Enlarger(s) for large, medium & 35mm, 1or2

[mark e mark]

Do you use your large format enlarger to print smaller negs as weel, or just large format negs and another (if use use smaller format film) for medium format or 35mm?
The reason I ask is because I can't get hold of 6x7, 6x9 neg holders for my blumfield masterprinter. Therefore, I was thinking 1) Keep the Blumfield just for 4x5 (and posibly 6X12) and get another enlarger 35mm to 6x9. Or get a Devere 504 to do all neg sizes.
Do people finf using a large format enlarger abit of a pain for smaller negs? Have I got roon for 2 enlarger - only just at a push -and my wife would like to see just one:rolleyes: .

[mark e mark]

Sorry for above typos, hit submit without checking.:(

[Michael Graves]

I have a Beseler 5x7 that I use for both 4x5 and 6x7cm negatives. I admit that I prefer to use the 45MX for the smaller negatives, but if I'm already set up on the 5x7, and want to make one last print of a smaller negative, it doesn't bother me at all. The only real disadvantage is that the 5x7 cold light is 1 stop dimmer than the lamp head on the 4x5.

[Nick_3536]

If you have the room and don't mind dealing with different enlargers then you could have one for each format. Things are so cheap today.

My Beseler handles 4x5 and smaller very easily plus I've got all the bits so I tend to use it for everything. But I've got an old Durst that was picked up just for the colour head.

[vann webb]

I have an old Durst Laborator 1000 that I use to print 35 mm, 6x7, and 4x5. The head is a 4x5 Zone 6 VC head that I made an adaptor to mount onto the Durst. I use several different types of used negative carriers that I obtain from our local camera store and modify them with saws, files, etc. to make them fit the format that I need since Durst parts are hard to find and very expensive. I have a Beseler 67 that I could use for printing the 35mm and 6x7 negs, but the Durst/Zone 6 Frankenstein is so much nicer to print with that I no longer use the Beseler. I recommend a one enlarger solution with a good head and make your own negative carriers if you are at all handy with tools. I paid about 5 bucks apiece for the negative carriers that I bastardize to fit the Durst. I have laser aligned the lens stage on the Durst and everything about it is just totally superior to the Beseler as far as obtaining and maintaining alignment. That way you can print at whatever aperture you wish and get edge to edge sharpness without worry. (and with the VC head I don't have to use slot in filters either). The big enlargers are generally a much better build than the small ones from what I have experienced.

[Dave Brown]

I used to have 3 enlargers set up: one for 35mm, one for medium format, and one for 4 x 5. I had 3 enlargers because as I moved up to larger formats I had to upgrade enlargers each time. I eventually realized that the 4 x 5 enlarger was more stable, more precise, and had more even light distribution, so I got rid of the two smaller ones. I'm now back to 3 enlargers, but this time two are identical except one has a color head and the other a VC head. The third is a 10 x 10 which I only use for formats larger than 4 x 5, as it is rather incovenient to use.

[Jim Jones]

I adapted a 4x5 DeJur to also take MF and 35mm. The 35mm enlarger set up in my darkroom gets very little use.

[ggbushaw]

I use a Durst A300 with a little CLS30 dichroic head for 35mm, a Beseler 45MCRXII for medium format and 4x5, and a contact printing frame for 8x10. Yes, the Beseler is more cumbersome than the little Durst for 35mm, and more of a pain to keep aligned, but if I hadn't fallen into a great deal on the Durst 25 years ago, I doubt I would have been unhappy doing everything (except 8x10) with the Beseler.

[Peter Lewin]

Since you mention a DeVere 504, that's what I use for all neg sizes (35mm, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5). I have a ZoneVI VC head mounted (I think its a Besseler adaptor collar, fits right onto the DeVere "head carrier assembly"), 3 lenses on boards (50,80,150) and three neg frames which fit the universal carrier (35, 6x7 - which I also use for 6x6 - and 4x5). Never even thought of a second enlarger.

[walter23]

Do you use your large format enlarger to print smaller negs as weel, or just large format negs and another (if use use smaller format film) for medium format or 35mm?
The reason I ask is because I can't get hold of 6x7, 6x9 neg holders for my blumfield masterprinter. Therefore, I was thinking 1) Keep the Blumfield just for 4x5 (and posibly 6X12) and get another enlarger 35mm to 6x9. Or get a Devere 504 to do all neg sizes.
Do people finf using a large format enlarger abit of a pain for smaller negs? Have I got roon for 2 enlarger - only just at a push -and my wife would like to see just one:rolleyes: .

If you have room you should be able to pick up a 35mm / medium format enlarger for almost nothing. Less than $100 for sure if you keep an eye out for awhile.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I have two enlargers. My DeVere is setup soley for 4x5, and my Omega with colour head I use for 120 and 35mm. The later enlarger does not handle 4x5. I do have an older omega D enlarger with lens boards, cones, carriers, etc, for all formats, but I found it was a PITA to keep changing the positioning of the condensor lenses, lens cones and/or boards, etc, when flipping between formats.

As stated above, decent enlarger in the 35 and 120 format sizes are becoming very inexpensive, so picking up a good used one if you have the room is likely the best way to go. It only seems good used 4x5 (or larger) enlargers, as a general rule, are becomming harder to find and more expensive.

joe

[Kevin Crisp]

I used to have an Omega B22XL, a nice little enlarger, next to my Beseler 8X10. I'd had the Omega forever so figured, why not? I eventually concluded that the Beseler handled the smaller formats very well, and sold the Omega. I enjoy the additional counter space and have never reconsidered at least this decision.

[mark e mark]

Guys, thanks for the feed back. My Blumfield is a table top monster (106lbs) I need to use a 135mm lens so my max head room I have, will give me 16*20 prints tops. It is superbly stable, but you manually haul the head up and down the column. For 4x5, I don't mind doing that but for 35mm it's abit much. There are a few De veres popping up with colour heads (cheap) and a few with multgrade heads (twice the price of colour). Or I could get a 6x9 enlarger (colour head) for 1/4-1/2 the price of a colour 504 devere. If I could do every thing with one enlarger (can't get any 6*7, 6*9) for the blumfield at present) I might do that. I may get one this weekend? Keep the comments comming in because I plan to buy something by Thursday 21st.

Is every one pro glass neg carriers? One of the 6*9 enlargers I an looking at is glassless!


regards,

Mark

[walter23]

I'm using a D6 XL with diffusion dichroic head and it works great for 35mm to 4x5 without problems. I finally enlarged some 35mm for the first time last week and while it was a bit clunky having this huge head down so low with the 50mm lens, it worked out very well.

It's definitely not a 110 lb monster like the thing you're describing right now, and it's pretty versatile. I cant imagine ever wanted another enlarger for the smaller formats.

[ic-racer]

I have one D5500 set up for 35mm and smaller and the other is setup for 6x6cm and larger. (http://www.apug.org/forums/437328-post428.html). One enlarger could do the work of both but would require swapping out the lens holder, swapping out the mixing box, swapping out the negative holder and redoing the laser alignment.

[ggbushaw]

Is every one pro glass neg carriers? One of the 6*9 enlargers I an looking at is glassless!


I am quite definitely not pro glass negative carriers. Four more surfaces to keep free of dust and the potential for Newton's rings was enough to make me swear them off a long time ago. I use a Beseler Negaflat carrier for 4x5 and regular glassless sandwich carriers for smaller formats. If I enlarged 5x7 or 8x10 negatives, with their potential to sag, I suspect it would be a different story.

[Mick Fagan]

I run a DeVere 504 with a dichroic colour head and use it for everything from 35 right through to 5x4. Mine was manufactured approximately 1981, saw extreme use in it's professional days, but it to this day, performs flawlessly. I've had it for close to 10 years now and cannot see it ever wearing out, especially with my modest usage.

If you use one enlarger and you set the alignment up correctly, then for all formats, you will have an aligned enlarger. With the DeVere this is simple, plus they are built like tanks.

You also have the option of easily manufacturing neg inserts yourself. I have manufactured a steel insert for my Horizon panoramic format negs, which are 24x56.5mm.

If you can get a free standing one with the drop table, then I think you will never want for another enlarger.

Mick.

[Henry Ambrose]

If you want another enlarger only for 35mm get a Focomat - there is no finer, IMO. I have a 4x5 Saunders LPL and a Focomat sitting side by side. The Saunders can do all formats but the Focomat is the one I use 90% of the time to print 35mm.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Is every one pro glass neg carriers? One of the 6*9 enlargers I an looking at is glassless!
regards,
Mark

-snip-

Argh! Glass carriers, evil, evil, evil things!! Best place for a glass carrier is under a large sledge hammer. :D

joe

[max_ebb]

I use a Beseler 45MCRX for 6x7 and 4x5. I don't print from 35mm anymore, but I have a 35mm carrier and 50mm lens, so if I needed to print from 35mm, I'd use the Beseler. I love being able to raise and lower the enlarger with a flip of a switch.

I use a dichro head and only print color, but if I printed black & white with the condenser head, it has an upper bellows so changing formats is just a simple matter of making a quick adjustment of the upper bellows (no need to change condensers lenses or cones). I found the complete setup on Craig's list for $225, including both a dichro and condenser head, 3 lenses, and 4 carriers, plus a separate exhaust unit that connects to the dichro head with a flexible hose (so there's no vibration from the exhaust fan).

I personally don't want anything to do with glass carriers because of the 4 extra surfaces making 3X the potential for dust in the image. The Beseler exhaust system keeps the film camber cool enough that I don't have any problems with film 'popping' no matter how long it takes me to get an image sized and focused.

[mark e mark]

I missed the sale with the enlargers I was looking at, so will have to wait (hopefully not too long) for a decent Devere or so. With my Blumfiled to change the condensers ... is time consumming. 1) Take top cone + light off. 2) obtain slot headed screwdriver (10mm wide) undo screws (10 I think) 3) take off bottom cone 4) remove condenser set 5) put in new condenser set. 6)Reverse steps 1-3.
even a devere varicon would be quicker. Why do I want to keep the Blumfield - enginering wise - fab and it's a rock nooooo vibration. You know people say tap the enlarger head and see how long the vibration takes to subside! There's no vibration when you 'tap' the head.

Henry, I am attracted to the the Focomat for 35mm (but even having 2 enlargers is pushing it).

Any more comments of using a 4x5 enlarger for 35mm work (Defvere users in particular) Any Durst 1200 users out there?

[Ole Tjugen]

I use two enlargers:

An Opemus 6 (with glass carriers) for 35mm up to 6x6, and a Durst L138s (both glass and glassless carriers, depending on negative size)for 6x7 up to 5x7". In my experience, sheet film negatives don't "pop". 120 and 35mm negatives do.

The big Durst is just too big - it feels "cramped" when I try the small bits of film in it. But from 6x9cm and up it's just about perfect!

[Lee Hamiel]

Per Henry's Focomat suggestion - my son & I now have three enlargers - a Zone VI 5x7 (4x5), an Omega 760 & also a Leica Focomat V35.

We are now setting it all up to pretty much only use the Zone VI & the Focomat. For 35mm there is nothing like using the Focomat. Planning on selling the 760 down the road.

Good Luck

[Colin Robertson]

If your main priority is saving space, have one enlarger. BUT, you'll be forever swapping lenses, neg holders etc. Also, are all your formats standardised to print well with either condensors or diffusion?
For 120 and 35mil, my E.I's and dev times were calculated to suit my condensor Fujimoto enlarger. For 5x4 I have an LPL with colour diffusion head, and it's light is 'too soft' for my small format negs. So, I have two enlargers side by side, and it does mean I can print two formats in the same session with zero hassle.

[John Kasaian]

If you have the room and don't mind dealing with different enlargers then you could have one for each format. Things are so cheap today.

My Beseler handles 4x5 and smaller very easily plus I've got all the bits so I tend to use it for everything. But I've got an old Durst that was picked up just for the colour head.

True. Sometimes a complete enlarger can be cheaper than the negative carrier, condensors, or other attachments needed to switch formats---I'm up to five:eek: ranging from a Kodak Precision "A" to an 8x10 Elwood. You'll soon realize and come to appreciate what an understanding bride you have if you elect to go this route!

[Mick Fagan]

Using one enlarger for all formats encompassing 35mm through to 4x5" has great advantages, especially if the enlarger has been well aligned.

On my DeVere, I can change a lens holder, with lens attached or unattached, in about 10 seconds.

If I wish to change from 35mm to medium format, I unscrew one lens and screw in another, takes about 1 minute tops.

I permanently leave the 4x5" diffuser in the enlarger head, no matter what format I'm enlarging. If I do wish to change the diffuser to the smaller unit, the time taken is about 30 seconds.

Between formats, that is all you have to change or do.

Because of the great bellows extension on the DeVere enlargers one can do almost 1-1 prints by using a larger lens on 135 film.

For example you can put a 100 or 150mm lens on, then rack the bellows out and make quite small prints.

It is also possible to focus with a 150mm lens and 4x5" film in the carrier, down to postcard stock and have wonderful postcard printing ability for fast clean printing without having to do contact prints, which can sometimes be a bit hard on the negative from a handling point of view.

DeVere enlargers generally, are about the fastest enlargers to work with, second are the Beseler range with their wonderful revolving neg carriers, Durst are wonderful enlargers, but they are slow to work with, especially if you are going to change from one format to another.

I worked in an industrial photolab which specialised in mural sized colour enlargements 17 years ago. We ran three brands of enlargers, DeVere, Beseler and Durst.

Probably the ultimate enlarger was the 10x10" Durst, with a shutter blind in the head for absolute precise exposure, time after time. However it was extremely slow to work with and you needed a mountain of different bits and pieces to change from one format to another. You also need an extremely high darkroom ceiling!

The Beseler enlargers, which were all 4x5" were expecially great because their negative carrier can be rotated 180 degrees. This means, (as long as film doesn't get in the way) one can rotate a portrait negative around so you can work from the front of the enlarger at all times, great feature in a small darkroom. The Beseler enlargers with their electric motor drive is a nice feature and their motors are very strong as I have seen one of the darkroom lads going up and down for a ride, once!

The late 70's to early 80's DeVere 504, with the Dichroic head, tabletop or free standing (with the drop table) are very close to a perfect home enlarger, my reasons are:-

Firstly, they are literally built like a tank. Their main struts look like small steel girders, if these have been damaged, then in all probability, the enlarger has probably been driven over by a truck.

Secondly, the bellows system allows the ultimate in diversity of film/lens enlargement or reduction possibilities. I know of no other enlarger that can do this, except the big Durst and you have to buy or manufacture an extension cone to do reductions.

The alignment system is as simple as it is rigid, again, nothing I have seen is as good.

The focusing wheels at the front, along with their locks, allow focusing precision, other enlarger manufacturers only dreamt about.

The DeVere 504 enlarger is something that was designed and built by someone who obviously worked in a darkroom for a living, or at least took advice from someone who did.

Other enlargers are also extremely well thought out and manufactured, I just believe that the DeVere is that bit better overall!

Mick.

[Ross Chambers]

Dear Mick,

As it is fairly quick and easy to change the light mixing boxes in the Ilford 500 head on my DeVere 504 I usually do so for 5x4, 6x7 and 35.

Do you see any disadvantages in leaving the 5x4 light box in situ, whatever the gauge of neg?

I've heard that replacement light boxes, if they can be found, are quite expensive so it would be reassuring that if one of the smaller ones were to be damaged that the 4x5one would be satisfactory.

Thanks - Ross

[Mick Fagan]

Ross, I don't really know of any negative possibilities that could arise, from leaving the 5x4 diffuser in permanently.

Back when I was working in the lab and switching between about 14 enlargers, I can never remember changing the light box on any 4x5 enlarger.

On 8x10 enlargers we certainly did change to the 5x7 box, but these were for mural enlargements of 10 minutes or more exposure times.

My own DeVere 504 which I picked up 7 years ago came with the two light boxes, 4x5" and 7x7cm (I think it's 7x7) I did some tests and noted down the exposure difference when I bought it.

Off the top of my head, it is about 1/2 a stop, or slightly less, with a 35mm neg in and using both light boxes.

As my printing sessions frequently go from 35mm to 4x5" with the same subject and time that both were exposed I have found it quite interesting to note that FP4+ in 135 and 4x5" shot through the actual same orange filter and with negatives given similar contrast developing treatment so that they both print at identical or near identical paper grades, have near identical enlarger exposure times.

I run a set of three Schneider Componon S enlarging lenses, 50 to 150. This set of lenses are all of the same age and era and luckily for me, very, very close, in colour transmission. ( I print a reasonable bit of colour)

A few weeks ago I took a picture of the same subject using a 210mm lens on 4x5 and 55mm on 135. Both cameras were set on the same tripod one after the other.

Last weekend I printed both negatives, starting with the 4x5" neg first. I printed that to 12x16" with slight cropping and the paper grade is what I call grade 3 3/4 on my enlarger. I took a reading of the density of the light with my Jobo Colorstar analyser, with the filters in, but the negative stage pulled out, I dialled in the exposure time to the analyser.

Next I switched formats to 35mmm and changed to the 50mm lens and neg carrier. I then composed the picture on 12x16" paper with a reasonable bit of cropping to get a like picture of the 4x5" print.

Pulled the neg carrier out, placed the analyser probe underneath then noted the time change required to expose the paper, adjusted the enlarger timer, then placed the neg stage in, focused and exposed and developed a sheet of paper.

I was within 1/8 of a stop of what I wanted on a straight print. For the second and final paper print, the paper grade was pulled about 1/8 of a grade as well, to match the 4x5" print.

Pretty easy.

One can do this without an analyser, I have an Ilford EM10 exposure meter, or I can also use my Gossen Profisix with the darkroom attachment. You can of course do calculations but I have found when you change formats in a single printing session in a situation like this, the analyser is the best thing going, and most accurate.

If you don't have any of these electronic gadgets, then changing the light box adds another variable to your printing.

That is more or less how I work in the darkroom these days, which is a result of many years fiddling, reading and experimenting and just plain enlarging.

I cannot ever remember using the smaller light box in my enlarger since it's first session when I tested it.

Mick.

[Ross Chambers]

Thanks Mick,

I've been dropping in the tiny 35mm lightbox for my occasional 35mm negs.

Truly anal retentive!

My 504 came with 5x4, 6x6(7) and 35 boxes.

Regards - Ross

[Mick Fagan]

Ross, I never knew that there was a 35mm light box for these enlargers. Makes sense I know, but I've never heard or seen of them before this.

I wouldn't call it anal retentive, it is really a more correct way to use the enlarger, whether one has to do it that way, is another matter.

If I was doing extremely big enlargements from 35mm on a constant basis, then I probably would switch the light box. As I use 4 formats and am always switching around, I just leave the 4x5" light box and that way I won't have a light falloff problem if I inadvertantly leave the medium format box in.

Mick.

[mark e mark]

I am currentlty thinking of keeping the Blumfield and getting a devere 203, Or getting a devere 504 and maybe a leica v35. currently I seem to be using 6x9 backs or cameras. What is the 6x9 size of the neagtive holder for the devere 203 and 504. I Ask because the negs I am producing are 56mmx 86mm and 56x88mm. I know there are enlager that do 6x9 by their masks are only 54mmx78mm and are marketed as 6x9.

Mick, thanks for the info on the light boxes..

[Mick Fagan]

Mark, I have 35, 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 4x5 holders for my enlarger. Plus a custom made set of holders out of steel for my Horizon 202 24x57mm negs.

The medium format holders are all 56mm by whatever length. The 6x7 holder is 56x69mm.

Can't say I've ever seen a 6x9 holder for a DeVere, doesn't mean they didn't or don't make them, just haven't seen one.

Making a neg holder for any DeVere is really quite easy, especially if you have access to an engineering firm who can LASER cut the metal.

The steel insert will make the whole shebang quite heavy, but the enlarger can cope so easily with the extra weight it is a non issue.

Mick.