Durst 138 Enlargements

[Steve Sherman]

I recently purchased a Durst 138 with an Ilford 500 head.

I have downloaded from this site http://www.jensen-optical.us/PDF_FILES_TANK/L138SP-%20CLS1000%20Manual.pdf the condenser arrangement for various negative sizes and lens. When using both the 240 condensers the enlargement is only a vertical portion of the 5x7 neg and is not more than a 6x10 enlargement on the easel using the proper 210mm lens.

I am using 240 condenser without letters at the end, i.e. 240R

Any thoughts

[Steve M Hostetter]

Steve,, no such thing as a proper lens,,, you don't need a "normal" lens

I use a 240mm Rodigon on an 8x10" enlarger and it works fine + I get a bigger image

as you know a proper "normal" lens for 810 is 315mm

[wfwhitaker]

The Durst 138 has an adjustable internal mask operated by knobs near the negative stage. Are the mask blades all the way open?

I don't understand your question about the condensers. If you're using an Ilford 500 head, you would not be using any condensers. But if you're using the condenser head in its original configuration, you would use condensers. There should be two of them, both 240's (for 5x7) and should be oriented so that the curved surfaces are together facing each other.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

Yes, the MG500 head illuminates a 4x5" area, so it's not useable for 5x7". If you try it without the MG head and use the normal mirrored light instead, the ordinary lamp bulb should give you a fully lit area. All it takes is to adjust the lamp into the correct position so that the full area is evenly lit.

//Björn

[Steve Sherman]

Yes, the MG500 head illuminates a 4x5" area, so it's not useable for 5x7". If you try it without the MG head and use the normal mirrored light instead, the ordinary lamp bulb should give you a fully lit area. All it takes is to adjust the lamp into the correct position so that the full area is evenly lit.

//Björn

I want to be clear on this, the 500 head does not cover a 5x7 neg? This is a 138 purchased and outfitted for a major university with no concern for $$ way back when.

Thanks, Steve

[wfwhitaker]

I want to be clear on this, the 500 head does not cover a 5x7 neg?

Some Ilford 500 units were designed for 8x10. I don't know if any were designed for 5x7, but it could be possible. Most Ilford 500 heads are for 4x5 with mixing boxes for smaller formats. What size is your mixing box (what size is the piece of diffusing acrylic at the bottom)?

As usual, pictures would be a help.

[Steve Sherman]

Some Ilford 500 units were designed for 8x10. I don't know if any were designed for 5x7, but it could be possible. Most Ilford 500 heads are for 4x5 with mixing boxes for smaller formats. What size is your mixing box (what size is the piece of diffusing acrylic at the bottom)?

As usual, pictures would be a help.

The attached pix show I am assuming the mixing box which measure 3.25" across the illuminating face. Last pix shows the mixing box in place with each color blub positioned against the mix box while middle pix show that the two halogen bulbs are actually mounted on a sliding bar allowing for another 1" + of outward movement on either side.

I am guessing that if a new mixing box were replicated to larger dimensions than the light source would indeed cover 5x7.

Lastly, the two throats where the two condensers go would have to be covered.

Thanks all for your thoughts

Cheers, Steve

[wfwhitaker]

As best I can judge from the photos, that is a 4x5 head. If that is the case, then there is not room to accommodate a 5x7 mixing box; 4x5 is the largest it was designed for. Based on your dimension, the mixing box in the photo looks like the one for 6x9 cm.

To use the Ilford head on the Durst, the condenser head would need to be removed. There would then be no need to cover the slots where the condensers go. There should be some sort of plate or adapter to hold the Ilford head in place above the negative carrier. Without it, there's nowhere to put the head. A machine shop could make one fairly easily. I had an adapter plate made several years ago so I could put a variety of heads on my 5x7 Durst. It bolts in place of the condenser head.

But before you go to any further expense, it would be good to know exactly what equipment you do have on hand for this. I'm getting the feeling that perhaps the Ilford head was not used on the Durst by the previous owner. It may have migrated from another enlarger. But I'm speculating. If you don't have all the parts, it's not the end of the world; it'll just slow you down a bit.

[Allen in Montreal]

........ there is not room to accommodate a 5x7 mixing box; 4x5 is the largest it was designed for. Based on your dimension, the mixing box in the photo looks like the one for 6x9 cm.......

Indeed that mixing chamber looks small.
I would hazard a guess that Yale may have had the unit setup for a very specific purpose or task.

As Will mention, how best to get from there to where you want to go is the question.
I have seen, in pictures from an E bay listing, an Ilford head that had mixing box that slide into the condenser area of the 138 and the multigrade head sat on top of it. The mirror housing was removed and the entire unit slides down the resulting "hole".

As I say, I have never seen this first hand, only images from an old E bay listing.

Will, could we ask to see an image or two of your setup, it sounds brilliant.

[robby parkman]

Steve, I have both a Ilford 500 head om a D5 and a Durst 138. As others have said, the largest negative you can use with the 500 head is 4x5. There is not 5x7 mixing chamber and I can nnot see anyway to modify the 500 head to cover 5x7

[Steve Sherman]

As best I can judge from the photos, that is a 4x5 head. If that is the case, then there is not room to accommodate a 5x7 mixing box; 4x5 is the largest it was designed for. Based on your dimension, the mixing box in the photo looks like the one for 6x9 cm.



Attached file shows the configuration of my unit.

I get from the responses here that for each format size change there is an appropriate mixing box?

The picture here shows that the two bulbs slide on a bar which at there maximum width apart is 5.5" With that thinking than to accommodate 5x7 the lamps would have to move apart appox. 7.5" with an appropriate mixing box? Which then begs the question why does there have to be various mixing box sizes, just to increase printing speed, in other words, to concentrate light output to a certain negative size and no more?

If I am stuck with this dinosaur as it appears I am, if the head can be modified to allow the lamps to be spread apart 7+ inches and an appropriate mixing box is fabricated then I am assuming the unit would cover a 5x7 neg. adequately.

Thanks for all the feedback!

[wfwhitaker]

That's the standard Ilford 500 head. 4x5 is the largest format it will cover - with the appropriate mixing box. The mixing boxes are different sizes for printing efficiency. You could use a 4x5 box for 6x7 or 35mm, but a lot of the light would be lost and the printing speed would be slowed.

The head shown will not accommodate 5x7. In fact, I'm not sure how the setup shown would work, even for smaller formats. The diffusing panel at the bottom of the mixing box needs to be near the negative plane, just as with a cold light head. As shown, it's a long way from the negative. And I can't imagine that printing speeds would be within reason.

The Durst is not a dinosaur. It's a very adaptable and capable machine. I assume you have a set of condensers for it? If so, use it as a condenser enlarger. The Ilford head can be adapted properly to use for up to 4x5. Or if you want, you could sell the Ilford head; there's still a market for them.

[ic-racer]

If so, use it as a condenser enlarger.

Good advice if you want to do 5x7.

[Steve Sherman]

Good advice if you want to do 5x7.

The only real attraction to the Durst was the 500 head. There is a 5x7 Beseler immediately to the left of the Durst which I have to use blue and green theatre gels above the neg stage to effect varying contrasts. The 500 head seemed like a nice addition for a few $$. Guess I should have asked more questions at the University before purchasing.

Thanks for all the input!

Steve

[ic-racer]

The only real attraction to the Durst was the 500 head. There is a 5x7 Beseler immediately to the left of the Durst which I have to use blue and green theatre gels above the neg stage to effect varying contrasts. The 500 head seemed like a nice addition for a few $$. Guess I should have asked more questions at the University before purchasing.

Thanks for all the input!

Steve
I see what you mean, making two exposures can be a pain, I have a set of green and blue gels for my Durst 8x10. I was looking for some kind of color or multigrade head for my 8x10, but found they were big, expensive and hot. I wound up going with under the lens MG filters. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=428239&postcount=77

[Chauncey Walden]

I replaced the light source on my Omega E5 with a 6x7 Honeywell colorhead. The condensers take care of it covering 5x7. Maybe this is how this one was set up.

[ic-racer]

I replaced the light source on my Omega E5 with a 6x7 Honeywell colorhead. The condensers take care of it covering 5x7. Maybe this is how this one was set up.

Fascinating. I bet your are right!

[Allen in Montreal]

Steve,

I have only just started to print on my 138, with condensers and I am loving it, give them a chance before writing them off. I was searching for a VCL4500 head for the Durst and I am not convinced I will go that route after my last printing session.

I took a neg I had printed on the Beseler with an Aristo cold light and reprinted on the 138. No contest, the 138 print wins. Both my daughters picked the Durst print within seconds of me showing them the prints. Same neg, same lens, same paper etc. This beast does not print like the condensers we had on the Omega and Beseler of yesteryear.

Try the 500 head in place with the 240/240 combo and see what happens, nothing to loose.




The only real attraction to the Durst was the 500 head. There is a 5x7 Beseler immediately to the left of the Durst which I have to use blue and green theatre gels above the neg stage to effect varying contrasts. The 500 head seemed like a nice addition for a few $$. Guess I should have asked more questions at the University before purchasing.

Thanks for all the input!

Steve

[Allen in Montreal]

I replaced the light source on my Omega E5 with a 6x7 Honeywell colorhead. The condensers take care of it covering 5x7. Maybe this is how this one was set up.

I bet they would take care of it all. certainly worth a test.

[wfwhitaker]

...Will, could we ask to see an image or two of your setup, it sounds brilliant.

Not brilliant; dirt-simple.

http://wfwhitaker.com/temp/durstplate.jpg

Four bolts (M6, I think) hold the lamp house/condenser housing to the lower part of the head which holds the negative carrier. This plate replaces the lamp house and provides what is essentially a shelf on which to set the light source. It's simply a piece of 1/4" aluminum plate which has been cut to about the same size as the lamp house. The milled opening is just above the negative when it's installed. The plate is 16 1/2" x 9". The opening is 5 3/4" x 7 1/2". I originally used this with a Zone VI VC cold light head. The head simply sat on top of the plate. I think I secured it with gaffer's tape.

I chose to go with 1/4-20 bolts since they don't thread into the enlarger, but only into the plate itself and since I didn't have an M6 tap. The plate could be made a lot fancier with some support ribs to add stiffness. Depending on which light source was to be used, it could be made a little less generic, perhaps with a means to physically secure the light source to it (something better than glorified duct tape, anyway). And having it anodized would certainly make it look a lot more professional.

The 138 is knocked-down in storage right now, so I wasn't able to show the plate installed. But I think you get the idea.

[Donald Miller]

I went a different route when the Thorn lamps were no longer available. I designed a new higher wattage lamp house using a 1000 watt lamp and use Ilford below lens filters with the standard condensor arrangement for the format that I happen to be printing at the time. Should one decide to use a clear envelope lamp rather than the diffusion of the Thorn or similar lamps a new reflector design will need to be fabricated and installed.

The reason for the 1000 watt lamp is that I found the 250 watt Thorns to be a bit on the dim side for me. The new lamp requires fan cooling to keep things from igniting, melting or breaking.

I won't get into a discussion of condensor over diffusion but suffice it to say that my Saunders 4550 XL has sat unused for six years now.

[Drew Wiley]

There were many different heads made for the 138 Durst, both by Durst and aftermarket. It is overwhelmingly the most versatile mid-size enlarger ever made. Refurbished heads are also available from several individuals. In my case, I designed my own colorhead. I have another 138 fitted with a 12x12 cold light and custom top for 8x10 printing. There are many,many ways to resurrect these superb machines.

[Allen in Montreal]

Not brilliant; dirt-simple..........

http://wfwhitaker.com/temp/durstplate.jpg




Some times the simplest approach is in fact brilliant! I tend to over complicate things at times. :(

Thank you for sharing this,
certainly it is to be printed and put in the file for future tinkering. That said, so far I am so impressed by the results from my 138, I am not sure if I will follow through with any of my big bright ideas I once held for it.

[Allen in Montreal]

Drew,

I think that warrants an image too! An 8x10 conversion has been bouncing around in my head as the 184 would require cutting a small hole in the darkroom ceiling...which leads to daughter number one's bedroom, she hopes to veto that idea.




There were many different heads made for the 138 Durst, both by Durst and aftermarket. It is overwhelmingly the most versatile mid-size enlarger ever made. Refurbished heads are also available from several individuals. In my case, I designed my own colorhead. I have another 138 fitted with a 12x12 cold light and custom top for 8x10 printing. There are many,many ways to resurrect these superb machines.

[Drew Wiley]

Allen - I'd have to borrow a digital camera to post a shot (don't own one), but I can
tell you that the 138 with a 305 Apo-Nikkor will easily make 20x24 enlargments, or
somewhat larger, without resorting to either a high ceiling or a wide-angle enlarger lens. With my cold light, the illumination is very even on 8x10 film with this system. On the other hand, my 8x10 color enlarger is about thirteen feet tall and in a different room!