Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,219   Posts: 1,532,234   Online: 832
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    20
    I enlarge with 9 different enlargers and my conclusion is, that difference in print quality can be seen between condenser and diffuser enlargers. Maybe this is not recognized or measureable scientific statement, but result of my enlarger tests and my capability of seeing. I am trained as artist, not scientist.I also believe that photography is not only scientific term.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,606
    But differences may arise across your group of 9 enlargers due to a variety of variables including alignment, focus, lens, negative, negative flatness, contrast/filtration, print processing, safelights, print viewing conditions etc.

    You also need to define exactly what it is you mean by quality in the first place.

    If someone perhaps less experienced reads the thread, how can he/she come to meaningful conclusions without knowing how the tests were done and how the results were evaluated? What if someone else fails to see what you see? Who is correct?

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,066
    One other argument for "diffusion" or Cold Light enlargers is that they call for a negative with a more expanded range, which also enhances separation between intermediate values, or tones in the mid ranges. The reduction in the "callier" effect (no relation!!) is most present in the highlight, or more dense portions of the neg, so separation in the mid tones is seen to be enhanced by the cold light system. I am stating this passively, because, as posted above, I am neither a scientist, and have made only one comparison, a very long range indoor architecture shot (4x5) with direct sunlight on a wall, which was the first image I ever printed with the cold light. I acheived a quality of separation and total range not possible with my condenser enlarger, at least not at the time (1980 or so). With the added benefits of less dust (and other surface defects in a negative) reproduction, lower tremperature (no neg buckling), absolute evenness of illumination across the entire frame, and no need for alternate condensor arrangements for different neg sizes, I never used the condensor system again.
    Fred was not the only proponent of cold lights, Ansel Adams being one of the early ones, and plenty of others over the years.
    As kobaltus states, I feel that there is a difference, for me especially in the mid to low values, a better kind of tonal separation. In my mind, I'm thinking that this may be due to the expanded range in the neg, although, it could be argued that most of the expansion from normal HQ developers is in the upper ranges, not the lower.
    Who knows?

  4. #24
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,240
    Images
    60
    I would be willing to bet that an extensive test of a variety of current papers and available enlarger light sources would show that certain papers behave more favourably with certain light sources.

    You know, those "curve" things that a few of us on APUG seem fascinated by.
    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

  5. #25
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,191
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    But differences may arise across your group of 9 enlargers due to a variety of variables including alignment, focus, lens, negative, negative flatness, contrast/filtration, print processing, safelights, print viewing conditions etc.

    You also need to define exactly what it is you mean by quality in the first place.

    If someone perhaps less experienced reads the thread, how can he/she come to meaningful conclusions without knowing how the tests were done and how the results were evaluated? What if someone else fails to see what you see? Who is correct?
    Michael, as you correctly point out the variations across even 2 enlargers is enormous and this snap I mention is not just about a contrast difference as mentioned in other posts. I have printed the same negative on a condenser and diffuser and after adjusting for the reduced contrast on the diffuser I produced two prints from which I could discern no difference. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that given a negative ideally exposed and developed for a condenser against a negative ideally exposed and developed for a diffuser, the one produced on a condenser below a certain physical size exhibits a sort of snap quality not shown on the diffuser version. I know this is very unscientific, but it is something I have observed over many years.

    “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

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    700
    Well,
    I was hating how some of my V35 prints were looking. A hard to describe flatness. I fixed my problem by storing the V35 and using my Focomat Ic instead.

  7. #27
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,193
    Images
    46
    Just checked Ctein Post Exposure, page 69, figures 6-14, 6-15 and 6-16 illustrate that he tested and graphed the different curves that correspond to Condenser vs. Diffusion enlarger - after matching the prints for contrast.

    It corroborates what Cliveh has been saying: The highlights have more contrast in a Condenser - even when the prints are contrast-matched.

    Ctein complains that Callier didn't study photographic materials so it can't rightly be called the Callier effect. So we need a new name, I vote to call it the Collier effect and say George came up with it.

  8. #28
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,191
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    Just checked Ctein Post Exposure, page 69, figures 6-14, 6-15 and 6-16 illustrate that he tested and graphed the different curves that correspond to Condenser vs. Diffusion enlarger - after matching the prints for contrast.

    It corroborates what Cliveh has been saying: The highlights have more contrast in a Condenser - even when the prints are contrast-matched.

    Ctein complains that Callier didn't study photographic materials so it can't rightly be called the Callier effect. So we need a new name, I vote to call it the Collier effect and say George came up with it.
    Thanks Bill.

    “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

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,562
    A lot of the arguments in print are academic, and in most cases of limited value simply because they make reference to materials which are now
    seldom used. VC papers for one thing are a lot more common than graded options. There is a much bigger choice in developers, and many of the
    special ones like pyro (of all flavors) are quite commonplace. Most of the rules of the game have changed. For a handful of people, this might
    still be an worthwhile distinction...

  10. #30
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,191
    Images
    343
    Please note that in my OP I am not trying to say that either diffuser or condenser are better, but just that I notice this difference for a condenser over a limited size of prints for a given negative.

    “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

Page 3 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