Enlarger lamps light; aren`t they too much powered?

[jose angel]

I have read from people who are desperate looking to lower the lamp output of their enlargers, because printing times are too small... It`s also my case. Sometimes, if the negative is not dense enough, (with say, a 75watts lamp on a Beseler CIII), I`m having times of a very few seconds at f8.
Most of my negatives are printed to about 10" on the long side (sometimes 14"). I have had to use some awkward tricks (now, thanks God with different low power LED lamps), to extend exposure times when dodging and burning, where I need at least 15 to 20 seconds to work with a minimal comfort and accuracy levels.

Well, I`ve been looking at the "modernenlargerlamps.com" site, and found the following data about one of their LED based heads:
"Super Bright - Brighter than a 75 watt incandescent bulb, enlarging times are close to those of a 150 watt bulb."
What`s the deal with it? If I use, e.g., an f4 Apo-Rodagon lens, with an optimal aperture at f5.6-8, at best I`ll get enlarging times around 4-8 seconds! Looks like manufacturers put all the enphasis on the highest possible brightness, to shorten the exposure time to the limit... instead of offering low brightness options. I wonder why, I have never understood it.

So, I question myself if I`m doing something wrong.

What do you think? Are my negatives maybe too soft? Are the "enlarger lamps" designed for much larger enlargements? What is your experience?

[jp]

A bright enlarger is nice for focusing.

It's also nice for larger enlargements which I do very few of.

For small enlargements of 2-4x, I'm not really concerned about being on optimum aperture of a APO lens. It's going to be sharp no matter what small aperture I use with my non-APO el-nikkor or componon-s. I'll just stop it down till I get the time I'm comfortable with.

[vinny]

buy a sheet of neutral density gel. cut it up. use it in conjunction with your filters when needed.

[mdarnton]

When I was working in pro labs, I used a 150W bulb, and a constant time of 5 seconds, using a timer with a foot pedal. For 8x10 that usually worked out to about f8, plus or minus, and for 11x14 two blasts of time. That always seemed fine for burning and dodging, too. All of my density regulation was done on the easel, visually, by messing with the aperture. If you constantly change the time, you'll never be able to do exposure visually on a basis of what you see on the easel, but by adjusting the "look" to a particular standard density, and a fixed time, I had an extremely low re-make rate.

[AtlantaTerry]

Why not simply put a dimmer between the enlarger and AC power outlet? Here in general retail stores such as Target or Wal-Mart, dimmers can be had for about US $10 to $12.

In lighting for films and TV programs we cut down light output with wire screens cut to size. Why wouldn't that also work when placed into the filter slot of an enlarger? Would the wire grid show?

[jose angel]

Mdarnton, never heard of this method, interesting. I use to set a fixed aperture, and set the time in full stops. Five seconds are good for "massive" printing, thought.

I currently don`t have problems with the light output, as I`m using LED sources in my preferred intensities... I use to switch between two lamps (as well as the original 75watts one); what I wonder is about other enlarger users. I find the brightness of recommended bulbs simply too high for "normal" use, and it`d be nice to have half, one quarter or even lower outputs.

But if everybody use, say, five seconds for "normal" printing with this bulbs, and most of you prefer this very short times (to me), maybe the thing is right, and I`m the odd printer here.

Atlanta, I wonder if dimmers affect the color temperature of the light source... anyway, with LED technology, things are much easier these days. As mentioned, I prefer to use two LED sources of fixed intensities, which are much softer than the "original", recommended tungsten bulb. And no important issues with contrast control.

[BetterSense]

You are not odd. Enlargers may be too bright. I'm sorry that enlarger manufacturers didn't get it right for your exact application. If you were making huge prints or using slow materials or cranking out hundreds of identical prints you may be glad for the brightness. It is an easy problem to solve with ND gels or a dimmer. I prefer a dimmer because that has a side effect of making your bulb last longer and reducing heat. Dimmers on incandescent bulbs absolutely change the color temperature toward red but if you are trying to reduce speed that's what you want.

[mdarnton]

Mdarnton, never heard of this method, interesting. I use to set a fixed aperture, and set the time in full stops.

If you can learn to judge a print's darkness under a standardized lighting situation (which everyone obviously does do) then you can learn to judge a projected negative image's darkness under the standardized lighting of a darkroom. This is a very handy skill to have, and not too difficult to acquire.

[ac12]

Some enlargers just seem to be bright.
My Durst M600 was brighter than the D2 at school. But then the D2 was a 4x5 enlarger.
The LPL that I used a the junior college was on the opposite end, it seemed dim.

My Durst M600 came with a 150w bulb, but that was giving me sub-8 sec exposures at min aperture, which were too short for me to do decent dodging. So I switched to the 75w PH211, which helped. But sometimes, I wish I could get even less light. I try for a 15 sec exposure.

As for lens aperture. If the magnification is not significant, I would not worry about "optimal" aperture. At small magnifications, I doubt you will see the difference. Just drop the aperture to f16 or 22 or 32 to get the exposure time you want.

[Drew Wiley]

It's all relative. I once owned a colorhead with 2000 watts of constant halogen. It required a cooling fan with a bigger electrical appetite than the average table saw. It would punch a 30X40 Cibachrome with a .90 (3 stops of density) attached mask in about fifteen seconds. That would equate to mere fractions of a second with newer color papers or typical black and white work - so would be useless nowadays unless one were making really giant murals. Now I work with a 1500 watt unit, but it's pulsed, so runs cool and economically, but can be real headache if something in the complicated circuitry acts up. For garden-variety black and white printing, I use a basic 250W Chromega colorhead, and if needed, the light can be reduced by an internal mechanical setting which screen off part of the light. Going to low aperture on the lens might degrade the sharpness of your prints due to diffraction, much like it does in camera with a taking lens in the first place. Better to use some kind of neutral density filter or screen atop the diffuser. Some paper print much faster than others. But if I can tame far more powerful
lights for even small prints on current fast paper (I was using a 105 Apo Rodagon yesterday), probably any enlarger can be tamed with a suitable diffuser.

[Leigh]

Why not simply put a dimmer between the enlarger and AC power outlet?
That will dramatically change the blue/green ratio in the lamp output spectrum, specifically reducing the blue.

If you're printing graded paper, the only consequence is that your exposure times are longer.

However, if you're printing VC, you totally screw up the required filtration for different grades.

- Leigh

[Vaughn]

Printing on D5-xl...4x5 to 16x20, (135mm lens) I often wished for a little more light. Especially when I tried a pack of 16x20 Pal Print paper way back when. Exculsive from Eastern Europe -- finally an enlarging paper at contact speed! (satire and exaggeration warning)

One could also use a lens that is a little longer in focal length. The enlarger will be higher up and require a little more exposure.

[vinny]

Why not simply put a dimmer between the enlarger and AC power outlet? Here in general retail stores such as Target or Wal-Mart, dimmers can be had for about US $10 to $12.

In lighting for films and TV programs we cut down light output with wire screens cut to size. Why wouldn't that also work when placed into the filter slot of an enlarger? Would the wire grid show?

Scrims for an enlarger? No, but my nd gel idea would be cheap, repeatable, and easy to adjust accurately by adding another layer. Also makes it easy to take notes if you took it out for a particular print versus a non-accurate setting on a cheap household dimmer that changes the way your vc paper prints.
I suggest buying a sheet of nd .3 and nd .15 to allow for full and half stop adjustments.

[Drew Wiley]

Some pro enlarger do incorporate scrims to reduce light. But ya gotta be careful how you do it. A metal scrim can conduct a lot of heat, so you don't want it in direct
contact with your diffusion plastic. You also obviously have to diffuse the light afterwards, so nul out the pattern. Likewise, any ND "gel" should be of the heat-resistant polyester variety used with traditional hot lights, and appropriately spaced from the bulb in like fashion, and air-cooled. Dimmers? Not all bulbs dim well, but
I guess if you purchase on at WalMart or Target it will only last five minutes anyway. .. a "dim" idea, for sure. Gosh, can't anyone afford ten more bucks for something
which actually works?

[Michael Alpert]

Jose,

You are making small prints. When and if you were to make larger prints, you would see the wisdom of a bright enlarger lamp. With a small print, stopping the lens down a little is not going to harm anything. Anyway, the ND filter idea is a good alternative if you do not want to change the aperture.

[vinny]

Some pro enlarger do incorporate scrims to reduce light. But ya gotta be careful how you do it. A metal scrim can conduct a lot of heat, so you don't want it in direct
contact with your diffusion plastic. You also obviously have to diffuse the light afterwards, so nul out the pattern. Likewise, any ND "gel" should be of the heat-resistant polyester variety used with traditional hot lights, and appropriately spaced from the bulb in like fashion, and air-cooled. Dimmers? Not all bulbs dim well, but
I guess if you purchase on at WalMart or Target it will only last five minutes anyway. .. a "dim" idea, for sure. Gosh, can't anyone afford ten more bucks for something
which actually works?

on my 4x5 Chromega head there's a "scrim" but it's right next to the filters and it gets wicked hot in there. For most of my printing, the head is way too powerful even when using the "low" setting. I tried placing an nd gel next to the the mixing chamber but they vaporize in a couple seconds when in "white light" mode. Piece of Gam (most neutral) nd in the slot under the mixing chamber diffuser panel does the trick though. B&H sells Lee, Rosco, and Gam in 20x24 sheets for anyone that's interested.

[BradS]

it is not at all clear to me why one doesn't simply stop down the enlarger lens? F/8 is ony one stop down from wide open...whats wrong with stopping down a few stops if you need longer times? Seems so obvious.

[Drew Wiley]

You're right, Vinny. At least the Omega scrim isn't right in contact with any diffusion material. But having hot light bouncing off that scrim right onto the dichroic filters themselves can lead to premature failing of the filters, and can even slightly alter the color transmission characteristics of the filters if they get too hot
(more an issue in color printing than anything black and white). So the Omega design is not ideal, but is a kind of compromise which seems to have worked for
garden-variety work (which doesn't necessarily imply poor print quality at all, but the lack of advanced bells and whistles or feedback circuitry to correct such things in critical applications). It's a feature I'd avoid if long printing times were involved. But at fifteen or twenty seconds a pop, I wouldn't worry about any adverse affects due to heat in the Omega design.

[Drew Wiley]

Brad - all lenses are affected by diffraction at small apertures. You can simply stop your enlarger lens way down, but at a certain point, a reduction in sharpness
will start creeping in. You might not notice this if other things are not ideal (like lack of a glass carrier to keep the neg truly flat). Or maybe your prints are so small
that it's not immediately apparent. But it is a relevant factor.

[Leigh]

Brad - all lenses are affected by diffraction at small apertures. You can simply stop your enlarger lens way down, but at a certain point, a reduction in sharpness will start creeping in. You might not notice this if other things are not ideal (like lack of a glass carrier to keep the neg truly flat). Or maybe your prints are so small that it's not immediately apparent. But it is a relevant factor.
Distortion is one of those academic parameters that can be measured in the lab, but not seen by the average observer looking at a photograph.

Yes, it does exist.

No, it is not meaningful in the discussion of the small prints that the OP is doing. Not at all.

- Leigh

[BetterSense]

Distortion is one of those academic parameters that can be measured in the lab, but not seen by the average observer looking at a photograph.

I assume you meant "diffraction", and I largely agree when it comes to field camera use, but disagree when it comes to enlarging. When printing grainy 35mm film full-frame at 5x7, I can see a differerence in the grain when setting my lens at 5.6 vs 16. Does this ruin the photograph? No, if you don't like grain you might even consider it an improvement. I can clearly see diffraction effects in my 50x magnifier starting at f/8.

[Leigh]

Yes, I meant "diffraction", not "distortion".


I can clearly see diffraction effects in my 50x magnifier starting at f/8.
Of course you can. So???

If the OP is printing 200" x 250" prints from 4x5, and expecting people to view them with their noses pressed
to the emulsion, then this would be a significant comment.

He's not, and it's not.

The interesting thing about diffraction is that it's basically indistinguishable from an out-of-focus condition.
An image that's suffering from severe diffraction will have no sharply focused detail.

But in less severe instances, as would be the norm with average photos, it's indistinguishable.

- Leigh

[Drew Wiley]

If he were printing 16x20 from a 4x5 serious diffraction would probably be apparent. If it's too small a stop with a taking lens, then it's too small for that same film
size in an enlarger. But ya do gotta be quite a ways down there.... And it is an insignificant worry in this instance. A problem would probably transpire if he took that
same "f/22 seems OK" formula and tried it with a 35mm neg.

[Leigh]

If diffraction is such a demon..

Why do the highest quality process lenses have calibrated apertures down to f/128 and smaller?

- Leigh

[Drew Wiley]

I use process lenses for enlarging all the time. The rules are not different there, nor can they be. Often process lenses were rated at f/22 with respect to dot
pattern for halftone color separation work. It had to do with optimum apochromaticity, at least with respect to industry custom. The aperture markings were simply related to what the mass-produced apertures of the time came in. There weren't unlimited choices. I doubt those very small apertures were typically ever used. But the same lens could be put on an ULF view camera and a very small aperture might be used by a contact printer, for example. Same with many of our ordinary view camera lenses. I almost never use the smallest stops, even though they're there. Don't think I've ever used f/90 or f/128, even with 8x10 film. Nor do many of us ever work with the fastest shutter speeds on our view lenses, even though they're there (most of the fastest speeds aren't accurate anyway, so why are they
there to begin with? I don't know - rote custom, perhaps).

[jp]

Nor do many of us ever work with the fastest shutter speeds on our view lenses, even though they're there (most of the fastest speeds aren't accurate anyway, so why are they
there to begin with? I don't know - rote custom, perhaps).

I almost only use the fast shutter speeds on LF cameras... The 1/50 on a ilex5 is way inconvenient; I wish it went to 1/250 for outdoor use. I'm shooting soft focus lenses close to wide open, like a kodak 305 at f5.6. Car shows in the summer sun mean 1/1000 on the speed graphic and verito at f4.5.

In a process camera, there would be little need for the depth of field created by f128. e.g. making a plate from something flat.

[ic-racer]

The Beseler CIII is not your typical large format enlarger with its maximum negative size of 2x3". The wattage required to expose 'large format' 8x10 negatives on multigrade paper can be considerable. For example, with a 2000w head, 2x enlargement on multigrade paper with filtration produces an adequate exposure around 20 to 30 seconds at f22.

[Bill Burk]

I don't know why the idea of overexposing your film wasn't brought up. Two stops more exposure would likely give you double the printing times. No, not for color work because color balance would be impacted. But for black and white you could select your EI to make printing times more convenient.

It's also an argument for being "more" precise in your metering technique than necessary for negative quality reasons... You might state that a "perfect negative" is one which requires 32 seconds printing time... And then choose the EI that gives you that result.

Would I do it? No, I like playing with generous exposures that do not need to be precisely calculated. But when I have varying printing times between two otherwise good negatives, sometimes I'm tempted to calibrate to print times.

[Robert Langham]

I've never had a cold light that was too bright. Just ordered a 5X7 head from Modern Enlarger Lamps to go on an old Omega E4. Since I print with filters that cuts the light a little more. Always have plenty of F-stop left above F 11 and F 16. I do tend to print large.

109370

[Doremus Scudder]

I don't know why the idea of overexposing your film wasn't brought up. Two stops more exposure would likely give you double the printing times. No, not for color work because color balance would be impacted. But for black and white you could select your EI to make printing times more convenient. ... .

Well, for smaller film formats (I think the OP is working with 2x3"), overexposing is going to make a significant difference in grain. If you like grain, fine, but an overexposed neg is not optimum (although I've made good prints with a number of quite overexposed LF negs), an not really a great way to get longer exposure times.

However, Bill, you might be on to something; many who complain of too-short enlarging times are working with underexposed/underdeveloped negs. I would advise the OP to make sure his negatives are adequately exposed and developed first before trying other solutions, which, in order of my preference would be: installing piece of diffusion material, installing a lower-wattage bulb, or using a sheet of neutral density material.

Best,

Doremus

[jose angel]

Bill, and two stops more exposure will extend the times too much... not an issue for most large format tripod shots, but with smaller formats and specially portrait or even nature photography it could be problematic. I shoot FP4+ @ 100ISO, and two stops send the ISO to 25... motion blur will be of an issue.
And I wonder about the density curve... printing contrast could be of an issue, too. I`m not sure about the convenience of this method.

Doremus, you could be right, I tend to prefer softer to denser negatives (in a reasonable ammount, of course; but maybe I`m doing it wrong, I`ll check it). Thanks.

I understand large enlargements (usually near the limit of the enlarger`s column, or baseboard width) use the full brightness of manufacturer`s recommended enlarger lamps. Right.

But I sincerely wonder about how many people really enlarge that big... looking at store` shelves, I`d say, 8x10" paper boxes are sold in a 1:100 ratio with 16x20" boxes (and probably higher, because people use to buy 8x10" in 50-100 sheets boxes, while 16x20" in 25 sheets envelops). So I think "reality" (maybe it`s only around here) is that very very few people enlarge that big.

Right now, I`m using on the 23CIII a 6.5 watts LED based source, which let me to print "normal" negatives in 10-20seconds, with a 105mm lens at f8, 8x10". I`d say it could be equivalent to a 20-30 watts tungsten bulb (less than a half the recommended 75 watts one).

But if I`m looking for a lower wattage source, there are no options in the market. Well, I think it was Omega who made a light output control unit for enlargers with tungsten bulbs. That`s all. All other options are merely tricks (which I have extensively used, lens`circular glass filters, ND gels and film on the filter drawer, lower wattage ordinary frosted bulbs... etc.). But I think the only really good option is a lower brightness source... at least is the most comfortable and easiest to use.

So, my (maybe silly) idea is about asking to current LED light source manufacturers to take this into account (BTW, I`m so pleased they made such useful products for us traditional printers). Is it silly?
Maybe they could offer a built-in dimmer model (or much better, with two/three output fixed levels) like on some enlargers (my 4x5" LPL have a dimming filter switch to extend exposure times), or maybe two models, one high brightness, and another with medium (or low) brightness. Just an idea.

[jp]

But I sincerely wonder about how many people really enlarge that big... looking at store` shelves, I`d say, 8x10" paper boxes are sold in a 1:100 ratio with 16x20" boxes (and probably higher, because people use to buy 8x10" in 50-100 sheets boxes, while 16x20" in 25 sheets envelops). So I think "reality" (maybe it`s only around here) is that very very few people enlarge that big.


I think you're right. I buy 8x10 mostly for proof sheet contact prints, but also use it for prints more than any other size. 11x14 is my 2nd favorite size. If anyone had any stats on ilford 300 art, that would be accurate since probably nobody uses that to proof their printfile pages. 16x20 is a PITA because i had to bring out the tray stacker and the trays are a PITA to rinse, drain, clean, etc... Most people don't have monster darkrooms. Most practitioners are lucky to have a darkroom of any sort.

[Larry Gebhardt]

You need the power if you use dense masks, slow papers, or big enlargements. To extend the times I use under lens neutral density filters. And I'm currently in the process of modifying my LED head to work at 1/4 power so I can avoid the filters if need be. My goal is a 16 second exposure.

[Drew Wiley]

Jose - the local camera store here sells more boxes of 16x20 paper than any other size. 8x10 is mainly used by contact printers, esp those student types who work in LF but can't afford enlarging equip. The goofy little Holga crowd is predicatably switching to toy digi cameras. What's the point of enlarging if it's not larger than the
original? ... (speaking in a large format context, of course... with 35mm film, an 8x10 print is pretty big).