Quote Originally Posted by Randy Moe View Post
None of us has answered OP questions.
Okay, I'll have a go at it:

Condenser enlargers, by nature, yield more print contrast for a given negative. If you've got a flat negative that you really need to get that extra bit of contrast from, then use the condensers. (This is the primary reason I have my condenser head still...)

BTW, most condenser heads are really "condenser/diffuser" heads; i.e., there are optical condensers, but the light source is fairly large and diffuse to start with (frosted bulb) and the light is only partially collimated. Point-source heads require precise focusing of the source and condensers in relation to each other and work best at one aperture... a bit of a PITA in my opinion.

Because of the more directional (less diffuse) light source, focus depth at the negative is a bit more. That doesn't mean we should be less careful focusing, because the extra focus comes from the light source, not the lens, but there is a bit more leeway, especially if you don't use a glass carrier. That said, it is precisely this characteristic that tends to show up dust and defects more with a condenser enlarger than with a diffuse light source, so the trade-off is keeping things cleaner/spotting more.

Many maintain that grain/local contrast is enhanced with a condenser set-up. That may be so, but condensers do not yield inherently sharper prints than a diffusion source; that's a function of the enlarging lens, not the light source. And, contrast can be adjusted with development and/or different contrast grades so that a print made from a condenser enlarger is virtually identical (and indistinguishable) from a diffusion enlarger.

With today's preponderance of VC papers, dichroic light sources seem most convenient for many of us. I believe this is another reason why condenser heads have fallen a bit out of favor. It's certainly easier for me to dial in a bit more or less contrast than swapping filters.

That said, when using graded papers and two developers, there's a certain simplicity and low-tech satisfaction to using a condenser source; good viewing, no fiddling with anything but the aperture, etc. I imagine it's next in line to contact printing with a bare bulb.

Best,

Doremus