Saunders/Beseler enlarger/ variable contrast

[raven_garrison]

I swore I would never buy another Saunders enlarger because you have to ship them back to the company to be aligned. Anyway, this is how I handled it when I dropped my Saunders enlarger, and it went out of alignment. The thing is, the Saunders LPL 4500 VCCE is a really decent price, this being the kind of enlarger I want to work with. But, it seems that a common complaint is the light leaks. Now I think the best enlarger for me would be the Beseler MXT motorized column and base with a variable contrast diffusion head. I understand its very easy to align. My question is, any negative feedback on this particular head? I know its not cheap. I might look for the column and base used. Please don't tell me to go with an Omega. I just don't like their enlargers. I'm pretty much set on the Saunders or the Beseler. Thanks for any feedback on this.

[charlie_strack]

1. I agree with you about Omega.

 

<p>

 

2. I bought the Saunders LPL 4500II. I don't regret it. I bought it

because a) it is cheaper than the Beseler after you add the

baseboard, or wall mount kit, the light source, and a lensboard to

the Beseler, but most importantly, it's the only enlarger I tested at

the store that worked absolutely smoothly through all functions.

 

<p>

 

3. I don't plan to drop my enlarger, so I don't think alignment will

be a problem. In any case, to align it you would shim the column,

shim the lensboard, and shim the negative stage. All this doesn't

seem to hard on this enlarger because all are readily accessible.

 

<p>

 

4. My column came with a nick on it, and Saunders sent me a

replacement at no charge and didn't even need for me to ship the old

column back. These people are into customer service. I really like

that in a company.

 

<p>

 

5. All enlargers leak light to some extent. The Saunders is average

to better-than-average on this count. If it is a problem for you you

can use the usual fixes. It isn't a problem for me.

 

<p>

 

6. The Beseler is a fine machine, and, if you like the way it works,

is AOK. It does have a feature I haven't found on any other

enlargers: a focus lock.

 

<p>

 

Good luck!

[bob_moulton1]

I own a Saunders also and prefer it to the Beseler. I have used both.

All enlargers leak light. We just have to face that and work around

it. Printers like Sexton et al routinely use fabric, material used in

swimming gear, etc. to black out the sides and back. Frankly, I have

never had much problem with the Saunders leaking light; I have

painted the wall and ceiling about my enlarger flat black, and I

installed some black mat board on the counters on either side of the

easel.

One other item: the light source in the Saunders vc and dichroic head

is very even, much more so than another enlarger with the

diffusion/cold light head. I imagine the same is true with the vc

heads. Some people avoid that problem by putting a 5x7 or 8x10 vc

head on an enlarger for printing 4x5 negatives. That way, the falloff

in light is outside the circle that covers the 4x5 negative

For price and quality-assuming no dropping of the unit--you would be

hard put to beat the saunders.

[brian_ellis5]

I use the Beseler MXT/Aristo VCL 4500 combination and like it a lot.

However, as someone else said, all enlargers leak light out of the

box. You have to tape, glue, paste, whatever to stop the light leaks,

even with a Durst I'm told. Some time ago they did modify the MXT to

make it easier to align so if you're buying one used make sure you

get the newer version. I have that version and still don't find

alignment real convenient but apparently it was impossible with the

earlier version and in any case is a lot more convenient than

shipping it back to the factory. I've seen John Sexton use one of the

Saunders models and it looked like a nice piece of equipment. I don't

think you could go too far wrong with either but personally I

wouldn't buy an enlarger that I had to send back to the factory to

get aligned. Most enlargers go out of alignment from normal use over

a period of time, not just from dropping them.

[bill_smithe2]

Not all enlargers leak light! My Durst L1200 Multigraph does not

leak any light at all. Sure you can see a bit of light about the

negative stage, but no light is evident on the walls or ceiling near

the enlarger.

 

<p>

 

With the Saunders LPL you can get a sunburn with a long exposure.

[brian_ellis5]

If it leaks light around the negative stage, it leaks light. Leaking

light doesn't have to be so strong that it casts a shadow on your

darkroom wall to fog your paper. How have you tested for light leaks?

The method John Sexton teaches is to turn all the lights off

(including the safe light) and sit in the dark for ten minutes. He

says it takes that long for your eyes to fully adjust to the dark.

Then turn the enlarger light on and look all around the enlarger very

carefully. In particular, put your head on the easel and crank your

neck around so that you can look up at the area in which the lens

board is located. There's a good chance that you'll see quite a bit

of light leaking out from above or around that area and shining down

on the easel. That's what your paper is seeing and it isn't good.

[andrea_milano]

Raven,

this is another question like the one which took up lot of energy from

medieval scholars who spent a lot of their time trying to determine the

sex of angels. However. I agree with Brian Ellis. It is pretty useless

discussing if something is perfect or , near perfect if both condition

produce the same results. I read so many entries on this forum which

tend to discuss, at length, minute and not important detail arguing for

argument's sake. I've owned many enlargers, some were better some were

worse, I always managed to produce good prints within the possibilities

of my negative, camera and darkroom.

I visit many exhibitions and to see the original prints of the great

photographers has been curing me from eccessive technicisms.

Many of these prints are questionable but the pictures are fantastic.

One can spend hours on end trying to perfect one's equipment but how

long does one actually spend in taking beautiful pictures? It pays a

lot more to do that than investigating the supposed effect of these

leaks on your prints.

With affection and no offence intended.

Andrea