Condit 8x10 or Saltzman 10x10

[mbuonocore]

If you had to choose between a Condit 8x10 and a Saltzman 10x10 enlarger, both fitted with cold light heads, what choice would you make? Space isn't an issue. Pros / Cons would be really appreciated!

[Jac@stafford.net]

If you had to choose between a Condit 8x10 and a Saltzman 10x10 enlarger, both fitted with cold light heads, what choice would you make? Space isn't an issue. Pros / Cons would be really appreciated!

Did Saltzman make a 10x10 and if it did, how common/available is it?
.

[mbuonocore]

I'm pretty sure it was a 10x10, but I could be wrong. The carrier seemed to be square.

The darkroom co-op I'm a part of has space for one big enlarger, and it's a choice between these two - that's the reason why I'm asking.

[MrFujicaman]

Go over to www.butkas.com-he has a catalog online of Saltzman enlargers/ From what I can see, Saltzman made several 10 by 10 enlargers-the MB6D, and the 30WAA were just 2 of them.

[ic-racer]

Condit 8x10

Can you post a picture of this? I have never heard of an enlarger named after the punch.

[Tin Can]

I think most 8x10 enlargers were 10x10 so you can position the neg either way.

Both my Fotar and Calumet are 10x10.

[mbuonocore]

Here's a photo - albeit a crappy one - of the Condit

134806

It stands approximately 60" from the white block 3/4 of the way down to the top. It's got to be half the size of the Saltzman!

One of my concerns is sourcing parts for either of these enlargers. In a thread I posted about moving a Saltzman (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?122346-Moving-a-Saltzman-8x10-enlarger), Jac Stafford mentioned that the fasteners on the Saltzman were standard sizes, which sounds like a plus.

I've never come across a Condit before, besides the registration punch. They're a bit of a black hole on Google. I've heard there's a guy in New York who bought all the parts when they shut up shop, and I'd like to get a hold of him.

On a purely aesthetic value, I like the Saltzman better. It looks like a beast. The logistics of moving it, however, are daunting.

[Luis-F-S]

On a purely aesthetic value, I like the Saltzman better. It looks like a beast. The logistics of moving it, however, are daunting.

Pretty accurate, I don't think either will be "fun" to move which is why I have a Durst and a DeVere! Both of those, are 8x10 if that matters. Can you get a hold of the DeVere 504 next to it? L

[ic-racer]

I have never seen a picture like that Condit. The Saltzman is a well-established brand. I'd go with Saltzman; you will be in good company.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Go over to www.butkas.com-he has a catalog online of Saltzman enlargers/ From what I can see, Saltzman made several 10 by 10 enlargers-the MB6D, and the 30WAA were just 2 of them.

Interesting! You are right! There is a 10.25" square negative holder available. The Saltzman i have uses an 8x10 with a negative carrier that is rotated from outside - does not have to be removed.

If Butkus has a catalog, it might be a copy of Randy Moe's original. A free, compressed B&W copy is online here (http://www.digoliardi.net/saltzman_sm.pdf). A very much larger version suitable for 360ppi printing is available upon request.
.

[StoneNYC]

It butkas down? Or out? I know for a while he said if people didn't donate he wouldn't be able to pay the site bill... I hope we haven't lost the info.

That Conduit looks rickety at best.

You have two choices, an easy to move 8x10 that's going to be hard to source parts.

Or a well known HEAVY 8x10 that parts can be found but can be expensive.

[Drew Wiley]

Warren Condit made very few enlargers. He cobbled a few of these things together from other people's parts more as a favor, in order to have at least something
available to those who wanted to dye transfer print with registration carriers but couldn't afford a name-brand enlarger. Still, you'd need to brace these things to heck. But if the precision carriers are still with it and in decent shape, they'd be worth quite a bit to the right person. Probably not, given the age of these units.

[Tin Can]

Since I have a 4 up 10x10 glass plate N2 Burst developing hanger and tank I think 10x10" glass plates were used for something, probably scientific, thus a 10x10 enlarger would be handy with that size plate.

Perhaps telescopes or microscopes used 10x10 glass plates at one time.

[Drew Wiley]

10X10 was standard to allow use of aerial film, which was typically 9". Hard to say about plates. Glass plates gave very precise dimensional characteristics along
with superior flatness. Somewhere I've got a list of the selection Kodak once offered in a number of sizes. Toward the end TMX100 was one of the emulsions.
There were astronomical uses for plates, though these tended to be smaller.

[Tin Can]

Kodak still sells 4X-3-1/2" film for Electron microscopes. Used on vacuum stage.

[Drew Wiley]

I dunno. From time to time I see an astrophysicist friend who was formerly in charge of a major pre-digital observatory. If I think about it, I might ask him. He was also highly involved with one of the cloud chambers at LBL, and maybe there was some kind of analogous experimenting way back when that needed glass
plates. He was directly involved with some of the pioneers of such research and has quite a history of ground-breaking techniques himself, so might know something. About all I'm capable of is accidentally double-exposing it just like an ordinary sheet of film!

[MrFujicaman]

I goofed..it's www.butkas.org

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/booklet/saltzman_catalog/saltzman_catalog.htm

[Jac@stafford.net]

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/booklet/saltzman_catalog/saltzman_catalog.htm

I wonder where he got it.
.