Condenser Head Advantage?

[neil poulsen]

Many have argued the advantages of cold light heads over condenser heads, Ansel Adams among them.

When I updated from a D2V condenser enlarger that I had to a more recent enlarger, I kept the D2V condenser head and adapted it to my new enlarger. I did this to just have the capability available. But, it's been on a shelf ever since.

For example, I know that they're more consistent than cold light heads. But, all my enlarger heads, including the D2V, have sensors installed so that they can be used with my compensating timer.

Aside from consistency, is anyone aware of darkroom applications or types of photos where condenser heads have a distinct advantage?

[Nathan Potter]

I'm not sure that they are more consistent (depending on what you mean by consistent). The prime attribute of a condenser head is higher contrast than with a cold light head. The extreme example of a condenser head is a point source head where the inter grain modulation is nil. The choice of head then is based on the effect you are after in the print. In simple terms the more you go toward a condenser head the more you will accentuate the contrast of the silver grains in the print. So it's a tool for contrast control.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I use a condenser head in one enlarger, a Leitz IIa for ~56x90mm. I cannot say the projected image has greater resolution, but it does have better micro-contrast, acutance for susceptible subjects. (Better than the Ilfospeed 500 in an Omega). The difference is not enough to argue about.

[ic-racer]

Many advantages to condenser heads.
1) Less complex power supply. Usually just a power cord :)
2) Less expensive when new
3) More efficient than other incandescent systems; more bang for your buck in terms of printing speed.

[Luis-F-S]

This should be a very short thread....

[Tin Can]

eh, we can make it longer.

Currently my Beseler 45MCRX uses PH212 150 watt 120 vac incandescent frosted bulb with 2 standard OE double stack condensers.

I believe this is stock configuration and considered 'point source illumination' that provides tighter collimated rays than a diffusion head. Collimated from Latin and refers to light beams that are straight.

The enlarging theory I have read is that point source condenser heads make sharper prints than diffused light beams from other non condenser heads. And show more dust...perhaps related issues.

Looking at the big round PH212 bulb, it is certainly not a 'point' of light source. And it runs hot over long usage, a secondary issue.

I wonder if an equivalent power, meaning usable wattage and lumens single LED would improve condenser head performance with sharper prints, with it's far smaller diameter point source of light? All other variables being equal.

I hope the question makes sense..

Thoughts?

[John Olsen]

I read somewhere that the sharper condenser imaging was historically due to thick emulsions on old papers. More collimated image rays from a condenser would spread less, for a sharper result. Since modern papers achieve their full density in thinner emulsion layers, I read, this advantage is largely gone. I've printed the same negative both ways, condenser and diffusion, and the difference is pretty hard to detect, and may be largely in my imagination. I find much bigger differences from one lens to another. Just print and have a good time. Nobody but a viewer with a loupe is going to care, and who cares about that kind of viewer?

[ic-racer]

Frosted bulb is not used in a point source enlarger. Usually you need the bulb with the special filament, a way to position the bulb filament to the exact location , the correct lens (frequently used at a specific aperture), and a way to control the intensity of the light, for a complete point source setup. Point source is very good for things like forensics and electron microscopy enlargements.

[Luis-F-S]

Many advantages to condenser heads.
1) Less complex power supply. Usually just a power cord :)
2) Less expensive when new
3) More efficient than other incandescent systems; more bang for your buck in terms of printing speed.

OK so we've already run out of advantages . The main advantage is that they are cheaper and less complex than difussed heads. That being said all the great printers that I've known use diffuse light sources. My 810 Durst which probably has some of the finest condensers made sits unused in favor of the De Vere and LPL Enlargers both with diffused heads.

[Tin Can]

None of us has answered OP questions.

[Doremus Scudder]

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

[John Kasaian]

I can warm tortillas on my Elwood. Quesadillas for lunch! Yum!:)

[bob carnie]

I use condenser enlargers for everything other than portraits.... I cannot explain the reason other than the prints just seem right done this way.

When using 8x10 film I am committed to diffusion- these prints look super sharp to me.

[Ken Lee]

Around 45 years ago I purchased a Beseler enlarger with condenser head and made a print of a photo of a waterfall. Compared to the contact print, the high tonal values in the waterfall were blocked.The tonal curve took a sudden upsweep once the negative reached a certain density.

Having the limited finances of a teenager, I tried spray-painting the inside of the condenser head white, in an effort to get a more linear tonal scale to match the contact print. The result was not appreciably different.

I then printed the negative at Fred Picker's darkroom in White Plains NY and immediately got an 8x10 print whose tonal scale exactly matched the scale of the contact print, with no sudden cutoff of linearity. That's when I decided to go ahead an purchase a "cold light head" as it was called then, a diffusion lamp.

Fred documented my experience and included before and after versions of that photograph in his book Zone VI Workshop (http://www.amazon.com/Zone-VI-Workshop-Fred-Picker/dp/0817405747). You can read about it there.

I have never felt the need to repeat the test.:cool:

[Luis-F-S]

Ok, so there you have it Neil. Other than bob's comment that they just seem right to him, and I suspect that bob is a much better printer than most of the folks on this forum, I don't think anyone else has exalted the condenser head's virtues. I know when I was printing with the condenser head on my Durst, I could not wait for the Aristo cold light head to come in. Before that I used an Omega F with a 12x12 Aristo head with a Metrolux and a Beseler MX enlarger with Fred's stabilized cold light head. The Aristo heads were all I used since then, until I got the dichroic heads on the LPL & Devere. However, if all you have is a condenser head, then by all means print with it, and just adjust your negative density and contrast for the light source, and............L

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh, who knows how many thousands of times this debate has been undertaken over the decades. But in terms of what kind of equipment 99% of darkroom workers actually use, condenser illumination is just about as common as birds that still have claws on their wings and teeth in their beaks.

[mmerig]

Gosh, who knows how many thousands of times this debate has been undertaken over the decades. But in terms of what kind of equipment 99% of darkroom workers actually use, condenser illumination is just about as common as birds that still have claws on their wings and teeth in their beaks.

Well, count me as part of the 1%.

[bob carnie]

Thank you for the kind words, Luis , but I have been on this forum long enough to know and meet some pretty incredible printers..

Now if you ever want to get rid of the big boy Deveer Uncle Bob is your first call...

I think in answering the OP's question I would have to say Condenser enlargers seem crisper to me than diffusion when I view prints on the wall.. I know that word is almost as bogus as saying the prints look like they have more snap.
I also feel that diffusion prints seem more Blended in tonality than condenser prints...

so there you have it - snappy, crisper- vs blended

I do know that with a condenser enlarger you can get into a whole lot of whoop ass if the negative is not completely centered to the lens, condenser, bulb and is something I am always
fighting with when using my enlargers.

[Mrportr8]

The real advantage is improved separation of values in highlight areas with a diffuse light source. With a condenser source the highlight areas block up more readily in a normal or push processed negative. Any advantage/disadvantage depends on your control over processing and your interpretation of the ideal print.

[Sal Santamaura]

...is anyone aware of darkroom applications or types of photos where condenser heads have a distinct advantage?Sure -- making prints of dust, scratches and grain. :D

[Jac@stafford.net]

In my modest experience s diffusion head means a lesser fine retouching brush. That's all.

[Steve Sherman]

Many have argued the advantages of cold light heads over condenser heads, Ansel Adams among them.

When I updated from a D2V condenser enlarger that I had to a more recent enlarger, I kept the D2V condenser head and adapted it to my new enlarger. I did this to just have the capability available. But, it's been on a shelf ever since.

For example, I know that they're more consistent than cold light heads. But, all my enlarger heads, including the D2V, have sensors installed so that they can be used with my compensating timer.

Aside from consistency, is anyone aware of darkroom applications or types of photos where condenser heads have a distinct advantage?

I offer this qualifier only as a means to answer the question directly and with some degree of certainty.

A month ago a photographer from Paris came to me on Labor Day weekend to learn Split Contrast Printing. He presently uses the same printer in Paris that Sebastião Salgado uses for his exhibition work, in fact the two of them had their work in the World Expo a few weeks ago in Milan Italy. He brought with him the exact negative that was printed in Paris just the week before. A mountainous scene with a large snow field in shadow printed with a Diffusion Color head in Paris. I have a Durst 138 with an Ilford 500 head sitting on top of condensers for 5x7 film. We determined that using the same exact negative, identical Ilford Warm tone paper the only difference between my print and the Paris print was the type of light source used by each enlarger. The Durst / Condenser enlarger yielded a print with considerably more micro contrast in the shadows of the snow field, it caught us both off guard.

I was pleased to see this side by side comparison of my Durst setup against that of a world class printer's setup, although I believe the visiting photographer was somewhat dismayed !

[ic-racer]

To compare the contrast change from diffuse vs non-diffuse light one needs to print on graded paper, as light color, of course influences the contrast and will alter the results. The advantage of printing on multigrade paper, is that one can match the contrast from two different enlargers.

[Steve Sherman]

To compare the contrast change from diffuse vs non-diffuse light one needs to print on graded paper, as light color, of course influences the contrast and will alter the results. The advantage of printing on multigrade paper, is that one can match the contrast from two different enlargers.

Fair point, although you'd not convince the other photog

[Luis-F-S]

Thank you for the kind words, Luis , but I have been on this forum long enough to know and meet some pretty incredible printers..

Now if you ever want to get rid of the big boy Deveer Uncle Bob is your first call...

I suspect I'll take the De Vere to the grave. Just can't improve much on that enlarger! I'll probably sell the Durst SM-183, but it will probably be a hard sell as it is a very large 5x7 enlarger that doesn't offer much advantage over the L-138 except a more rigid base and much higher elevation on the head. Perfect for those who want to enlarge their negatives with a condenser enlarger much larger than they should be!

Like everything else, it's all a matter of what works for you. A diffused light enlarger works for me though I still have my Valloy II.

Anything else you need to know Neil? L

[Tin Can]

I have Beseler Condenser and Diffusion enlargers set up side by side in 2x3 and 4x5, that's 4 enlargers. I use them as I see fit.

Since they cost me almost nothing, lenses are far more, I will continue my madness.

I vote for variety and choice.

[Corran]

Perhaps because I learned most things when first starting out with darkroom printing from AA's books, I was always under the assumptions that diffusion heads were just better, period. Less dust/scratches and a tad less contrast. I haven't seen anything to prove that otherwise, while using my cold-light head compared to when I've printed on condenser heads at the university darkroom, and I've not cared enough to notice if the topic has been brought up ad infinitum because of my assumptions. So, interesting thread, though the idea that my prints from my enlarger are not "as sharp" seem silly to me.

[Tin Can]

What amazes me is the dismissal of this topic as inconsequential and old news.

If we take that route, the dinosaur is dead.

[LabRat]

I can warm tortillas on my Elwood. Quesadillas for lunch! Yum!:)

At a school lab I tech'ed at, someone came to me with B/W prints with blobby white spots all over the prints, asking "what's this from"!?!!! It looked like something on the condenser, so I went and checked it out... Turns out that someone before had been using the D2V's filter drawer as a chocolate chip cookie warmer, and crumbs and chocochips had fallen and melted on the condenser blocking the light, and had to be cleaned throughly... (Using it as an "Eazy-Bake" oven!?!!)

I laughed and thought it was kinda brilliant, until I shuttered thinking about how many fingers (with cooties!?!!) had been in that drawer before... ICK!!!!!!

Steve K

[bob carnie]

Actually good point... I have clients that love grain.

Sure -- making prints of dust, scratches and grain. :D

[bob carnie]

Would I be offensive to ask you how old you are.... maybe theres hope you can will me the setup.

I suspect I'll take the De Vere to the grave. Just can't improve much on that enlarger! I'll probably sell the Durst SM-183, but it will probably be a hard sell as it is a very large 5x7 enlarger that doesn't offer much advantage over the L-138 except a more rigid base and much higher elevation on the head. Perfect for those who want to enlarge their negatives with a condenser enlarger much larger than they should be!

Like everything else, it's all a matter of what works for you. A diffused light enlarger works for me though I still have my Valloy II.

Anything else you need to know Neil? L

[Luis-F-S]

Hi Bob, I'm 63 in pretty good health. My local lab has a couple of 5108's and 3 504's that they may be getting rid off. Most have closed loop heads, one right now is headless. I'll let you know when they get ready to "landfill" them. L

[Old_Dick]

Ken Lee, page 63, I was wondering if that was you. I have the book, wonderful.

I remember reading an article back in the mid seventies about the good and the bad of condenser enlargers. At the time I was having dust problems and a diffused light source was the answer. So I saved my money and got a color head for my Omega B66 (I think), didn't solve my problem. As time went on, I settled on the paper I liked, Ilford Ilfobrom semi-mat. It's probably because I liked the semi-mat, but I found I got the results I like (not necessarily better) from the condenser. Just my 2¢.

[bob carnie]

Thanks Luis

Ok one year older than me , I am in bad shape but will be getting better.... stop exercising, take up smoking , and eat Mc Donalds.. Oh and remember to change the will.. I am only interested in the big boy.


Bob

Hi Bob, I'm 63 in pretty good health. My local lab has a couple of 5108's and 3 504's that they may be getting rid off. Most have closed loop heads, one right now is headless. I'll let you know when they get ready to "landfill" them. L

[Luis-F-S]

Will do, been too healthy anyway, but I will let you know when my lab decides to move the two 5108's. I may be able to take one, and will let you know about the other. L

[blindpig]

Gosh! guess I'll throw my $.02 in the ring.The reason I preferred condenser lamp houses on my enlargers was to reduce diffraction which appeared to cause a reduction in apparent sharpness in the projected image as it was enlarged(the greater the enlargement the more flare reducing sharpness it caused).My customers were going to enlarge my 8X10 composite inter negatives or color transparencies to outdoor billboard display size so I wanted the sharpest image I could provide. Admittedly much care was necessary to prevent dust etc. from appearing on said 8X10s.Just my HO.

[Drew Wiley]

Heck, I turned down one of those SM-183 Durst units yesterday. It was in an industrial basement and looked like hell to move. As it is, a crew of us had to carry
a fully loaded L184 system clear up a flight or stairs. Then way to the back my digs, though I had appropriate dollies for that task. But it will be a fun device to fully refurbish over the coming months. Fortunately,vthe colorhead was already modernized and in good shape, and everything works per se. Mostly just a cosmetic tuneup. I have other 8x10 enlargers to print with in the meantime. I wanted this rig for dedicated DT printing, and it already has a pin registered carrier. My ole condenser head is way up on the loft somewhere. Doubt I'll ever crawl up there again.

[Luis-F-S]

Heck, I turned down one of those SM-183 Durst units yesterday. It was in an industrial basement and looked like hell to move. As it is, a crew of us had to carry a fully loaded L184 system clear up a flight or stairs.

Hmm, the head comes off, the baseboard comes off, the top double column comes apart from the base, then it's easily manageable for two people......Why don't you post where the SM-183 giveaway is, someone may be interested......L

[Drew Wiley]

Sorry. Wasn't a general giveaway. Me only. And had to go out in one motion, not as components. Using their staff too, who had to be back to the new lab within
half an hour. These weren't the really big enlargers anyway. You can have one of those for 75K. Don't know how the hell they'll move those if someone does
pay; and they will. But I wanted full compatibility with older lens mounts and neg carriers anyway. Too much auto-this/auto-that electronics is just a maintenance headache. My own real beast of an 8x10 color enlarger I built from the ground up. It was never meant to be moved, especially in an earthquake, which is fairly
common around here.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh one more thing. Luis; the one I left behind isn't like a 138. The base alone is 400 lbs. No job for two people and a stairway!

[Luis-F-S]

deleted, duplicate post

[Luis-F-S]

Oh one more thing. Luis; the one I left behind isn't like a 138. The base alone is 400 lbs. No job for two people and a stairway!

Here is my SM-183 with the condenser head. Did it look like this one? It's on an L-184 base but it's hard to see. I have the head extension arm down, if you rotate it up, it raises the head another 14". L

142171

[StoneNYC]

This is merely anecdotal, but when I got my Saltzman 8x10 enlarger, one of the things that Luther Gerlach told me was that when he was working with Brett Weston he had preferred the condenser enlarger because of the higher contrast, so far I have only used condenser enlargers and haven't had any issues with dust so long as I kept the dust from getting on my film, so I make sure to develop it in high humidity of the room. Having a clean negative to start with was really the only requirement I've needed thus far, but my printing experience is very limited.

As far as the head I use, and comparisons, if anyone wishes to send me a 10x10 color head for comparison to my condenser head, I'm more than willing to experiment and share the results, but I'm not shipping it back! ;)

[Drew Wiley]

Luis - it was analogous with the 184 lower, but a much more massive baseplate and a big tricked-out colorhead. So I figured it was about 200 lbs more than the
color 184 itself, and at that point would have been dangerous for only four people to move. Not worth the risk. This fellow had three major labs, one in a six-story downtown highrise in downtown SF. He's in his 70's and downsizing his operation to something small - namely, a two story studio with the foot print of a football field. Big bucks, in other words. So over the years he's bought all kinds of tricked-out very expensive Durst equipment. He also has (or had) many twenty Omega 8x10 rigs for his helpers, now mainly in landfill I presume. I don't have anywhere to put them. These kinds of folks have zero time for dealing with random people showing equipment. I happen to deal with him on a regular basis as a client of my own, related to my day job.