The Answer
Murray,
Yesterday I went back and reprinted the same negative at the same settings as I'd used before on Ilford Multigrade VC and Kodak Polymax VC (I forgot to mention that I tested Polymax as well--six papers in all). These are the same envelopes of paper I used originally and I'd written down my settings carefully for the original test. I don't think there are any possible variables other than the new transformer.
The results startled me--I was expecting the new prints to look the same. Prints made on both papers were much less contrasty than before. In short, my answer to your question would be that with the new transformer the soft light is more powerful than before.
So, I'd also have to say that my results on Zone VI Brilliant VC (when I tested it said and said it was less contrasty and better suited to the light) didn't have anything to do with the paper, but the repaired light. I should also note that neither of the tubes were replaced--Calumet didn't even open the head itself.
I don't know exactly what the exposure lengths are since the Zone VI compenating timer doesn't use a standard unit of time, and varies the units according to the intensity of the light as measured by the sensor in the head. But this variability does answer the question that first crossed my mind after doing the test yesterday: Why, if the hard light setting is the same as before, does the print have less contrast? Then it occurred to me that increased intensity of the soft tube would result in shorter units and less dominance of the hard light--hence less contrast overall. If the soft light is weak--as it was before--the unit will be longer and the hard light will provide more of the total exposure, resulting in a contrastier print.
I glad there's apparently better balance between the two lights with this new transformer. I don't know if Calumet is necessarily aware of this. Harkening back to an earlier post, when I mentioned the imbalance between the two tubes I was told nothing could be done about it.
I still find this light source a trial to print with, though. With the compensating timer I find that as the light gets warmer, the intervals gets shorter and the timer doesn't compensate as well as it should. Early in a printing session, when I make a print at a time and develop them, the time between prints is about the same. I usually run the light once before printing to heat it up a little and then make the exposure, with any additional exposures for "burning." When I get to a point when I have the exposures down and then I want to make multiple prints and develop them together, the lightsource warms up, the intervals get much shorter and successive prints are lighter than the first. I start to wonder if I was completely foolish to buy such a lightsource--and it gets me back to my original question about the LED version for this enlarger. I thought if I could get a light for this enlarger that was rock solid and repeatable, I could be much more productive. I guess maybe Calumet has run into problems with that too. Thanks for lending an ear. If anyone has recommendations for taming the inconsistency of this light when it heats up, I'd be interested.
Best,
John
P.S. I was hoping that mention of actually testing six papers rather than five might garner me more gold stars, but three should be a sufficient measure of my "heroic" efforts. I appreciate the recognition!
) and that it was just a transformer problem with the soft light. I think I'm having the same problem as I have to use a CC40Y filter below the light to get my normal negatives to print with normal contrast with the lights contrast controls at equal settings.