Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,567   Posts: 1,573,480   Online: 758
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,807
    Images
    60
    It is important to remember that most enlargers we consider to be "condenser" type are actually more of a hybrid type, as they tend to use bulbs with a diffusing envelope.

    A "point source" is needed to get the full effect of a light path that includes condensers.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    20
    I prefer good condenser enlargers. Callier effect is result of poor quality of some condenser lenses . The prints enlarged with poorly made condensers have always increased contrast with poor tonality.
    Enlarger with well made condenser lenses could produce prints with high sharpness and good tonality.

  3. #13
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,989
    Let's add hybrid light V35 focomat into account as well

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,069
    The answer is no, there is no difference in print vales made with a condenser and with a diffuser enlarger. This assumes that the negatives are developed to the proper Gamma needed for each type of enlarger. I refer everyone to Richard Henry's book Controls In Black And White Photography where he actually made tests concerning this question and presents a full discussion.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 06-25-2013 at 08:38 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  5. #15
    PeterB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    has slight under exposure, but developed with sufficient contrast, is the snap of a print produced on a condenser preferable to one produced on a diffuser.
    Condenser enlargers generally give higher contrast. If as you write your contrast in the neg is sufficient (i.e. 'normal' for your process) then you don't need more contrast than you normally would so using a condenser enlarger will not offer an advantage from that perspective.

    Unless you underexposed by more than 1-1.5 stops then you should not worry about compensating for any compression/reduction of the (local contrast) in the shadows. If OTOH you did under expose by too much then a condenser enlarger won't help you anyway.

  6. #16
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    The answer is no, there is no difference in print vales made with a condenser and with a diffuser enlarger. This assumes that the negatives are developed to the proper Gamma needed for each type of enlarger. I refer everyone to Richard Henry's book Controls In Black And White Photography where he actually made tests concerning this question and presents a full discussion.
    So is the snap quality I mention merely a figment of my imagination? Perhaps in my OP I should also have mentioned that the preference I refer to is probably limited to smaller print sizes, up to about 20" x16".

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  7. #17
    PeterB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    So is the snap quality I mention merely a figment of my imagination? Perhaps in my OP I should also have mentioned that the preference I refer to is probably limited to smaller print sizes, up to about 20" x16".
    I nearly made a note of this in my last reply but it is possible you are using the word 'snap' to describe the higher contrast the condenser enlarger will give you for the same negative printed in both a diffuser and a condenser enlarger. If this is the case then try developing your negs for 10% longer than usual and printing in the diffuser enlarger, or alternatively if using MG paper, use a higher grade filter in the diffuser enlarger.

  8. #18
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    The answer is no, there is no difference in print vales made with a condenser and with a diffuser enlarger. This assumes that the negatives are developed to the proper Gamma needed for each type of enlarger. I refer everyone to Richard Henry's book Controls In Black And White Photography where he actually made tests concerning this question and presents a full discussion.
    Hi Gerald,

    I remember you told me something similar in one thread about focomat V35 and condenser enlarger. I need higher gamma for V35. So example:

    if I develop Trix in Rodinal 1+25 for 10 minutes at 20C with 30s start agitation and later 3 inversions every half minute - and with this film prints on condenser enlarger on grade 2 paper I like: what should be my starting point in developing TriX for v35 Focomat?

    thanks,

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,069
    I don't believe that "snap" is a recognized or measureable scientific term. Often one's preconceived ideas influence what one sees. I mentioned Mr Henry's book to avoid a long and drawn out thread based solely on conjecture. Since he made many careful and well thought out tests I will take his word over anyone else's.

    I highly recommend this book as it refutes with actual data the many misconceptions that people have about photography.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,069
    Here is the Kodak site which shows graphs of the Contrast Index (similar to Gamma) for Tri-X. While it is for Kodak developers you should be able to easily figure the time for other developesr like Rodinal since the slopes on the graph are very similar to one another. The usual values for Gamma are 0.5 to 0.55 for condenser enlargers and 0.65 for diffusion ones.

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4017/f4017.pdf
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 06-25-2013 at 10:20 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin