my eyes.

These are just my personal experiences (NB: my eyes aren't the same and/or as well educated as another's) in a loosely-fashioned experiment. As they say, your mileage may vary!

Regards,
Neil.

OH - and BTW, years ago now, I could see the greater quality of the negatives produced with my newly acquired leica compared with those taken with my SLR. Haven't had the courage to test that one, yet!

 

[Lee Shively]

I've always used condenser enlargers. Over time, I've processed my negatives to print on condenser enlargers, preferring thinner and lower contrast negatives. When a friend of mine gave me an enlarger with a diffusion color head, I found it too frustrating to use. My entire experience and all my negatives were based on results from using a condenser-style enlarger. Rather than change my routine, I went back to using condenser enlargers.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

In the latest issue of Photo Techniques in kiosk, there's a "Photographic Myth" article about condenser v. diffuser. The conclusion seems to be that there is a difference in overall contrast, so that you need to tailor your development time for your enlarger, but that's about it.

 

[Neil Miller]

Michel - was there anything in the article about the 'glow' that a cold-light head is supposed to give prints? I got my cold-light enlarger hoping this would be so, but I can't put my hand on my heart and say that I seen it!

Regards,
Neil.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Michel - was there anything in the article about the 'glow' that a cold-light head is supposed to give prints? I got my cold-light enlarger hoping this would be so, but I can't put my hand on my heart and say that I seen it!

Regards,
Neil.

Nope, there was nothing about the magical glow of cold lights, and from my own experience, that doesn't seem to be real either. I do use a cold light, but when I made the comparison between the two systems, I didn't find enough difference for my taste. I use the cold light mainly because it's cold.

 

[Soeren]

Ah still going strong this thread is
Yes "the glow". I was wondering about that. Is it only about film, dev and taking lenses or will a diffusing enlarger help out here, too? In short are there more "Glow" in prints from a diffuser than those from a condenser?
Regards
Søren

 

[Lee Shively]

I have prints that "glow". Photos made with old lenses on old film printed on an old condenser enlarger long ago. I think Mike Johnston wrote an article about this in the UK "Black & White Photography" magazine a couple of years ago. He wrote a prescription for the "glow".

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I think we were in need of some good discussion about very fine points of dialectics in the philosophy of technical means (cf. the discussion on film testing that's going on). It's a good way to joust the recent anxieties about film

So, if you use a Leica lens with its magical glow, and print it on a cold light head that gives its own magical glow, will the two glows cancel each other or are they in phase, and your prints will freakin' glow in the dark?

 

[Donald Miller]

I think we were in need of some good discussion about very fine points of dialectics in the philosophy of technical means (cf. the discussion on film testing that's going on). It's a good way to joust the recent anxieties about film

So, if you use a Leica lens with its magical glow, and print it on a cold light head that gives its own magical glow, will the two glows cancel each other or are they in phase, and your prints will freakin' glow in the dark?

The effect is synergistic from what I have been told...but then again that depends on who you talk to. I have found that there are a number of factors involved with the subjective opinion on this matter. So far I have determined that income, years experience in the field (any field, it seems), the color of their automobile, the pedigree and sexiness of their wife and/or husband, and the scholastic of their children (from all marriages and illicit liasons) impact upon the reported results.

 

[Ray Heath]

The effect is synergistic from what I have been told...but then again that depends on who you talk to. I have found that there are a number of factors involved with the subjective opinion on this matter. So far I have determined that income, years experience in the field (any field, it seems), the color of their automobile, the pedigree and sexiness of their wife and/or husband, and the scholastic of their children (from all marriages and illicit liasons) impact upon the reported results.

oh yeh, oh yeh but but what about the zone out, or in system or something really technimilogical sounding, wouldn't that be needed as well also, i mean one doesn't just go and find good subject matter and make exposures, for christ's sake that's not how good photos is made, is it?

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have prints that "glow". Photos made with old lenses on old film printed on an old condenser enlarger long ago. I think Mike Johnston wrote an article about this in the UK "Black & White Photography" magazine a couple of years ago. He wrote a prescription for the "glow".

Dear Lee,

Are you sure it was Mike? 'Cos Frances Schultz did one in B+W about a year ago...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Lee Shively]

Roger--no, it was Johnston. I looked through the copies of the magazine I kept and it was in the December 2002 issue. I was a few years off in my estimate.

I wish I had seen Frances' article.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger--no, it was Johnston. I looked through the copies of the magazine I kept and it was in the December 2002 issue. I was a few years off in my estimate.

I wish I had seen Frances' article.

Dear Lee,

I don't know hiw old you are, but I find that the older I get, the more I find that 'a couple of years ago' is three. Or four, Or...

Damn! I never saw his article.

Cheers,

R.

 

[waynecrider]

There's a one page article in the Photo Techniques on the news stand right now about the differences in developing for condenser enlargers over diffusion enlargers. If it's available you might want to check it out.

 

[Eric Rose]

I usually get a glow going in the darkroom too, but it's more from good single malt scotch than magical lenses etc.

 

[firecracker]

What's the "glow", seriously? Now this thread is getting a little creepy. It sounds like a group therapy (I've been there before!) or something...

 

[Eric Rose]

What's the "glow", seriously? Now this thread is getting a little creepy. It sounds like a group therapy (I've been there before!) or something...

You don't know what the glow is because you haven't been taught the secret handshake yet. Once you have qualified, then we can tell you. Until then you have a better chance of finding out whether Senator Clinton wears a thong or not.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Until then you have a better chance of finding out whether Senator Clinton wears a thong or not.

Well, I wouldn't insult the dear girl by suggesting that just anybody would know, but surely...

Cheers,

R.