Small format with Omega 4x5 condenser?

[awldune]

I have an old D2 with the exchangeable condensers (not the VC head) and the condensers for 4x5 only.

Can I use this with an 80mm lens for 6x6 and 645? Or do I really need the smaller condenser set?

I understand that exposure times will be longer, but are there other downsides to this setup?

Thanks,
Sam

[Brian C. Miller]

There isn't a down-side, as far as even light distribution. The print time would be the same as for a 4x5, it would just be a bit faster using the smaller condensers.

[ic-racer]

Probably not. The focal length of the lens and the condensers and the magnification ratio all need to match up for even light distribution.

[Len Middleton]

Related to ic's comment, there is a great article on the Durst USA site on different light heads, especially condenser heads: http://www.durst-pro-usa.com/world_images/specular_light.htm

Doing a little research, before I bring the "wee one" (L184 :eek: ) home...

[awldune]

ic-racer, is the idea that the condensers are designed to be a specific distance from the enlarging lens?

What would happen, exactly? Falloff toward the edges of the print?

[Roger Cole]

I've printed 35mm on my DII/V when I've forgotten to move the condensor in the head after printing 4x5. Just like Brian said, there is no down side other than slower printing speed. It will work fine. Exposure times will be longer than the same sized print from 4x5, though, because the magnification factor is a lot less.

[ic-racer]

ic-racer, is the idea that the condensers are designed to be a specific distance from the enlarging lens?

What would happen, exactly? Falloff toward the edges of the print?

Exactly. So the things that affect the distance to the enlarger lens are magnification and focal length. Yes, there will be un-evenness if mismatched. Best to check this with the lens stopped down (as almost all lenses have their own hot-spot when wide open).

Also, as Brian points out, the smaller frame of 35mm can still get even illumination with less than optimum condenser setup, so some combinations you may have to just try-and-see.

[Bill_1856]

If you're not using the correct condensers matched with the focal length of your lens, the best solution is to have a local glass or advertising company cut a piece of frosted glass or plastic and put it in place of the condenser glass.

[boswald]

Just use the longest focal length lens that will give the mag. you want, and it will match
up pretty well.

[Roger Cole]

Sigh. The OP should just try it and let us know.

There won't be any problem with unevenness going this direction, just longer exposure. The opposite would not be true - trying to print 4x5 using 35mm or medium format condensers WOULD cause unevenness, specifically more exposure in the central area.

[Heroique]

Don’t be afraid of breaking the rules! Experimenting is fun. Do some tests, print your paper, decide if you like what you see. Please tell us your results. We want to hear.

It occurs to me that I know people who work only w/ MF and 35mm film, and they use, exclusively, the 4 11/16” condenser set w/ a 75mm lens. I’ve never heard them complain.

Using a 6.5” set and a 80mm lens for 645 and 6x6, as you wish, might not offer ideal light distribution, but your personal tests might prove very satisfactory.

-----
Maybe a quick review of “standard” combinations would be useful for those who are newer at this game:

The Omega D2 (non-v) is designed to use any one of three, interchangeable condenser sets (i.e., condenser pairs): the 3.5” set (35mm film), 4 11/16” set (MF), and 6.5” set (4x5):

— The 3.5” set is commonly matched w/ the typical 50mm lens on a flat board. This of course is for 35mm film.

— The 4 11/16” set is commonly matched with, say, 75mm and 80mm lenses on flat boards. Good for MF film. The 75mm lens would cover 645 and 6x6 film. The 80mm would, in addition, cover up to 6x7 safely. If enlarging 6x9 film, I think I’d go w/ a 105mm lens.

— The 6.5” set is matched with the 135mm lens (on a 2.75” cone) and the 150mm lens (on a 4.5” cone). Good for 4x5 film. The 150mm lens covers 4x5 a little more evenly, but you might not notice.

And for anyone who’s curious, the D2v (as opposed to the D-II or D2 non-v) uses a third “variable” condenser, making it possible to use it in conjunction w/ only one condenser set – namely, the 6.5” set – for 35mm, MF and 4x5 work. This can be convenient. ;)

[Vaughn]

Sam, this may not be what you are thinking of, but with the D5 (with the third condenser that moves to match any film size 35mm-4x5) I usually use the enlarger set for 4x5 with the 135mm lens when printing my 6x6 or 6x7 negatives.

I do not print big (11x14 -- and usually color) so the enlarger does not have to be too high -- might not work for 16x20 prints but I have never tried.

I figure this uses the "sweet spot" of both the condensers and the lens for the sharpest and most even distribution of light. The 6x6 neg is in the center of where normally a 4x5 negative would be, so the corners of the 6x6 are no where near where the corners of the 4x5 neg would be...where drop off in light and sharpness usually occurs.

So if you don't require big enlargements, going with a longer lens would solve any problems of using the 4x5 condenser set.

[Roger Cole]

And for anyone who’s curious, the D2v (as opposed to the D-II or D2 non-v) uses a third “variable” condenser, making it possible to use it in conjunction w/ only one condenser set – namely, the 6.5” set – for 35mm, MF and 4x5 work. This can be convenient. ;)

Aren't the heads interchangeable? I ask because I have what I think is a D-II (no crank, loosen the tension and push/pull the head up and down) but I have the variable condenser lamphouse. It says "variable condenser lamphouse" right on it. Does this mean it was added later to a D-II that originally came with the fixed condenser head?

[Heroique]

Does this mean it was added later to a D-II that originally came with the fixed condenser head?

Yes, they’re interchangeable, and it sounds like that’s what happened – someone added the VC head to your D-II, and presto, it’s a D2v.

Depending on my negative, or print plans, I’ll often switch-out my condensers, VC box, and lamphouse for an Omegalite head.

[Roger Cole]

Yes, they’re interchangeable, and it sounds like that’s what happened – someone added the VC head to your D-II, and presto, it’s a D2v.

Depending on my negative, or print plans, I’ll often switch-out my condensers, VC box, and lamphouse for an Omegalite head.

It's a D2v without a crank. Or similarly, I guess it's a D-IIv. Or something. At any rate, the price was right back when they weren't free (early 90s, paid $150 I think) and it works fine. :)

[awldune]

Thanks to all who replied!

I just moved recently and my darkroom isn't set up yet, which is why I haven't just tried it.

I have developed 6x9 and 6x6 with the 4x5 condenser before, but haven't tried 35mm and 645. I have quite a few 645 negs. Just trying to see whether it would be worthwhile to try to buy a VC head or the smaller condensers. There's a 3.5'' condenser at auction which I am bidding on. We'll see if I can get that for less than $25.

[Roger Cole]

If you can get it for $25 it's probably worth it just for printing speed.

Darkroom gear, particularly LF stuff, is so cheap nowadays. I'm trying to decide if I want to pay $150 for a complete Omega D5 with colorhead. I already have that DII(v) - the color head would be nice for VC printing but how many of these enormous beasts are enough? The costs for negative carriers and lensboards can easily exceed the cost of the enlarger (and I don't think either are interchangeable between my D-II and the possible D5 - not sure about the carriers though.)

EDIT: Just checked, they're not. So if I buy this thing (I think it has a lensboard and carrier for a 50mm) I'm looking at a board or cone (not sure they used cones on the D5, they may have enough bellows draw without them) I'm looking at a 4x5 carrier and lensboard for my 135mm Nikkor at minimum, which if I have to buy easily instead of scrounge until I find could easily double the cost of the enlarger. Weird times in a way!

[awldune]

Pretty sure boards are not interchangeable but carriers are.

I did win the 3.5'' condenser, so I'll see how that works out.

[Roger Cole]

I hope you're right. I need to call the guy and verify exactly what he has with it.

As for the subject, since you've printed 6x7 and 6x9, ask yourself if the central 6x4.5 area of those prints were even. That's all you're doing printing 645 - using that cropped area. Same for 35mm, except you're only using the central 24x36mm of the area. If that's even on your 6x9s, it'll be even on your 35mm.

[awldune]

As for the subject, since you've printed 6x7 and 6x9, ask yourself if the central 6x4.5 area of those prints were even. That's all you're doing printing 645 - using that cropped area. Same for 35mm, except you're only using the central 24x36mm of the area. If that's even on your 6x9s, it'll be even on your 35mm.

I think where the evenness changes is when you use a different enlarging lens. I won't be enlarging 35mm with a 135mm lens. I do have a 3.5'' condenser coming though, so I should be OK using a 50mm lens.

[Pavel+]

I have the variable model and a while ago I did a test just for the heck of it. I measured the light intensity at the middle and edges under various setups and the 35mm (50 lens) did not change AT ALL in evenness except that it was better than medium format sizes (80&105 lenses) and much better than larger format (135) for even light distribution when wide open or one stop down. It was in fact even edge to edge just one stop or more down, whereas all the other combos had to have three stops down before the edges caught up with the center.

The price for that however were longer times. If I remember right (wouldn't count on it) the times were 1.7 times longer.

The problem is when you use a small condenser set with a larger negative. Horrible falloff.

[Roger Cole]

I have the variable model and a while ago I did a test just for the heck of it. I measured the light intensity at the middle and edges under various setups and the 35mm (50 lens) did not change AT ALL in evenness except that it was better than medium format sizes (80&105 lenses) and much better than larger format (135) for even light distribution when wide open or one stop down. It was in fact even edge to edge just one stop or more down, whereas all the other combos had to have three stops down before the edges caught up with the center.

The price for that however were longer times. If I remember right (wouldn't count on it) the times were 1.7 times longer.

The problem is when you use a small condenser set with a larger negative. Horrible falloff.

The defense rests. ;)