DARKROOM EQUIPMENT

A want to get into 35mm and 6 x 4.5 black and white printing. Can

anyone help with advice on a suitable enlarger and 50mm and 75-80 mm

enlarging lenses.

 

My plan is to enlarge up to 20 x 16 and am a ETRS and Leica

rangefinder user and wish to extract the maximum quality I can from

these formats.

 

Should I go for a 6 x 6 enlarger or bigger? Condenser, colour or

dichroic heads? Cold light or what? El-Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider

or what? Brand? Model? Does Anyone have anything suitable? I am based

in London, UK.

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Kevin Austin

About 20 years ago give or take, Vivitar manufactured a great dichroic condenser enlarger called the Vivitar VI. There are still a few around and I think they're a superior value to the 23CII or 6X6 Omegas. I use a D-5XL now but upgraded solely for 4X5 utility. I loved the Viv VI.

 

I've seen a couple of them on e-bay over the past months.

 

I would recommend sticking with some form of a dichroic head on whatever enlarger you settle on.

I forgot to mention my valuable (oh boy) opinions on lenses. I have a Schneider 50mm, a Rodenstock APO 80mm and an el-nikkor 135mm. I believe the best values are the nikkors (I'm not saying best lenses, just best values). They are very well corrected for flat field and render color accurately.

you won't necessarily need apo enlarger lenses for black and white but it certainly wouldn't hurt. I would buy a 4x5 enlarger just in case you decide to move up in formats. You may decide you like panoramics or large format later on so it's not a bad idea to have some growing room. If you also buy a dichroic head you will have the option of printing color later if you choose to do so. The predominate preference on light sources for printing black and white is a vc coldlight. The more expensive coldlights have infinitely variable contrast controls and supress dust and scratches. I have an ancient omega d2 slider with schneider 150, rodenstock 105 and nikkor 50 and use condensors(they've been customized a little to even out the illumination) and i print on graded fiber based papers. I love the results but I have to expose and develope the negatives carefully to keep the contrast down. Some enlarger brands to look for: Durst, Omega, Beseler, Eseco, Saunders.

When I was shopping for an enlarger I had elected to buy a used one and had only four criteria:

- 35mm, 645, 6x7 negatives

- basboard magnification to at least 16x20 from 35mm

- enlarger or descendant still in production

- condenser, dichroic, cold light heads available.

I visited some web sites and collected some brochures to gather enough information to identify a few enlargers for my "hit list", including ones up to 4x5. The plan was to buy whichever one popped up first. As it turns out, this was a Chromega D6XL with dicroic head. I have been extremely happy with it for both B&W and colour but I think I would have been no less satisfied with any of the others. I had originally planned to acquire a cold light head, but I have found that the dichro produces excellent B&W and am not strongly motivated to change.

 

As for lenses, I refer you to a book called "Post Exposure" by a fellow named Ctein. He devotes a chapter to enlarging lenses and has a table of brand name comparisons.

With digital imaging replacing the darkroom among hobbyists, there are lots of bargains available; so much so that a good 4x5 enlarger may be within your price range.

Why 4x5? Because a huge, rigid massive enlarger will be much better for even 35mm than a little dinky wiggly thing.

Primary recommendations are Durst, Saunders/LPL and, since you're in the UK, DeVere.

Go for a dichro head if you can. Often they're not significantly more expensive than condenser models, and they're wonderful for VC printing plus of course color. There's no advantage at all to a cold light head compared to a dichro.

All _modern_ high-quality lenses are essentially the same. Avoid "economy" models.

I would second a number of the above responses. Digital is just sooooo sexy today that people are abandoning their darkrooms in droves.

<br><br>

The main problem, of course, is to make a decent print in the darkroom and compare it with the typical scan -- oh, don't bother, sex wins every time.

<br><br>

(Of course -- there is no question that there is digital-based equipment available today that will blow away anything you can do in a darkroom. The "only problem" is that you can't afford it...)

<br><br>

That said, in addition to what .-1 said: I've seen some awfully good Omega D2's go by in recent months at nearly giveaway prices. Strike while the iron is hot, and the mob is looking the other way, and you're liable to get an excellent machine for a nearly a song.

<br><br>

Don Feinberg

<br>

donf@cybernex.net

Have you considered the Meopta range on enlargers. You can pick up an Opemus 6 with colour head, transformer and mixing chamber for a very reasonable sum. The savings will then enable you to buy a top line lens such as Nikkor or Schneider Companon. I appreciate that these enlargers may be regarded as second class compared to more glamorous makes but I can personally say that they are very well built. They are an all metal construction with a good solid column and generous base board. Also the technicians at Meopta UK are very helpful. Their retail arm is RK Photographic in Ballards Lane, London. Their web site is www.meopta.uk. You can pick up a second hand Opemus 6 for well under #100.00. If you send the condenser head to RK Photographic they will sell you a colour head, transformer and mixing box for #140. For an extra #9.00 they will even collect it and send you the colour head. Whilst I would not consider myself an expert photographer by any means I am fussy about my equipment. I find my Opemus enlarger meets my expectations.

 

Good luck

I don't know if i agree about the digital comment. Our staff p-journalists here use $15k nikon hybrids and prints from those hurt my eyes over 5x7. Of the digital backs I've seen produced for medium and large format,,,none of those printed can compete with a decent print from neg or slide film from the same camera. About the only way around the dissapointing pixellation of the photo-planet is drum scanning but that don't count for you still need a darkroom. Digicams/backs are great for web sites and smallish photos but just try to enlarge one to 16"x20"!

I picked up one of those Meopta enlargers at a garage sale. It didn't have a dichroic head, but it did have a filter drawer. Also had different sets of condenser heads for the unit. I bought the enlarger with a timer, 4-8x10 print trays, several dry chmical packs, an Omega 8x10 cropping easel (the reciept in the box was for $32.00 in 1983), tongs, mixing containers, film clips, 2 safelights, a Kodak dataguide (1981 issue!) all for only $20.00. I have used the enlarger extensively and it will handle up to a 6x6 neg and it has croppign blades built into the negative carrier. If you find one of these in good shape, you could probably pick it up for a song! The negative carrier is glassed so make sure it still has anti-newtonian glass and replace it if it is not. You can print up to 16x20 or so, and if you cut the base and mount to a counter top or table, you can then make shelves to allow you to drop the print surface down to enable even larger print sizes. Hope you have luck finding something. Check your garage and estate sales. The estate sales tend to be a little more pricy because someone usually knows what the equipment is worth.

Sorry folks, the "digital" equipment I was refering to stuff like:

<br><br>

-the relatively new 4x5 back ("fine light"?) -- which takes 5 to 10 minutes to scan the in-camera 4x5 area (it has to be a pretty static subject!), but it does scan in stunning detail. Of course, you have to have a computer with you, all the time, that can hold 250 mb per image! Not bad for >$35K or so per copy!

<br><br>

- some of the high end scanners (like the better Imacons). These *start* at about $10K, and run up to some of the $50K pmt scanners, but these will produce a scan from 6x6 or 4x5 that allow you to make a relatively decent 8x10" print (or maybe 11x14").

<br><br>

I've also seen some of the latest prototype printers (no, I'm not talking about garden variety Epsons!) which are able to provide simply amazing print quality -- on photographic paper, not inkjet paper -- for about $50K per machine.

<br><br>

That's why I said I (and probably you) couldn't afford it. I'm not even considering the usual Epson printers and the popularly-priced Minolta/Nikon/Polaroid etc. scanners. This stuff is fins for the web, anb for the newsroom, but not for fine prints...

<br><br>

Don Feinberg

<b>donf@cybernex.net</b>

Perhaps the best that can be said about garden-variety inkjet prints etc is that most of them will have faded away in a couple of years. <g>

 

Although I hate to do it, I'm eliminating the darkroom section in my shop. Hardly anyone buys the gear even at rock-bottom prices and it takes up a lot of space. Shame.

yes, while i can't afford it I am familiar with the equipment Don. The back you speak about (Better Light) for 4x is the latest in a long line of backs like leaf and dicomed that aren't yet portable enough for field work and don't you dare put a lupe to em'... yuck! The resolution even at 250mb still has wee little ugly pixels. Kodak and other companies are working hard on printer technologies but affordable fine-art printers are and will forever be a fantasy. Relatively decent 8x or maybe 11x won't cut it at least not for me. I'm used to critically sharp 20x24's from my 4x equipment. If we professionals and serious hobbyists don't require more for less money then all of photography suffers.

 

I'm sorry that your clients don't want to fuss with a darkroom John, so I'll take any of that extra equipment off your hands if it'll make you feel better.

 

I fear we're all too anxious for the digital revolution to be over and done, but we are a long way from that.

 

So nothing I've seen in the digital realm "blows away" darkroom work. Wrap you eyes around a 11x14 contact print then pull the other leg it plays "Jingle Bells".

All right, here's my two cents.

 

Omegas are great enlargers, can't go wrong there. I'd stay away from Beselers, especially the 23C, which has terrible illumination problems. Personally, I'd look for an Omega D2 with the dichroic color head--then you can dial in your VC filtration. And if you start with a 4x5 enlarger, you'll have room to grow. And yes, they're much sturdier than smaller enlargers. I doubt if cold lights really offer much improvement over a color head, though I'd be willing to listen to arguments from graded-paper users to the contrary.

 

As far as enlarging lenses go, IMO the Componon-S's are still the winners, though by only a small margin. Nikkors are great too. I do not have much experience with Rodenstock, but they are reputed to be among the best. I doubt you could go wrong with any of these. Whatever you do, stay away from cheap entry-level enlarging lenses!

 

Unless money is no object to you, I'd look for good used bargains, of which there are many in the darkroom field: the Omega D2, as I said, and the older non-"S" Componons, for example.

 

What else? You might need a glass carrier for 35mm, especially if you want to make 16x20 prints. Also, make sure the enlarger is aligned properly. You can have the best enlarger in the world but if it's not aligned it will give poor results.

 

http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeter.htm

>>Kodak and other companies are working hard on printer technologies but affordable fine-art printers are and will forever be a fantasy.<<

<br><br>

I'm not sure that's so. It is correct today, but after my 35 years in the computer industry, I'm not so sure about what will be tomorrow (whenever that is). One thing I've learned is that "forever" is a very long time. Today, I have a lot of trouble predicting what will be in the next 10 minutes, let alone the next 10 months or 10 years -- to say nothing of "forever". I don't make those predictions any more.

<br><br>

>>Relatively decent 8x or maybe 11x won't cut it at least not for me. I'm used to critically sharp 20x24's from my 4x equipment.<<

<br><br>

Yes, I know, I know! What I was referring to a few posts back was that it seems to me that a lot of the world has forgotten what a well made, critically sharp print even looks like -- and most of the rest of the world never knew! I think that if one has only seen such things in books and magazines, on the network, etc., then one simply doesn't appreciate what one is seeing and has no basis for discussion. But try telling that to someone who is completely enamored of digital today. Especially, someone who has the normal attention span of 15 milliseconds ...

<br><br>

Don Feinberg

<br>

donf@cybernex.net