Has anyone used the newest variable-contrast cold light head from Calumet? I understand they have come a long way -- built in regulators, more stable, better suited for VC paper than regular cold lights.

I am considering the switch to a VC cold light because I don't want to use below the lens filters required for standard cold lights and I like the usual advantages of the cold light. I want to invest in a good cold light that will allow VC or graded papers, and one that will last a long time.

BTW, will exposure time be inordinate if I use the VC cold light with 35mm negatives?

Thanks for your help.

Steve

-- Steve Serio (ms1serio@enteract.com), February 11, 1998

Answers

I bought one last fall and have had excellent results with it. I have mine on a Beseler 45MXII. I find that with a standard cold light head and Ilford filters, it is difficult to obtain satisfactory contrast in the lower ranges. With the Zone VI vc head it is better, but I still find that with negatives that I exposed for printing on graded fb papers, and the standard cold light head, the lower contrast are more difficult to attain.. Now, I'm talking low contrast, a solid grade 1, like the old Seagull would give, or a grade 0 if Seagull was processed only in Selectol Soft. By adjusting negative exposure and processing times this can be addressed.

I only use a very low contrast for my initial proof, when I start to make a print. In actual practice I rarely use any contrast nearly that low and in every other respect I like using the vc head better than graded papers.

As far as the over all ease of use, the head is great. Once I established my "grades" form softest to hardest, and the associated exposure differences, it has been very user friendly. From grade 1 to grade 4, ( i really tend to think in terms of softest to hardest as opposed to 1 to 4 but getting away from the"numbers" is tough) I have about a 1 1/2 stop difference in exposure. This rates favorably with the exposure range I had using vc filters. The grade 0 and grade 5 are another stop slower because you are only using one of the two tubes for illumination. If I use these settings, and I rarely do, it is for a manipulation in a specific area and not a complete exposure.

The head does have a built in stabilizer, but there is a catch. It has a light on the front that glows constantly during the exposure, when the head is stabilized. Here is the catch, you have to "burn in " the lamps to get it to stabilize. This means leaving the head on until the light comes on. If you are using both tubes at maximum, this can take up to a minute, not an eternity but long enough. If you are doing a lot of printing, and the head is on a lot, it stays warm and this is not a problem. It is only when the head cools back down that you have to wait for the tubes to warm back up for stabilization..

All in all, I would not trade the head away now for any reason. It has its idiosyncrasies, but they don't take long to figure out. For split filteration printing I don't think it can't be beat and is much easier to use than changing filters in the dark.

As far as 35mm printing goes, I find that they are slow printing no matter what light source I use. The vc head is faster than a cold light head and filters, presumably because you don't have to contend with the blue cast to the light that a standard head has. Other than color and chromogenic negatives, that always seem to take long exposures, the times have been very reasonable. I have printed everything from 30 year old color negatives to 100 hundred year old glass plates, and it has performed perfeclty.

-- Marv Thompson (mthompson@clinton.net), February 12, 1998.