Thanks for the info, Mike. Do you know how much one would expect to pay
for a Saunders 4500 II VCCE? I'd love to print some of my 4 X 5 negs.
With the right lens and lens board can this enlarger be used for 35 mm
and 6 x6 as well?
Paul
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> > However, I noticed in perusing the site, that most RC papers are
> > recommended for exposure with tungsten light sources only. I've been
> > thinking about equipping my enlarger with a cold head
>
> Why?
>
> A short primer on enlarger light sources:
>
> Most sources can be plotted somewhere on a range from completely collimated
> (a point source in a pure condenser system) to completely diffuse (actinic
> sources, usually). Most so-called "condenser" enlargers are in fact only
> partial condensers; Durst enlargers, for instance, use a large frosted bulb,
> a 45-degree angle mirror, and a single condenser, and are actually closer to
> the diffused end of the spectrum than to pure condenser light.
>
> Take the following comments with the caveat that expert craftsmen can, and
> have, used every single type of enlarger light source to do excellent work.
> (Brett Weston even used a point source, which is really quirky.)
>
> "Cold light" is essentially a folded fluorescent tube in the head. Large
> format photographers used it because it was more efficient than any other
> light source for large negatives, say 8x10 and larger. If you picture the
> size of a full condenser system for an 8x10 negative, you'll know why. It
> became popular for other formats in the '70s and '80s because Ansel Adams
> used it and recommended it. Most of the "diffuse vs. condenser" arguments
> from that era equated cold light with diffuse light. Many fine-art
> photographers followed Ansel's lead, and "cold light" was also adopted by a
> group of rather stident fanatics who felt obliged to codify the "best"
> accepted methods of B&W printing.
>
> In the later '80s, as color work became more feasible for home darkroom
> workers, dichroic color heads gained popularity. These typically used a
> highly stable quartz halogen lamp (similar to those used in slide
> projectors) beaming through a small aperture where the filters were located,
> into a large light-mixing box lined with some sort of reflecting material
> (the Saunders enlargers used white styrofoam). The light reached the
> negative through some sort of diffusing panel in the bottom of the light
> mixing box, usually translucent white plastic.
>
> Soon enough, this dichroic-style enlarging head was adapted to
> black-and-white, using B&W filters instead of color cighroic filters. This
> method or some variant of it is now used in many fine B&W enlargers.
>
> The light is just as diffuse as "cold light" but it has none of cold light's
> disadvantages--of which there are many. For one, cold light is seldom even
> (I've never tested a cold light enlarger that was completely even); it is
> difficult to control its color, making it less than perfectly suitable for
> VC paper; it is not linear, meaning it doesn't have instant on-off; and the
> light intensity is dependent on the operating temperature of the head unit.
> To use cold light with modern VC papers you need to use special tubes and an
> expensive electronic stabilizing unit such as the Zone VI stabilizer.
>
> A few good photographers continue to use cold light today, but those who do
> that I know of (such as Howard Bond) print 8x10 or at least 5x7 regularly.
> Most who print 4x5 and smaller have switched to dichroic-style enlargers or
> heads. Even Bruce Barnbaum and John Sexton, who are widely considered to be
> master printmakers, and who both used cold light 15 years ago, now use the
> Saunders 4x5 VCCE models. This head is technically superior in EVERY SINGLE
> WAY to even the best cold light setup (and most setups are far from ideal).
> It's more even, just as diffuse, far more inherently stable, more convenient
> to use, less expensive, and more repeatable. John used to use a highly
> customized, expensive, and difficult-to-calibrate cold light setup; he now
> uses stock, out-of-the-box Saunders 4x5s.
>
> Enlargers that use dichroic-style heads include the Saunders VCCE models
> (4500 II, 4550, and 670), Durst VC models (M670 VC and M70 VC), the Beseler
> 23CIII XL with its VC head. Examples of dichroic-style head units for
> existing enlargers include the Beseler Universal 45 VC system head and the
> Ilford Multigrade 600 system head. Saunders enlargers are made by the LPL
> corporation of Tokyo; Dursts are made in northern Italy; and Beseler
> enlargers are made in America.
>
> For black-and-white printing today in non-commercial darkrooms my top
> recommendations are: for 4x5 negatives, the Saunders 4500 II VCCE or Deluxe
> 4550 VCCE XLG (you can buy more expensive enlargers, but you cannot buy a
> better enlarger); and for 6x7 and 35mm negatives, the Durst M70 VC. If you
> can't swing the pricey cost of the Durst M70 and still want top-caliber
> results, go for the Saunders 670 VCCE, the Durst M670 VC, or the Beseler
> 23CIII XL Variable Contrast.
>
> The absolute best enlarger for 35mm B&W printing in my opinion is the Durst
> M70 VC with a Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon-N 50mm f/2.8 enlarging lens and a
> half-glass carrier (i.e., an open 35mm ff mask on the bottom of the carrier
> sandwich and glass on top). You can't do better for 35mm for any price IMO.
>
> If you also do medium-format and don't need to make enlargements bigger than
> 11x14 from 35mm, an Apo-Rodagon-N 80mm f/4 is a superb lens for both 35mm
> and MF.
>
> --Mike
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
