Enlargers (more memorial ramblings)

Enlargers

A misspent life in the darkroom?

 

I had threatened to do this, and although my cold slowly improves, you should never threaten something if you don't mean to follow through.

 

As it happens, I have never personally owned an enlarger. By the time I got into Junior High, there were school darkrooms available, and by the time I became a faculty member, I actually got to design my darkroom on campus as a part of my "hire" package.

 

However, that's another story, perhaps. What I intend here is to continue from the same issue of Popular Photography (December, 1940) that formed the basis for my little essay on contact printers (LINK: Contact Printers -- More memories of a misspent youth). I intend to very briefly go over the concept of enlargers as it developed prior to WWII (just before I was born).

In the beginning

In the days of early photography, the concept of enlargement was hardly thought of. With negatives of 16x20" size contact prints seemed "adequate".

 

However, the concept of projection was another matter. A common educational forum in the 19th century was the lecture - authors like Mark Twain could make a 'good living' on the lecture circuit, and there were traveling lecture series like the Chautauquas. Travel lectures were very popular, but obviously pictures were needed. Before the Civil War, artists traveled with huge painted canvases, but later "lantern slides" were used, and tinted B&W photographic transparencies were projected:

It was also obvious that artists could use projected images to trace outlines and somebody realized that substituting photographic paper for the screen could allow enlargement of images:

 

Small Film

As told before, most photography before the 1930s used large size negatives (4x5" was the common press negative size) so contact printing was pretty good for most purposes.

However, the movies used a small, truly miniature, film format called 35mm. Because commercial film making generated a lot of left-over 35mm film some people got the idea of using the surplus movie film which was available for practically nothing.

 

One such person was Oskar Barnack, who got his new company (Leitz) to make a 35mm camera called the Leica (Lei(tz)-ca(mera)). Another was a team (Carl

Bornmann and Lew W. Lessler) in the Anthony and Scovill (>Ansco) company which introduced what we now call a 'half-frame' (actually movie full frame of 18mm x 24mm) "Memo" camera in December of 1926.

 

If your image on film was either 18x24mm or 36x24mm, contact prints were not much use. Hence the explosion of enlargers in the late 1930s for the emerging "mini film" market.

 

Even allowing for inflation, a darkroom for 35mm minifilm could be put together for not too expensively (see LINK: Cost of a Darkroom Setup - 1940 ). $25 ($459.30 in 2020$ according to WIKI) would get a set up with a $10 enlarger. A few enlargers could be got used, in kits, or just 'cheap' for less.

One of the features of the 35mm phenomenon was the use of camera lenses on the enlarger. Leitz offered this as an option, and 39mm screw mount is still fairly 'standard' for enlarger lenses. One enlarger even used the Argus C3 lens.

 

By 1940, substantial numbers of enlargers were available.

 

By the 1950s, the brands still familiar to those of us born around WWII were on the market, often at substantial prices:

The Super Chromega 8 with supporting auxiliary equipment was over $1600 in 1971 ($10,161.30 in 2020, the price of a decent graphics workstation).

 

However, even back in 1941, people were dreaming of the 'perfect' enlarger:

 

from a series of predictions in Modern Photography 1941-03 by "Wasson". Few foresaw the digital age of 70 years later.

 

That's all I "gots" for now.

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by JDMvW

My first enlarger was a Durst that went up to 6x6. Looked like the one above.

BTW, I just looked up Durst on eBay for completed sales, and was surprised to see that the former "can't give them away" situation seems to have passed for the moment at least. Maybe all those "analogue" users really are popping up. :rolleyes:

I also owned a Durst M 600 which worked reasonably well after I replaced the stock Isco 50 mm enlarging lens with a 50 mm f/2.8 El Nikkor. I moved on to an Omega D-2 when I got into cameras that were bigger than 6x6.

I bought my first enlarger Leitz V35 in 2018, it was built in the year when I was born which is already quite a few decades in the past. Now I am shooting 6x7, so next enlarger challenge is ahead once I get more space... fully agree with Durst “late show” advert posted above :)

I got a Bessler 4x5 enlarger with the condenser head in 1972 when I was out at Brooks Institute for a brief time. Later I purchased a cold light head, which Ansel Adams preferred. I used it for years for all formats including 4x5.

Durst M600 was my first enlarger. I did the, painful/$$ purchase of an El Nikkor 50/2.8 also.

In my various moves, it was great, because it broke down and packed well into a box that I could carry and it stored well.

In comparison, the two Omega 6x7 enlargers that I have, have HUGE boxes which are not easily carried nor stored.

I have since gotten two 4x5 enlargers, an Omega D5 and a Durst L1000, to go with my view camera. These have yet to be setup. :(

In the contact printer section, I mentioned starting when I was nine, and getting a

Vivitar enlarger the next Christmas. I don't know the model, but it was designed

for only up to 35mm film. We did make a cardboard negative carrier for 120,

which allowed enlarging part of a 120 negative. I believe a Vivitar 50mm lens.

 

Not so much later, I inherited much of my grandfather's darkroom equipment,

including his enlarger. Again I don't know the model, but it has a system for

approximately tracking the focus when raising or lowering the head.

I don't know how usual that feature is.

 

With usual enlargers, if you make a large change in magnification, the image will

be nowhere near in focus. So far out of focus that you really don't have any idea

of the final image size, even imaging the whole frame. That enlarger had a cam

that adjusts the focus, though bellows, close enough that you can get the framing

right when changing the magnification. You do still need to adjust the focus

to get really sharp.

 

I did a lot of yearbook photography in 7th and 8th grade, developing and printing

my own film, using one of the above enlargers.

 

 

At this point, I often has Tri-X, and learned about Diafine from my grandfather. Available light photograhy

in school classrooms was not so hard to do. I suspect that I supplied most of the photographs for

the school yearbook. Rooms were well lit with fluorescent lights, and some rooms even had windows for

much of one wall.

 

 

 

Summer before high school, I started to get interested in computers, and that

took some time that might have gone to photography. Also, we moved away

for my last two years of high school, then back to the first house again.

 

(Continued below.)

Through high school, I could afford mostly black and white film. For my last days of

high school, when I didn't buy a yearbook, I wanted some memory of my school and

friends. I found a roll of (I believe) Anscochrome 200, processing included, in the

(recently) outdated bin at a nearby store.

 

At this point, I had an Agfalux C flashgun that used flashcubes along with a Canon VI rangefinder camera.

I suspect that this is not available light, though maybe that was part of the lighting.

 

By college years, I could afford Ektachrome, and did some (recently available) E6 processing

in the student darkroom. I also did some Ektachrome 1993 printing in the student darkroom.

(That includes buying a Unidrum, 1993 paper, and Unicolor PFS chemistry.)

 

I also did black and white developing and printing in the student darkroom,

with a Beseler enlarger that went up to 4x5, though I didn't do anything that big.

I even had Panalure for prints from color negatives. I believe done in the dark,

as no #13 safelight.

 

At this point, I still had the Nikor 35mm tank, and Yankee trays from the early years.

 

The enlargers were still at my parents house, or maybe only one of them.

 

For some years after college, I used mostly Ektachrome or VPS, not much black and white,

and no darkroom work. I suspect that my parents gave away the enlargers, or maybe are

stored somewhere, that I don't know about.

 

Skip 30 years with no darkroom work.

 

(Continued below.)

With kids in high school and college, a large collection of slides and negatives,

and a small darkroom built by the previous owners of the house, someone was giving

away an Omega B22 enlarger. That would be a big start to restarting darkroom work.

 

With Panalure (and all Kodak black and white paper) recently discontinued, I found

someone selling some Panalure. I could develop black and white film, print it,

and print many of the color negatives from over the years.

 

I mixed up a new batch of Diafine (still available from a nearby store).

Still the same tank and trays from my earliest years.

 

But also, more people giving away darkroom equipment, so I have plenty

of equipment to do things. By this time, I had a D70s for most family and

travel photography, but also the ability to do black and white film photography

again.

Even though I am the OP, I think this thread is turning out swell ;)

 

Thanks all.

"closet darkroom"! I enjoyed the babbling brook sound of the print washer in the wet section (bathroom) of my temporary darkroom. I later put an Omega D2 in this closet. I turned a second bedroom into a nice darkroom a few years later.

I've had a darkroom set up almost continuously since about 1975, also the entire time before that when I was in high school. Alas, I haven't done a roll of film in about a decade, but hope to do it again while I'm still around. My first enlarger was a mail-order Printz condenser 6x6 model. It had a parallelogram support and actually worked very well. A tinkerer even back than, I filed out the hole in the lens stage where it ran on a square rod and added set screws so I could adjust the alignment. For many years after that I used a Beseler 23C. That gave way to an Automega D3 that I still have today. Focus rails being a bit scarce, I learned to lay out and cut my own. Through used and surplus sources I got a temp control valve and a good selection of lenses and carriers. Someday I'll describe my Kodak model "E" dry mount press. Solid cast iron and I doubt I could lift it today.

For an early attempt to build an enlarger for my 8x10 inch negatives used an 8x10 camera and a homemade light box. A fan was put on the side to keep things cool while aligning and focusing the image. It would be shut off for the actual ~10 second exposure. I later used a large studio camera which was much more stable (and better looking). I was mostly happy with 8x10 inch contact prints, and gave it away when I moved.

 

 

In his early days, Ansel Adams used his view camera as an enlarger mounted in a basement window for the light source. He said he got very good results on overcast days. I hope you don't think it presumptuous of me to emulate his endeavors.

I'd like to have one of those Kodak Precision enlargers, the one with the shiny, mad-scientist lamphouse. It would look great perched behind a guest chair in the front room.

 

My first enlarger was also a Durst M600, bought second hand from a friend. It was cleverly designed and well made, and it knocked down easily to fit back into its compact styrofoam box. However, the negative carrier was a pain to use, and I replaced the M600 in fairly short order with an Omega B66XL with a dichroic head. I made many a Cibachrome print with the B66.

 

My favorite was an old Beseler 45H I found in a junk shop (the 45H looks like a 45 enlarger mounted to a 23 chassis). It had a cold light source that didn't work, the bellows looked like they had been pounded with a sledge hammer, and it came with an old Wollensak lens. After replacing the power cord and pushing the bellows back into shape (more or less), it worked great. Stopping the lens down a bit would yield sharp 16x20" prints from 4x5" negatives.

I'd like to have one of those Kodak Precision enlargers, the one with the shiny, mad-scientist lamphouse. It would look great perched behind a guest chair in the front room.

.

 

I’ve got one, and it’s my main 35mm and MF enlarger. Mine has a mottled green ‘Hammerite’ finish, with neg carriers up to 6x9. The condensers are about 6” diameter (150mm) and the whole thing is really nicely made, and still going strong Nearly 70 years after it was made. I’ve rewired it, but otherwise it’s as it was when it came out the box, and I’ll not change it because I love using something that was so well designed. I agree though, the shiny housing ones are a bit more ‘cold war’ cool for display purposes.

80's. In those days I smoked in pipe while teaching photography. What a good times! :)

Anyone remember what a splash this "modernized additive" color/BW head made when it debuted? ;)

 

I had one of these, including the controller, but donated it to the Eastman House a while back since I knew I'd never restore or use it. Note the really long mixing section to get even lighting, also the inverted bellows design.

My first enlarger was a second hand Meopta Opemus IIa. I used it for years. I eventually fitted a cold light head for black and white printing and then a Meopta color head for color printing. It was really well made and worked very well. It had a really nice negative carrier with inserts for different format films. I still have it but it has been replaced with an Omerga D-II.

I started enlarging with a Johnson's enprinter. This was a large metal box that took a negative at one end and postcard-sized bromide paper at the other end. There was a cheap meniscus lens somewhere in the middle, and the negative had to have a portable lamp played over it to expose the paper.

 

My first 'proper' enlarger, bought with pocket-money at the age of about 13, was an AGIscope (AGI = Aeronautical & General Instruments). It was a plastic thing with helical focusing and a terrible fixed aperture lens built in. I traded it in as soon as possible for a not much better 'Gnome' metal job with a Wray Supar lens. (IMO, Wray Supar enlarging lenses are among the worst ever made BTW. Run a mile from it if you're offered one!) But at that time I could afford no better.

 

My next step up was an 'Envoy' 35mm enlarger and Minolta E-Rokkor lens. Quickly followed by another Envoy model for 6x6 to 6x9 rollfilm. These were both very sturdy things that served me well for many years. I converted both with filter drawers to allow colour printing, and acquired an excellent Komuranon-S and Schneider Componon lenses along the way. These two enlargers were used for personal work for many years. The commercial darkrooms I worked in at the time were nearly all equipped with monster DeVere 405 enlargers or similar. All almost invariably fitted with Schneider Componon or Rodenstock Rodagon lenses.

 

Time and use took its toll on the Envoys, and they were both eventually replaced with a brand new LPL C7700 that I still own. The 6x7 LPL was supplemented with a Durst L1000 for 5x4, but I much prefer using the LPL. The Durst has a cooling fan that's prone to vibration and needs frequent maintenance, whereas the LPL just works with no trouble.

 

I haven't yet mentioned the neat Philips meter-timer and colour analyser that I gathered along the way, and I still have an old bakelite Johnson's enlarger time-switch that has kept reliably working for over 50 years!

Edited January 11, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

I have never owned an enlarger, but have used many. By the time I had a house, and the plumbing and electrical skills to build a darkroom, enlargers are nearly extinct. After working at a newspaper, I knew what I wanted, but it was out of reach until too late.

 

At the newspaper, my go-to enlarger was an Auto-Omega D23 (?). For 4x5, I used a Besseler. While very rigid, the Besseler struts made it hard to position the easel at times. There was also a Durst and a Leitz enlarger. As a beginner, the Durst enlargers looked attractive, compared to the Frankenstein appearance of Omega. In practice the Durst was rickety and less stable than the Omega and Besseler workhorses.

 

I'm sure the Leitz was a good tool, but I never used it. It was so small, it seemed like a toy in comparison. It had carrier which would index an entire roll, but the custom was to cut film into strips of 4 for printing and archiving.

 

The killer tool, always beyond my means, was the huge Paco drum dryer, which would turn out perfect ferrotypes in about 7 minutes, ready for the engraver.

I forgot about my first "enlarger", and I use that term loosely. I found an old filmstrip projector. I think those were half-frame or similar. I shot with my dad's old Mercury II half-frame camera. You can see where this is going. I actually made recognizable prints, probably when I was in Jr. High. Did it horizontal as holding a projector vertical was well beyond me. Probably used Tri-chem packs. My print drier was a plastic bottle, about a gallon. I filled it with hot water and wrapped it with paper towels and the prints. I should have joined the Cargo Cult because everything mostly looked like a darkroom, but was made out of whatever was handy.

The killer tool, always beyond my means, was the huge Paco drum dryer, which would turn out perfect ferrotypes in about 7 minutes.....

Yep, those old drum-dryers did the business. It always puzzled me how those things gave a perfect glaze, time after time, while my lowly flatbed dryer and chromed plate managed to glue prints to the plate once in a while. Requiring the print(s) to be soaked off and sent back to square one.

 

The world had almost universally accepted RC paper by the time I could afford a drum dryer. And I can only imagine my wife's reaction to a drum-dryer entering the house. I don't think comparison with a clothes tumble-dryer would have worked as an excuse!

It always puzzled me how those things gave a perfect glaze, time after time, while my lowly flatbed dryer and chromed plate managed to glue prints to the plate once in a while.

We always used a wetting agent rinse for a minute or two before placing them in the dryer. The drum rests on rollers which also serve as a squeegee, using the substantial weight of the drum.

 

Prints would occasionally stick if the drying solution was used too briefly or got too diluted. Too long, and the paper got spotted. That said, there was wide latitude in the process.

 

The drum at the newspaper was 4' in diameter. My high school had one about the size of a microwave oven, but we hadn't learned about using a wetting agent. The results were inconsistent, and prints frequently stuck to the surface. Gelatin is the basis of several types of glue, after all.