Jump to content

Zone VI enlarger, negative carrier clearance question.


marty_german

Recommended Posts

<p>Recently, I've bought parts for two Zone VI enlargers ... a Type I and a Type II and a Beseler 45 MX II, complete with around D2 Aristo head with a Beseler adapter ring for it.<br>

 <br>

I've already made my own lead counter weights and wall mounts for both of the Zone VI enlargers.<br>

 <br>

I've also managed to buy a couple of original lensboards for the Type II and plan to make several more of my own for the Type I.<br>

 <br>

I've mounted an Aristo 6"x8" cold light head for the Type II and made a mounting for an Aristo 5" x 6" cold light head for the Type I (which I plan to use only for 4x5 and smaller negatives). I've got an array of lenses ... 50mm Apo Rodenstock; 80mm, 100mm, 135mm Compon-S and a 150mm Nikkor. That's the good news. The bad news is that I need to make lens boards with three different diameter lens openings for each enlarger.<br>

 <br>

I've also built a mounting for my Beseler Digtial Dichro 45 color head for 4x5 color printing. It just barely covers the 4x5 with a lot of fall off in the corners.<br>

 <br>

The Aristo 5" x 6" head covers the 4x5 black and white films so much more evenly than the Beseler!<br>

 <br>

My plan is to design an adapter plate for using Beseler Negatrans & Negaflat carriers (I have all 3 sizes) for either of my Zone VI enlargers.<br>

 <br>

<strong><em>What I wanted to find out from somebody with an 'official' Type I and Type II head is, how much clearance you have between the plate the negative carrier rests on and the bottom of the Zone VI cold light head?</em></strong><br>

 <br>

I want to design my cold light head mounts conform to the standard negative carrier gap distances so that I can test my adapter designs to see if they will work with standard Zone VI cold light heads.<br>

 <br>

My concern is that I hope to eventually upgrade to  Zone VI VC cold light heads made for these enlargers. The negative carrier/adapter machining is expensive. I hope to design it correctly the first time so that I only pay for machining it only once!<br>

 <br>

The problem is that the Beseler Negatrans are quite thick themselves! Add to them the thickness of the adapter plate and I don't know if there will be a clearance problem. I wouldn't want to scratch the opal plastic of my cold light heads when I insert the negative carrier/adapter plate into the enlargers.<br>

 <br>

I've already been aligned both of my 'Rube Goldberg' Zone VI enlargers using my prototype templates (currently out of hand finished, soft aluminum) and they work fine, mainly because I mounted the Aristo heads, myself so I could control the clearance over the negative carrier/adapters.<br>

 <br>

They work so well that I now plan to order a more permanent adapter from a local machine shop but I wanted to check to see what you see for clearance on a 'normal' Zone VI enlarger with an official Zone VI light head.<br>

 <br>

Currently, I have both of these enlargers standing beside my Besler 45 MX !!. It's quite a site to behold! I may soon sell two of them but I won't know which two until I have my adapter and can test each of them!<br>

 <br>

I'm leaning towards keeping the Type I since I only due up to 4x5 negs. and some 2 1/4 and some 35mm work. My adapter on the type I will let me use a 35mm negatrans that won't fit onto the Type II. Also, the Aristo 5x6 cold light (which I'm using on the Type I) is the latest version and works well with VC filters and it's modified with a Zone VI sensor and stabilizer.<br>

 <br>

The Type II is much larger than either the Type I or the Beseler! I just don't think that I'd ever need more than 4x5?<br>

 <br>

I'd also be interested in your opinions as to which enlarger I should hang on to and why?<br>

 <br>

Thanks in advance for your help with this project.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Marty--On my Zone VI Type 2 enlarger with 5x7 VC head, it is 1/2 inch between the negative stage and the VC head when the head is locked in the open position, and there isn't really much play beyond that with the supplied lever. Another thing you might think about with the Negatrans for 35 mm is how much further it is from the negative stage than the standard carrier, since there isn't much play in the bellows with a 50 mm lens mounted when making a large print--16 x 20, for example, with the regular Zone VI flat carrier. As for which one to keep, I haven't used a Type 1 Zone VI, so I don't know how it compares with the Type 2, but in my opinion, the Type 2 is definitely a much better enlarger than the Beseler 45 MX series, although they are also excellent enlargers capable of making top quality prints.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Different people have different experiences. I have a Beseler MX series enlarger with a Zone VI V54 diffusion head attached to the original Zone VI stabilizer. I had the opportunity to buy a Zone VI type 2 enlarger with the VC head and jumped at it. After about a year of using the Zone VI enlarger, I went back to the Beseler setup. I made some very good prints with the Zone VI enlarger and liked the variable contrast head, but the consistency of the prints with the Beseler/Zone VI stabilizer for me is unbeatable. I found the light output of the VC head was consistent, but the contrast was not. The electronics could not stabilize both the soft & hard lamps; it could only stabilize the combined output. If one became brighter during an exposure the contrast would change, and the electronics would adjust combined brightness through the timer. A brighter output would decrease the time between the beats of the timer, which had no effect on the change in contrast. I could make the Zone VI enlarger work for me, but the Beseler/Zone VI stabilizer is much more reliable.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you both for your information!</p>

<p>It's a very exciting time for me, having all three setup side by side so that I can work with all three of them!</p>

<p>I know that if I contemplated working full 5x7 negatives the Type II would be the best choice but as I said, my largest works are in 4x5 so, all three are equally suited on that score in that they will each handle 4x5 and smaller printing.</p>

<p>I do like the fact that the Aristo 5x6 cold light head I have has both the yellow 40 filter (suggested by Aristo to balance it's spectrum for VC filters to work correctly) as well as the add on sensor and Zone VI stabilizer to balance it's luminance output. So, Paul's suggestion about preferring the stabilized cold light makes good sense to me, too!</p>

<p>But, I could also easily make adapters to use this rectangular head to work on any of the three enlargers with only slight modification to the Beseler (which would need some cutting to enlarge the lamp support area to accept the larger rectangular cold light head!).</p>

<p>I made some prototype carrier adapters for the Beseler Negaflat, and Negatrans carriers and Andrew was correct about the 35mm not 'fitting' into the optical center of the Type II enlarger. It does fit the Type I (just barely) due to the smaller frame opening (5x7 on the type I instead of 6x8 on the type II). The upper and lower parts of the knob protrude and just clear the lamphousing's edge and the carrier's support.</p>

<p>So, this kind of leaves me looking more closely at the Type I versus the 45 MX II.</p>

<p>One thing that I've discovered about the Beseler is that the knob on the front of the elevation motor also serves as a very fine focus adjustment! I wish that there was something similar on the Zone VI enlarger. It makes precise grain focusing much easier ... first roughly focusing with the normal focus knob and then using the knob on the elevation motor and a grain magnifier to fine tune the focus.</p>

<p>One thing about both the Zone VI enlargers that I like is that they were designed to be wall mounted, too. I have them both wall mounted and if I needed (very occasionally) to make larger photos than allowed by the baseboard, I can roll out my bench, away from the wall and focus onto the floor. And the wall mounting makes them both rock solid, much more so than the Beseler is.</p>

<p>Of course, with the Beseler, I could tilt the head back and use it's hook to turn it into a horizontal enlarger but, unfortunately, my used model didn't come with the hook and I have no idea where I'd find one or what it's dimensions were to fabricate one.</p>

<p>One other thing I must consider is that there seems to be little interest (and lots of them for sale!) in Besseler MX II enlargers on ebay! If I decide to regain my investment, it appears it would be easier to sell both of my Zone VI enlargers!</p>

<p>Or, do I try to sell the Beseler with it's round Aristo D2 cold light housing and one of the Zone VI enlargers? It's a real quandary!</p>

<p>If I had the room, I'd keep all three of them! Did I mention that I also have a fourth enlarger? It has sentimental value as it was my grandfather's Kodak Precision enlarger to which I've added a Zone VI cold light head and stabilizer. It's still quite sturdy but only can be used for up to 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 negatives and that's why I'm trying to find the best 4x5 that I can!</p>

<p>As it stands, the easiest enlarger for me to keep would be the Type I, but only IF I can sell the Beseler and recoup my investment, first?</p>

<p>BTW Andrew, I will have to measure but I think the 1/2" clearance would work ok for the Negaflat carrier plus my adapter which total about 3/16" but might be just too little for the Negatrans for 120 and 35mm as they are already 1/2" without my 1/16th" adapter! Thanks for saving me big hassles!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p >In my previous post above I discussed the problems I had with controlling contrast with a two tube variable contrast light source, specifically the Zone VI type 2 light source. Yesterday I stumbled on a website that has me ready to go back into the darkroom and fire-up the Zone VI enlarger and print with it again. Paul Wainwright of paulwainwrightphotgraphy.com discusses how a print made with a variable contrast light source is actually split printing; a 25 second exposure with both lamps illuminated is exactly the same as two 25 second exposures with first the yellow/green lamp and second with the blue lamp. Note: the two exposure printing must have the lamps at the same intensity as the combined exposure. Since each exposure is made with a single light source, any variation in intensity during the exposure can be stabilized by the Zone VI photocell through the compensating timer. He also points out that shadows should be dodged during the “hard” contrast exposure and highlights be burned in with the “soft” lamp. If the overall contrast of the print needs to be adjusted, it can be done by reducing or increasing the exposure of the “soft” or “hard” exposure time; in the above example “soft” exposure 25 seconds and “hard” exposure 20 seconds would decrease overall contrast without effecting the highlights.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Paul</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Paul!</p>

<p>I'll see if I can locate my Ilford book to add it's exact title and publishing details but it covers some very clever advantages to using two exposures (one for hard and one for soft) in varying combinations to control both global and local contrast.</p>

<p>The effect can be superior to anything you've seen, before! One trick I remember was to produce a checkered board test strip, first varying the exposure of one of the extreme contrast filters in one direction and then over the same paper, making your other test strip with the opposite filter. When you pick the both the best exposure AND contrast square, you have your two exposures.</p>

<p>Another thing was that you could then use dodging and burning to both control the density AND the contrast of local areas in the photo. I used to use this to get very dramatic clouds and sky that would have blown out under normal printing of the landscape.</p>

<p>When you use this technique, it will amaze you how simple it is and yet how amazing the resulting prints are. Suddenly, 'impossible' to print negatives can produce amazing looking prints.</p>

<p>I've begun doing some serious prints using my Zone VI Type II enlarger with my sensor modified and Zone VI stabilized Aristo cold light plus 40Y filter and beneath the lens Ilford filters. I've got a series of 4x5 negatives that I will work with to produce the best prints I can using each of the three enlargers. Only then will I make my selection.</p>

<p>Let me know how the split contrast printing goes! I'll try to locate my book and post the details. Thanks again for your input.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Paul and Marty--I haven't had the kind of problem that Paul mentions with my VC head, but I absolutely concur with him on the usefulness of split contrast printing for some negatives. There are times when it is the best way to print a difficult negative. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...