Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,840   Posts: 1,582,542   Online: 1022
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,382
    With B&W printing the only thing a diffusion on top of condenser gives you is variable dichroic filtration and with the condenser. You can get almost the same thing with a standard condenser head and the Ilford filters at 0.5 grade increments. In fact the 'standard' (non-point source) condenser head uses a diffusion source any way. That is, the globe or bulb is a diffuse source that sits above the condensers.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,149
    Unless you have already made your mind up about condenser with dichro head it might be worthwhile reading what Ralph Lambrecht has to say about printing with a dichro head and what Ctein has to say on the general subject of condenser/ diffuser.

    pentaxuser

  3. #13
    Marco B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,983
    Images
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Jepsen View Post
    On graded paper my existing negatives print better using a condenser. My base paper is EMAKS #3 and Galarie #3. They are about 1/2 grade different in contrast. With VC paper using the LPL Dichro my filtration is 3.5.
    What do you mean with this remark? Is only the fact that you need to print 1/2 grade harder with the diffusing head what bothers you, or do you consider the diffused (LPL dichro) prints on VC paper, in some way really inferior to your prints on graded paper?

    If the first, I wouldn't bother with all the hassle, with grade 3.5, there is still headroom left for creative manipulation, and if the print is good, why bother?

    If the latter, the mere fact you are comparing not only different heads (diffused vs condensor), but also graded versus VC paper, is a complicating factor. You are combining two factors here. Unless you do more controlled testing using both heads (diffused/condensor), and both paper types, I wouldn't disregard one or the other.
    My website

    "The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.

    "I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978

    "Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    681
    Let me clarify. I prefer using EMAKS and Galerie grade #3 paper due to their attributes. My home MF enlarger is a LPL 670 Dichro. Existing negatives print soft using graded paper on the LPL diffused (unfiltered) light source.

    To get quality prints from existing negatives I use a Beseler B-23 condenser at a community DR. Since my DR space at home is limited, I don't use multiple tray contrast control (Dektol & 120).

    I prefer to enlarge at home. I am considering buying a used LPL 670XL (condenser) and exchange heads as appropriate to accommodate for the (graded) paper contrast. It may be smart to try a harder developer in a single tray to gain 1 to 1/2 grade increase in contrast needed when enlarging graded paper with the unfiltered LPL light.

    Having lost 3 prefered papers I hate to migrate to another.
    Last edited by Richard Jepsen; 07-20-2011 at 04:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    RJ

  5. #15
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Jepsen View Post
    I am considering buying a used LPL 670XL (condenser) and exchange heads as appropriate to accommodate for the (graded) paper contrast. It may be smart to try a harder developer in a single tray to gain 1 to 1/2 grade increase in contrast needed when enlarging graded paper with the unfiltered LPL light. .
    All seem like good solutions. Also, have you tried that paper in Grade 4 or 5?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    681
    Im just trying EMAKS in grade 4 on my LPL. Galleria is not available in 4. I re-read Jack Coote book, Monochrome Darkroom Practice. The Kaiser 60 depicted on page 158 does not have a plastic diffuser above the condensers as I originally thought. The Kaiser VCP 9005 has this hybrid configuration. The VCP 9005 looks like a Durst 605.
    RJ

  7. #17
    PDH
    PDH is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    526
    Although long in the tooth many of the old Federal's were semi defussion, I have an old 6X9 model that I intend to convert to a point source, one of these days, has a single condenser and a glass defussion plate that sits above the condenser. From I read in the manual a double condenser set up was also an options for some models. Although not up to my D3 or Durst standards of build or ease of use, very inexpensive. I have printed with it using a Wollensak 90mm, does print softer than a condenser but harder than the cold lite on my D3. I think you can also convert a Durst 607 or 609, my 602 has a double condenser and by taking out the top condenser and adding a sheet of white glass in the filter tray you may get the same effect.

  8. #18
    hka
    hka is offline
    hka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,122
    An other possibilty, take a Durst M805, b&w model with condensors, and put a Heiland LED (SplitGrade) head on top.
    harry

    Release, the best you can do...

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Brighton UK
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    256
    Another alternative, that doesn't seem to have been mentioned, is to adjust your exposure/development regime in order to give you harder negatives. It won't help with printing your older negs but it'll save you the expense of rejigging your enlarger.

    In fact, if you can adjust your negatives to print well on G2, you'll be winning in terms of 'tonal depth' and you'll gain some headroom to operate on more difficult negs. I always aspire to a negative that prints easily on G2 because it opens up greater possibilities.

  10. #20
    Comrade Conrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    13
    As you alluded earlier, the Leitz enlargers used a light source that was a combination of diffuser and condenser. Both the IIa and IIc enlarger accept up to 6x9 negatives and are available on the used market. I have a very clean IIa available. Contact me privately if you're interested.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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