Anthony wrote:
> But why stop at a 4in x 5in enlarger?
Well, I guess because a great 4x5 enlarger can be had for less than $1,500,
and you'd be hard pressed to find an 8x10 enlarger for less than $5,000. Ian
Brightman, the late CEO of Beseler (R.I.P.--Ian died recently) told me that
although 4x5 enlargers don't sell well, they outsell 8x10 enlargers by 200
to 1.
But of course your comments along these lines were very interesting
nonetheless. Thanks.
> BTW that lab also had a Wild aerial enlarger (Wild by name not by nature)
> that had a cold cathode lamphouse. The tubes stayed lit all day long and
> exposure was controlled by a shutter in the lens. This made the light
> source extremely stable and I'm surprised that this method wasn't mentioned
> during the discussion of cold light enlargers.
I suppose because the average "committed" amateur darkroom worker prints
with a frequency somewhere between twice a week and once every two weeks.
And, of course, most enlarger lenses don't come in shutter. Not to mention
the fact that most amateur enlargers aren't light-tight to start with!
I'm not saying that cold light is impossible to use, or even that it's
difficult to use well. Just that dichroid-style enlargers are superior or
equal from a quality-of-results standpoint and markedly superior from a
convenience-of-use standpoint.
--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 .
