Some Darkroom questions, mostly on enlargers

[kaiserschmarrn]

Hi,
I have been out of photography for a long time and might get started again. I have some basic questions.

1) In this day and age, is trying to tool up to do film processing and printmaking worth it and viable with digital being allbthe rage?

2) I have found locally an Omega D2 and Beseler 45 MXT in equal condition, either are $200.00, but the Beseler comes with a Beseler Universal 20 Easel, so the ad says. I have experience with similar, if not the exact same model of Omega, and I once bought new an Omega C 760 Dichro (which is another story), but no experience with any kind of Beseler enlarger. Which is the better one to get?

Thanks,

Danny

[Eric Woodbury]

Question one) Consider analog and digital print making to be two different art forms that are non-competitive. When photography matured long ago, painters didn't stop. When TV was invented, the radio didn't go away. When xerography was invented, the printing press didn't stop.

Q2) I don't know much about Omega, but I've owned 6 Beselers and still have 3 of them. They are easy to modify to your liking.

[Tin Can]

I gave away 3 Omega and paid real $$$ for 5 Beseler

Then gave away one MX and regret that mistake

Hate the Omega design

[Alan9940]

1) You should think of analog and digital work as two different things. I've enjoyed crafting B&W silver and pt/pd prints in my darkroom for 40 years. IMO, nothing beats a finely made B&W silver print! However, I don't do color in the darkroom so it's the desktop and digital workflow for that output.

2) I've owned a Beseler 45MX for 40 years and it's a great tool that I still use to this day. Built like a tank! I've never owned an Omega D2, but my photo mentor had one and, according to him, you have to mount the Omega to a wall to ensure true stability. He thought the Beseler was better (ergo, why I bought one.)

[otto.f]

I have had two serious enlargers in the past, a Leica V35 and a Beseler Mxt45. Sold both in 2008 and recently bought a Beseler MXT45 again, but with a whole darkroom with three lenses for all formats, etc. for 800€, which I found reasonable because I could start rightaway, even with papers.
Your first question cannot be answered for you by others. It may depend on your history with wet printing, your curiosity, your eyes: do you see the value of a wet baryta print, do you prefer a darkroom workflow above sitting behind a computer screen, etc. If you have to ask others about this, I wonder what drives you to consider this. Although $200 is not the end of the story (films and good papers are not cheap these days), it is not such a lot of money that giving it a try will harm dramatically. You seem to ask: is it worth the trouble. Well you will get trouble for sure. Personally I find the results worth the trouble, and I prefer the kind of busy-ness above clicking a mouse.

[kaiserschmarrn]

Does anything look obviously missing on either, particularly the Bessler? That looks like a lot of bellows on the D2. Is that correct?

https://imgur.com/a/BSoGXTb

https://imgur.com/a/u1QTApG

I don't plan any digital photography, except for taking purposefully amateur looking shots from my cellular phone. Even though I have used the Omega 4x5 enlargers quite a lot, I am sort of hesitant to get one based on having bought a brand new Omega C760 many years ago. I did not have the best luck in getting it optically aligned. Maybe today, with my ability to do machining, I might have a bit more luck if I were to try that enlarger again.

I have done color film processing and printing at home. I might be inclined to do it again.

Danny

[Drew Wiley]

I started out with an Omega D and colorhead, used it for years, even when I also had much fancier enlargers too. I didn't see any Beselers in labs, but lots of Omega, at least for their garden variety enlargers. Some of them had far more expensive enlargers too. Nothing REAL $$$ is either Beseler or Omega. Big boy darkroom toys cost as much as big boy sportscars. But either brand is perfectly competent to make excellent prints, whether black and white or color (if it comes with a colorhead). Whatever you decide, get a 4x5 model instead of something smaller; it will prove way more versatile. Omega D 4x5 units are way more solid that the little C670, so don't worry about it getting out of whack once it's properly aligned. $200 isn't risky provided everything still works reliably. If not, it's not worth anything.

[Vaughn]

When the counter-springs go on the Omega, they'll be difficult to find. I have a soft spot for Omega D5-XLs -- I kept a bank of them operational and aligned for a couple of decades. Also a bank of 23CIIs. I found them easy to keep aligned, as the students gave me plenty of practice...they had a habit of letting the head of the D5s drop hard on the negative stage. We had a couple Beseler 4x5's also. Of the two pictured, the Beseler would probably be my choice.

[kaiserschmarrn]

When the counter-springs go on the Omega, they'll be difficult to find. I have a soft spot for Omega D5-XLs -- I kept a bank of them operational and aligned for a couple of decades. Also a bank of 23CIIs. I found them easy to keep aligned, as the students gave me plenty of practice...they had a habit of letting the head of the D5s drop hard on the negative stage. We had a couple Beseler 4x5's also. Of the two pictured, the Beseler would probably be my choice.

In looking back at a list of Omega models, the best that I can figure that I used a lot was the D-6 and possibly the D-5, by noticing the different rectangular filter drawer. There were two types in the lab at that time.

Danny

[otto.f]

@: “That looks like a lot of bellows on the D2. Is that correct?”
The bellows on the Beseler aren’t shorter, only one is folded on this photo. If they are both 4x5 printers, which they are, the total length is the same.
If you want to work with variable contrast papers, I would check if there’s a drawer/tray for your filters (behind the part where the title is: 45 condensor etc.). I can’t see that very well on this photo. Otherwise you would need to put small filters under the lens, which is not ideal. Let alone if you want to start color printing.

[Doremus Scudder]

I've worked with both Omega D (and E) series enlargers and with Beseler Ms. I always preferred the rigidity and layout of the Beseler Chassis to the Omega, but found the Chromega heads to be much superior to the Beseler offering for color heads; less bulky and more reliable.

So, now I have the best of both worlds. My primary enlarger is a Beseler 45MCRX (the beautiful blue variety) modified to fit a Chromega E 5x7 color head. Great coverage and evenness for 4x5 with the oversize light source. My second enlarger is an older Beseler M (non-X, i.e. with the bracing beams in the front), which I have installed newer focusing bellows on and converted to take a Chromega D head.

I've got an Omega E (2 or 3, not sure) chassis with auto-focus and the "flying saucer" cold-light head sitting in my garage as well as an Omega D chassis too. I don't use these anymore, though.

Best,

Doremus

[Peter Collins]

I have used the Omega D with the "flying saucer" cold light head and found it acceptable, but I moved to a Saunders Lx etc. B&W head which I liked more. Better build.

[jmdavis]

I use a D2 with a Zone VI cold light and controller at home for 4x5. I have no idea what is up with the D2 in that photo.

[kaiserschmarrn]

I bought the Beseler. It came with a Schneider Kreuznach 2.8/50 Lens, which , if my memory is correct, should be a pretty ok lens. Those that talked about the rigidity of this chassis were right on the money. I gave both enlargers a push at the top. The Beseler showed no perceptible movement, but the Omega swayed/vibrated a bit, and that brought me back to my university days, seeing that the Omegas there did that as well when raising the enlarger. This Beseler is my first experience with a non Omega enlarger.

Danny

[ggbushaw]

I used Omega D2s many years ago in the darkroom at the high school where I taught for a long time, but when I built my own darkroom in the mid-1980s--the one I still use--I chose a Beseler MRXII, and it has served me well for many years since. It is very sturdy, the motorized lift works smoothly still, and the baseboard-lensboard-negative stage alignment process is easy. My current head is an Ilford 500H variable contrast head, which I love. The Omega is a fine enlarger, but on the basis of stability alone, my experience is that the Beselers are even better.

[Drew Wiley]

The old D2 had a relatively short bellows. It could be an issue with lenses longer than 150. That problem could easily be cured if necessary using an available extended lens mount similar to a tophat board. VC paper use is best accommodated with an actual colorhead. But simple split printing via deep green vs deep blue glass filters over the lens would be another simple option. Filter drawers seem kinda Pleistocene and Neanderthal, but somehow they managed to survive a couple hundred thousand years before finally going extinct, so must have known something we don't.

[kaiserschmarrn]

Can anyone get me some images of how their 45 MXT cover for the back of the lift motor fits on? I took it off for cleaning and I am having a heck of a time getting it on even though I think I see how it should go. It looks like there is a tab on the bottom of the back cover that goes inside the box, based on some dust marks. I am just not sure how the top of the cover interfaces, as well as the sides by the screws.
The top of the back cover has a tab that probably goes inside, but the fit is tough.
Thanks,

Danny

[neil poulsen]

I've had several Omega enlargers . . . a D2v, I had a couple of D5 XL's, one with a color head and the other with the Universal head, and a D6. The only one that I really used was the D2v with a variable condenser head. It was my first 4x5 enlarger and was really good as a starter enlarger. The D6 and one of the D5's were donated to educational concerns, and I think I sold a D5 with the color head.

Of the two shown, I would definitely skip the Omega. It does not have a variable condenser head, so it's necessary to have a separate set of condensers for each format. Forget that!

On the other hand, the Beseler does appear to have a variable condenser head with a filter drawer above the lens. I've not owned one, but I've examined them, and that's what it looks like to me. Others?

If you get interested in a diffusion head for diffusion enlarging for black and white enlarging, consider an Omega with a color diffusion head. (A color head without condensers.) Like a D5 or a D6 with a color head. Used with variable contrast paper, you increase the yellow filtration for increased contrast, and you increase the magenta filtration for decreased contrast. I've used these quite a lot, when I did color enlarging in a public darkroom space. They had several, each in it's own small room.

Color Beseler heads are risky, because they often have circuitry problems. I use one with a Zone VI enlarger, and that was the case with mine. I was able to solve this problem by rewiring it myself.

[jose angel]

I bought the Beseler. It came with a Schneider Kreuznach 2.8/50 Lens, which , if my memory is correct, should be a pretty ok lens. Those that talked about the rigidity of this chassis were right on the money. I gave both enlargers a push at the top. The Beseler showed no perceptible movement, but the Omega swayed/vibrated a bit, and that brought me back to my university days, seeing that the Omegas there did that as well when raising the enlarger. This Beseler is my first experience with a non Omega enlarger.

Danny
If the lens is a Componon, it is a good lens. I have tested the small ring version and find it perfectly usable for 8x10" prints.

My issue with Beselers was the lack of a practical alignment system. I had to build an adjustable lens carrier and to use an adjustable easel as well to keep planes parallel (you can wall-mount the column to make it easier). I find the enlarger` alignment system to be somewhat basic.

[esearing]

The only issue I have had with Beseler 4x5 is the way some heads sit on top. There are 4 1/4 inch high posts between the lens stage and head. You may need a ring or special fitting to fill this gap. Some heads designed for beseler have protruding mixing chambers that span the gap down into the enlarger so no sideway light leak. Some require a special bracket. You can fill the gap with craft plywood with a cutout for the head to lens stage.

[otto.f]

The only issue I have had with Beseler 4x5 is the way some heads sit on top. There are 4 1/4 inch high posts between the lens stage and head. You may need a ring or special fitting to fill this gap. Some heads designed for beseler have protruding mixing chambers that span the gap down into the enlarger so no sideway light leak. Some require a special bracket. You can fill the gap with craft plywood with a cutout for the head to lens stage.

Yes that’s true. Thus far I cover the head to lens gap with a black cloth and I placed my Beseler a good deal away from reflecting walls. Stuffing up the gap with black foam strip did not help much thus far. Apart from that I have not seen any odd flares on my prints.

[neil poulsen]

I bought the Beseler. . . . I gave both enlargers a push at the top. The Beseler showed no perceptible movement, but the Omega swayed/vibrated a bit, and that brought me back to my university days, seeing that the Omegas there did that as well . . .


Any enlarger with a long, single column like the Omegas will need to be tethered at the top. Even though my D2V had a relatively short column, I tethered the top. Ditto with the Zone VI enlarger that I have currently. In fact, Zone VI made a kit for this purpose,.

[Luis-F-S]

Never felt a need to attach the top column of my 45 LPL, though my 810 Devere is attached at the top. The Durst 8x10 base of the SM-183 did not require it. L

[Drew Wiley]

ALL enlargers ideally need to be braced with a wall attachment. I have a vertical enlarger where the baseboard alone weighs close to 400 lbs, and I still have it seriously attached to an ample wall support beam. My Durst L184 and 138's are tiny compared to that; but I have all of them firmly anchored top and bottom too. It's not all that hard to do, and should be considered standard practice except with horizontal enlargers designed to be moved on floor rails.

[John Layton]

IMHO...very sturdy enlarger support - anchored directly to concrete basement slab, is better than wall attachment. Why? Because walls vibrate when utilities (furnace motors, etc.) kick in. I'd noticed this awhile back after having anchored my D-2V to a wall, and when the furnace started up I could see the negative grain giggling about. Again...IMHO.

Oh...and - Omega vs Beseler? Omega...hands down for personal use. Beseler in a production or educational environment. Will expand on this when I'm feeling a bit more awake.

[kaiserschmarrn]

I notice two odd things with this enlarger. Maybe most concerning is that as the head gets nearer the top, the motor starts slowing down. I also think that it is odd that to get the head to raise and lower with the motor, the condensor is on, because the unit is plugged in Do you just plug the main power cord into your timer and accept that the condensor is going to be on?

Danny

Edit: I found the "counterbalance" adjustment and now the head goes up without laboring. The only problem is that there are no viable threads in the short outer tube, but the screw catches on the inner tube when the inner tube rotates under spring pressure.

[kaiserschmarrn]

I just looked again. It is a Componon-S. The last decent lens I bought was in the early 90s, maybe. It was a Rodenstock Rodagon of something like 75-80 mm. It was all I could afford then. I look forward to getting a lens to cover 4x5 and to eventually get a view camera. It will be great to use one again.

Danny

[wclark5179]

1. No. Digital photography has won the photography ball game.

2. I used Omega D2 in high school and college. Extra curricular activity. For my analog darkroom I have an Omega B-22 and it covers all of what I want to do with film photography. I bought a Chromega head decades ago that I now use with VC paper. I just dial in the contrast I want. The B-22 works with my medium format negatives.

[John Layton]

Last post reminded me of the first question. A point to consider regarding "getting set up" with digital vs analog, is that of relative expense. These days, it is quite possible, in the realm of analog, to embrace the "state of the art" for just a few hundred dollars - while to do the same with digital, well...it is quite possible that you would need to sell your house!

Another consideration - reflecting on the "ball game" analogy mentioned above, is that the digital "ball" is still very much in play...with its "state of the art" constantly evolving. On one hand this is very exciting. On the other hand, well...good luck with ever moving back into that house!

[Tin Can]

Devere Digital Enlarger (http://de-vere.com/products-504ds-digital-enlarger/)

[kaiserschmarrn]

I will do traditional photography and darkroom until I can't, and when that happens, I am done

Danny

[Tin Can]

Good for you

I use any camera at hand, since 1958


I will do traditional photography and darkroom until I can't, and when that happens, I am done

Danny

[Paul Ron]

i like my besseler mostly because i got it for free.

[Tin Can]

The first taste is free, after that we are hooked

'God damn the pusher man' by Steppenwolf


i like my besseler mostly because i got it for free.

[ic-racer]

1) In this day and age, is trying to tool up to do film processing and printmaking worth it and viable with digital being allbthe rage?

Like asking if it is worthwhile to learn piano in spite of the local Sam Ash music store selling 100% synthesizers and no acoustic pianos. So, of course film is viable, but don't expect results without the same time commitment one might allot to learning a musical instrument.


2) I have found locally an Omega D2 and Beseler 45 MXT in equal condition, either are $200.00, but the Beseler comes with a Beseler Universal 20 Easel, so the ad says. I have experience with similar, if not the exact same model of Omega, and I once bought new an Omega C 760 Dichro (which is another story), but no experience with any kind of Beseler enlarger. Which is the better one to get?



$200 seems high for a D2, but if it has a nice late-model Chromaga II head and power supply with some accessories, maybe ok. I'm not too familiar with that Beseler.

[Drew Wiley]

Flip the question. Is it worth it to spend endless hours trying to learn how to get digital to imitate what I already know how to do better in a real darkroom?

[John Layton]

Drew, to add to this...placing ones self onto a learning curve of a technology which is anything but mature can make one more a (willing?) slave to that curve, whereas remaining higher on a curve of a technology which has more or less matured places one more directly in a position to face the greater challenge (and responsibility) of truly seeing - of truly connecting with…that which exists outside and beyond the realm of that technology. Make sense?

[Drew Wiley]

I don't think about it much, John. I prefer tactile hands-on work anyway. Right now I've got some necessary computer chores (non-imaging). But I'd hate to go back to my ole day-job life of carpal tunnel nearly-crippled fingers, sore butt and back, and bleary eyes. I also prefer the way my own images look in real print fashion. I'm not trying to make that axiomatic for others. But if one really knows what they're dong, they shoot for a specific output medium; and in my case, it's been darkroom enlargements for decades. Anyone who thinks they can do everything just because they have Photoshop probably can't do anything well. Quality requires restriction. Otherwise, you're all over the map. Less is more. And at my age, I've pretty much have the gear and setup I need for the duration. Most of it would probably last another two or three generations of use. Most digital stuff lasts about as long as toilet paper. As a marketing model, that's the whole idea - you gotta keep upgrading it or it becomes obsolete.