I have an Omega ProLab Variable condensor enlarger and have read that a diffusio n enlarger is better than a condensor enlarger. My question is, if I replace the incandescent lamphouse with a coldlight head and then remove the condensors wil l this result in a diffusion enlarger?.
John: The coldlight cell goes in the place where the condensers are, inside the big aluminum tube and right on top of the negative. Unplug the cord to the light bulb and plug in the two cords to the cold light head. Takes about ten minutes to convert. It is worth it. The highlights glow with cold light, and you will do a lot less spotting. The effect is the same as a diffusion enlarger. You won't want to go back to the condensers.
Thanks a lot. I'm going to do it as soon as I find a coldlight head.
Many people prefer their perception of greater apparent sharpness of prints made with a condenser enlarger. No flames please.
I can never understand why people are so eager to give up a perfectly good condenser source for the dubious "advantages" of a cold light head. One cold-light system actually pre-heats the negative stage, a bit pointless surely? And since most condenser enlargers are actually semi-diffused anyway (most of them use a diffuse opal bulb), the difference, purely in terms of the Callier effect, is quite unremarkable.
I have to agree with Pete especially when you consider that a condensor source can be double diffused with opal glass for about ten dollars and the difference is even more unremarkable including the dust probs. Soak your money into a good enlarging lens instead.
Where does one find this "opal glass?" A big city photo shop? Home Despot?
The serious recent analyses of diffusion vs. condensor seem to indicate:
You can get virtually equal results if you adjust development to match your light source. There are slight differences, but they are really very slight if you adjust your development/
The advantages of diffusion seem to be a very slight improvement in not seeing dust and very minor scratches.
So, as far as I'm concerned:
1)If you have an enlarger with a light source that works well, stick with it.
2)If you are buying a new enlarger without a light source, a cold light head is the least expensive light source available for B&W. Be sure to get one that has green and blue phosphors so you can use VC paper. These tubes work fine with graded papers, too. A 4x5 cold light for your Omega runs about $200 new. None of the enlarger manufacturers come close to that price for any 4x5 light head.
3)For color work and B&W, most enlargers are diffusion, but not cold light. They work fine, too.
In my early years I had a cheap condensor enlarger and was very happy with it and the images it produced. Then I had a Zone VI VC cold light enlarger. I didn't like it, but only because the light wasn't bright enough for me to focus easily and it really didn't work well for smaller formats. Now I've got Saunders enlargers (color diffussion) and I really like them.
The Omega 4x5 enlargers are workhorses. I would stick with the condensors if they are working for you. If you need to print negatives of a size for which you do not have the condensor, a 4x5 cold light might be cheaper than the smaller condensors. Otherwise, spend your money on lenses, paper, a fine easel, and other tools.
By the way, substituting a different light source will not in any way damage your enlarger or condensors. Just be sure to treat the condensors with great care. They are crude optics, but scratches on their surface can be focused by main lens, which can ruin your print.
John try,
www.stephenshuart.com
sorry for being so ineffecient with my multiple postings,
click on Jena Optical glass then scroll to opal diffusion glass, 28 bucks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks