Enlarger lamps light; aren`t they too much powered?

[jose angel]

I have read from people who are desperate looking to lower the lamp output of their enlargers, because printing times are too small... It`s also my case. Sometimes, if the negative is not dense enough, (with say, a 75watts lamp on a Beseler CIII), I`m having times of a very few seconds at f8.
Most of my negatives are printed to about 10" on the long side (sometimes 14"). I have had to use some awkward tricks (now, thanks God with different low power LED lamps), to extend exposure times when dodging and burning, where I need at least 15 to 20 seconds to work with a minimal comfort and accuracy levels.

Well, I`ve been looking at the "modernenlargerlamps.com" site, and found the following data about one of their LED based heads:
"Super Bright - Brighter than a 75 watt incandescent bulb, enlarging times are close to those of a 150 watt bulb."
What`s the deal with it? If I use, e.g., an f4 Apo-Rodagon lens, with an optimal aperture at f5.6-8, at best I`ll get enlarging times around 4-8 seconds! Looks like manufacturers put all the enphasis on the highest possible brightness, to shorten the exposure time to the limit... instead of offering low brightness options. I wonder why, I have never understood it.

So, I question myself if I`m doing something wrong.

What do you think? Are my negatives maybe too soft? Are the "enlarger lamps" designed for much larger enlargements? What is your experience?

[jp]

A bright enlarger is nice for focusing.

It's also nice for larger enlargements which I do very few of.

For small enlargements of 2-4x, I'm not really concerned about being on optimum aperture of a APO lens. It's going to be sharp no matter what small aperture I use with my non-APO el-nikkor or componon-s. I'll just stop it down till I get the time I'm comfortable with.

[vinny]

buy a sheet of neutral density gel. cut it up. use it in conjunction with your filters when needed.

[mdarnton]

When I was working in pro labs, I used a 150W bulb, and a constant time of 5 seconds, using a timer with a foot pedal. For 8x10 that usually worked out to about f8, plus or minus, and for 11x14 two blasts of time. That always seemed fine for burning and dodging, too. All of my density regulation was done on the easel, visually, by messing with the aperture. If you constantly change the time, you'll never be able to do exposure visually on a basis of what you see on the easel, but by adjusting the "look" to a particular standard density, and a fixed time, I had an extremely low re-make rate.

[AtlantaTerry]

Why not simply put a dimmer between the enlarger and AC power outlet? Here in general retail stores such as Target or Wal-Mart, dimmers can be had for about US $10 to $12.

In lighting for films and TV programs we cut down light output with wire screens cut to size. Why wouldn't that also work when placed into the filter slot of an enlarger? Would the wire grid show?

[jose angel]

Mdarnton, never heard of this method, interesting. I use to set a fixed aperture, and set the time in full stops. Five seconds are good for "massive" printing, thought.

I currently don`t have problems with the light output, as I`m using LED sources in my preferred intensities... I use to switch between two lamps (as well as the original 75watts one); what I wonder is about other enlarger users. I find the brightness of recommended bulbs simply too high for "normal" use, and it`d be nice to have half, one quarter or even lower outputs.

But if everybody use, say, five seconds for "normal" printing with this bulbs, and most of you prefer this very short times (to me), maybe the thing is right, and I`m the odd printer here.

Atlanta, I wonder if dimmers affect the color temperature of the light source... anyway, with LED technology, things are much easier these days. As mentioned, I prefer to use two LED sources of fixed intensities, which are much softer than the "original", recommended tungsten bulb. And no important issues with contrast control.

[BetterSense]

You are not odd. Enlargers may be too bright. I'm sorry that enlarger manufacturers didn't get it right for your exact application. If you were making huge prints or using slow materials or cranking out hundreds of identical prints you may be glad for the brightness. It is an easy problem to solve with ND gels or a dimmer. I prefer a dimmer because that has a side effect of making your bulb last longer and reducing heat. Dimmers on incandescent bulbs absolutely change the color temperature toward red but if you are trying to reduce speed that's what you want.

[mdarnton]

Mdarnton, never heard of this method, interesting. I use to set a fixed aperture, and set the time in full stops.

If you can learn to judge a print's darkness under a standardized lighting situation (which everyone obviously does do) then you can learn to judge a projected negative image's darkness under the standardized lighting of a darkroom. This is a very handy skill to have, and not too difficult to acquire.

[ac12]

Some enlargers just seem to be bright.
My Durst M600 was brighter than the D2 at school. But then the D2 was a 4x5 enlarger.
The LPL that I used a the junior college was on the opposite end, it seemed dim.

My Durst M600 came with a 150w bulb, but that was giving me sub-8 sec exposures at min aperture, which were too short for me to do decent dodging. So I switched to the 75w PH211, which helped. But sometimes, I wish I could get even less light. I try for a 15 sec exposure.

As for lens aperture. If the magnification is not significant, I would not worry about "optimal" aperture. At small magnifications, I doubt you will see the difference. Just drop the aperture to f16 or 22 or 32 to get the exposure time you want.

[Drew Wiley]

It's all relative. I once owned a colorhead with 2000 watts of constant halogen. It required a cooling fan with a bigger electrical appetite than the average table saw. It would punch a 30X40 Cibachrome with a .90 (3 stops of density) attached mask in about fifteen seconds. That would equate to mere fractions of a second with newer color papers or typical black and white work - so would be useless nowadays unless one were making really giant murals. Now I work with a 1500 watt unit, but it's pulsed, so runs cool and economically, but can be real headache if something in the complicated circuitry acts up. For garden-variety black and white printing, I use a basic 250W Chromega colorhead, and if needed, the light can be reduced by an internal mechanical setting which screen off part of the light. Going to low aperture on the lens might degrade the sharpness of your prints due to diffraction, much like it does in camera with a taking lens in the first place. Better to use some kind of neutral density filter or screen atop the diffuser. Some paper print much faster than others. But if I can tame far more powerful
lights for even small prints on current fast paper (I was using a 105 Apo Rodagon yesterday), probably any enlarger can be tamed with a suitable diffuser.