Questions about Durst 138 S opal or halogen lamps and format masks

[Bob Wagner]

I posted a little while ago about lens boards, now I'm on the negative carrier and lamp options for this new to me 138 S

Here is what I have:
Fully functioning enlarger, currently set up with what appears to be a 1,000 watt halogen bulb (also came with 2 more never opened bulbs) including cooling fan
Enlarger and fan connected to a timer
Nega 138 carrier, complete but no format masks
Lenses for 35 mm to 5x7 (need to find/make a tube to fit the 50mm for 35mm negs)
Thorn Opal 500 w bulbs, one used, one apparently new
Condensers:
two 85's and 85T
130 and 130T
200
two 240's and 240T

Right now I use a D-2 and 75% of what I do is 4x5, 20% 6x6, very little 35 mm. Someday might consider enlarging 5x7, have the capability to shoot it but only contact print generally

If I retool my darkroom for this beast it would be hard to fit another one for 35mm and/or medium format

So my questions: are the Lapfe masks the way to go? I see 3d printed ones on ebay, I think I can get the one for 6x6 and 4x5 for around $150 - 35mm much harder to find
Upgrading to 8x10 led head is also intriguing, would that route allow all the formats using the same negative masking?
Would like to hear any suggestions or comments on how you use yours

FWIW I also have 'inherited' a Saunders LPL 4550 XLG with a VCCE K&IF module, haven't printed with a diffusion enlarger in a very long time

[Tin Can]

When I had 14 enlargers all set up during the 'Great Enlarger Die Off'

People were throwing them out constantly

I stacked them

Elwood can be raised high and a NOS Beseler 23-III can sit on it's baseboard

35mm are nice and small

Except my LEICA FOCOMAT V-35 ENLARGER #10 of 18 from an Oklahoma College

It is very heavy

It's like old anything, they will be valuable after I die


I have no problem with that

[ic-racer]

An 8x10 conversion head has many advantages, including eliminating the need for the impossible to find large opal bulbs for your existing condenser system.

The Durst L1840 system I use only has a 10x10 glass carrier, but it uses masks under the carrier for the smaller formats. I made my masks out of black cardboard.

So a reasonable option would be get the 8x10 (10x10?) head and 8x10 (10x10?) carrier and make masks for the smaller formats depending on what kind of carrier comes with the conversion head. The conversion should, of course, come with some type of carrier or ability to use a Durst 10x10 or 8x10 carrier.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd hardly call it a "beast". "Verstatile" and "convenient" are way more appropriate terms. The 138 system and NEGA138 carrier handles every format up to 5x7 with ease, though you'll need a recessed lens cone for very short lenses. I make smaller size format masks for a few cents apiece with a bit of opaque polyester (in my case, old voided Cibachrome paper), a straightedge, and a knife. If you feel you need expensive versions, that's fine, but they won't do anything different than home-made. When you say the 138 carrier is complete, I assume both sheets of glass are present too.

All kinds of heads can be retrofitted on these. Going diffusion has been preferred practice ever since the end of the Ice Age. 8x10 retrofits are fairly easy, but then become clumsy for use with short lenses due to the much greater spacing between the carrier and the most compression the bellows is capable of. You'd lose the smaller format (35mm and MF) versatility of the standard 138 system. It would require a matching custom 8X10 carrier; the Durst 10X10 ones won't fit - there just isn't space for a centered retrofit box that big.

One of my own 138's is converted for a 12X12 Aristo V54 cold light (atop a custom 8X10 adapter and carrier, with no room to spare for a 10X10 carrier). Another 138 chassis carries a "hot rod" customized additive RGB colorhead with interchangeable mirror boxes suitable for all formats up to 5X7. My still bigger Durst L184 color enlarger and huge custom 8X10 additive color enlarger are in a different room, necessarily with a much higher ceiling. So I'm quite familiar with adaptations of Durst heads and columns.

You'd just need to think twice if you want to graduate into enlarging 8x10 format or not. Staying within the limits of 5x7 would allow you to use a single enlarger with full versatility and convenience for the small formats too.

For a long time, I also had an Omega D2 and color head set up parallel to my Dursts for 4X5 work only, if needed. I had a demanding full time job back then, and tended to load film several different enlargers in advance, so that I could print several different images quickly and efficiently in a single work session. But when some of the Chromega electrical components finally went bad, I never replaced them, and removed the unit. The Durst system is just sooooo much nicer to work with.

[Bob Wagner]

Thanks, that's what I was looking for

[Gord Robinson]

For my Durst L138S I also have the Nega 138 carrier with a plain glass bottom and the upper glass is anti-newton AN. For 4x5 negatives I have a LAPFE 45 but seldom use it instead having a 4x5 mask from black paper. For anything 70mm and smaller I have the LADANE 138 which is designed to be used with the NEGA 138. The LADANE 138 clips into the NEGA 138 and has assorted mask that allow you to print negatives from 70mm down to 35mm either with glass or glassless. You do not see a lot of these units around but they do appear on occasion.
Check out this link for the L138 and on page 11 there is a detailed explanation of what carriers to use for negatives smaller than 5x7

https://www.trippingthroughthedark.c...structions.pdf

[Larry Gebhardt]

My preference is to use top and bottom glass for sizes above 6x7 for better film flatness. For 6x7 and smaller the masks work ok with cold light, though make sure you have the heat absorbing glass installed if you're using the high wattage bulbs.

Also, if you do use the original bulbs realize they are very hard to come by. I'd save the largest ones for 5x7 and use a smaller one like a 302 for the smaller sizes. Also consider getting a variac and running the bulb at a reduced voltage. Going down to 100V should significantly extend the life of an incandescent bulb. I wrote up a small piece on this https://www.trippingthroughthedark.c...nlarger-bulbs/

[Bob Wagner]

Thanks, Gord, I wasn't clear on how the Ladane part worked, your explanation makes sense. I must admit my eyes kind of glazed over reading the instructions for the various carriers, they write like IKEA

Larry, your website is a great resource, I will spend some time going through it.
Obviously LED is the wave of the future, but I have 2 opal bulbs and 3 halogens and the enlarger is currently set up for the halogen. The halogens are 1,000 watt and require the fan. If I could lower the heat output to the point where the fan is not needed that would be nice. I don't mind longer exposure times. What amperage transformer do you use, (I would assume the 10 amp would be plenty?), and does it have the same effect for the halogen bulbs or do you only use it for incandescent?
I found this on the web: "Halogen bulbs are pretty much the same as normal incandescent bulbs other than the halogen in the envelope allows he tungsten filament to be run at a higher temperature. A lower voltage to them should have the same effect as any other filament bulb"

I probably need to get it into my darkroom and try it out to see what direction to go in. I am chronically short of time so DIY LED is not for me, if I go that route I will buy something someone else has built, probably spring for 8x10 capability.
I wonder how many are still doing wet darkroom printing and how many 138s' are still in regular use

Thanks again for your help

[Larry Gebhardt]

Bob, the variac I use(d) is 2KVA model, so it can handle 2000W at the most. My understanding of halogen bulbs is dimming them too much reduces their life because they are not hot enough to keep the metal vaporized and it condenses on the quartz tube. You definitely want to use the fan with the 500W opal bulbs as well. I think Durst says anything over 300W needs the fan. I've never run a halogen in the 138S. I don't think at half the voltage (and watts) they will make enough light to make it worthwhile, and they would still need the fan. They would have much less blue light, so not ideal for VC paper.

I went the LED route because I wanted a diffusion option and I like to build things. I added the option to use the condensers so I could use either with the same controls. I'm planning the next upgrade to try out additive color, again mostly for the fun of it. DIY hasn't saved me any money when I factor in my time. You're probably smarter than me to buy an off the shelf solution.

I wonder about how many are still wet printing. I can get very good inkjet prints, but I still like the darkroom for black and white. I got fed up with the color darkroom options, but I'm going to give it another try with masking for contrast control when needed. Drew has convinced me

[Drew Wiley]

You don't want to use variacs. And I can't imagine any kind of safe use of a halogen bulb without a serious cooling fan involved. Halogen is strongly recommended for color printing at significant enlargement; LED's are likely going to be too weak. Glen Evans can convert old 138 Condenser heads to color halogen diffused ones; but it might be easier just to find an official Durst CLS301 colorhead and it support and mirror box, or simply adapt another brand of 4X5 head above the negative stage, which is fairly easy to do, unless you need full 5X7 illumination. But all of that will make the cumulative enlarger taller than a more pancake-like device like a cold light or LED panel. And you never want anything halogen hot right up against the ceiling.

I once had a Durst 2000W colorhead. It needed the same level of cooling as a nuclear power plant, it seemed. That made sense back in the days of Cibachrome, which was slow enough, but add a .90 contrast mask to it, and slow, slow, slow unless you did have a military-classified nuke enlarger operated by aliens impervious to the heat. That's why I sold that beast and built my own additive 8X10 colorhead based on a much cooler-running design, which happens to be 1500W. But today, using way faster printing RA4 papers, far less wattage is needed to get the job done. But it's still an open question if current LED options have enough punch yet, or even the right spectral peaks for serious color printing.

Bob - given the relatively large number of Durst 138's still in crates which were being sold in the US in the 90's, and all of them sold, and few if any popping up for sale again (versus older conspicuously well-used ones), it's probable quite a number are still in serious use worldwide, along with L184's. Only a handful still existed in Italy 15 or 20 years ago, still in crates new; and those have all sold too, no doubt at especially high prices and shipping fees. People who possess these enlargers give them up reluctantly. I intend to use mine until I'm just too old to do so; and all of them, except my huge custom made non-Durst 8X10 unit, were 70's vintage refurbished by me, and should outlast me by many decades.