I could use a little help here with a just-purchased Aristo Cold Light Head on my Beseler 23C. After installing the unit, I pulled out some of my favorite negatives to print, and was horrified by the results. Extremely high contrast, no mids or good transition and huge grain from negatives that have printed without a hitch with the condenser head. I tried negs from Delta 100, Tri-X, XP2, XP2 Super (all 35mm)... you name it, all I get is salt and pepper. (Though I have to say the Aristo did give me increased sharpness.) With everyone screaming about the quality of prints rendered by cold light (that's why I bought one), it frustrates me to think that I'm the only person in the world who wasn't instantly amazed at the improvement. My results seem exactly oposite from those I hear so much about. While I don't have or use a densitometer, I am an experienced developer and printer, a professional photographer, and I'm confident in the quality of my negs. After all, they've been printing well for a long time. Anyone have a similar experience? Anyone have a suggested solution? Is drastic filtration my only hope? Radical alterations to my shooting and developing methods aren't too appealing. For one thing, any b&w job involving more than five or six rolls I usually take to a good pro lab, and I don't want to have to deal with ordering different "pulls" for different films, etc. Also, I'm not sure I like the idea of having several thousand "pre-cold-light" negs that have to be printed one way and the thousands more I'll make that require completely different treatment. Has anyone taken this route? Thanks in advance. Any suggestions or ideas would be appreciated. Rusty Russell

-- Rusty Russell (writeruss@aol.com), September 18, 1999

Answers

it is my experience that the cold light head needs a different type of negative. I use both, depending on the negative, altho, i exposure and development my negatives to print on a grade 3 paper, especially for 35mm. i can understand your thoughts about pre-cold light, however, i have not found it to be a real chore. However, as a point of fact, i never exposure my negatives at the recommended ISO, and recommend to my students that an easier method than serious testing is just to rate the film at half the recommended ISO. for about 80% this works 0ut fine. about 15 % rate at the recommended ISO and the other 5% is a matter of working out the exposure and devleopment ration. for myself, i hate testing but do it because i am very Picky, and it is an old habit. it is too bad we can't scan your old negatives and see what the problem may be. My best quess is they are on the thin side for the cold light, which does like a densier negatives. i am sorry it i am babbling. it is late and my brain is getting weid.

-- Ann CLancy (aclancy@mediaone.com), September 18, 1999.

Rusty,

I use a Zone VI Variable Contrast Cold Light Head. I have used Aristo heads as well as condenser enlargers. I have not encountered the type of problems that you are describing. In fact, I process my negatives pretty much right to the recommendations of teh developer manufacturer. I use Rodinal and PMK Pyro.

Today I brought a few of my Pyro negs to a friends house and we printed them on his condenser enlarger. I noticed more grain and contrast with his head than with mine.

I can only think of one thing. Have you checked the setting on the cold light control unit? Perhaps you have the hard light set to max and the soft light set to the minimum or off setting. This would give you a grade 4 or 5 and as you know a very contrasty print.

Wish I could help more. I just can't imagine that if your negs are not grainy to begin with that the light head would make that great a difference. The diffused light source of the cold cathode should mask dust and grain to a greater extent, not the other way around.

Don't panic. Call teh manufacture if all else fails.

Good luck.

-- Mike Kravit (mkravit@mindspring.com), September 18, 1999.

my guess is that you are using a multigrade paper with a regular cold light. you must filter the cold light or get one made for multicontrast papers.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), September 19, 1999.

I would say that Mark is correct. Multi-grade paper in combination with a non-VC cold light prints at about a grade 3 - 3 1/ 2. But even filtering the light with multi-grade filters will only allow you to lower the contrast down to about a 1 1/ 2 grade. The non-vc cold lights are best used with graded papers.And as much as you might not like to hear it, the negatives that you shot for your condenser will require a higher grade paper when printer on the cold light, to come close to matching your previous printings.

-- jim megargee (jim@mvlabs.com), September 19, 1999.

Jim:

Thanks for your response. I don't know what in my original post gave everyone the idea that this is a standard cold light head. It's Aristo's highly-touted V54 head, designed specifically for VC paper. As for the neg density, if you switched at some time to a cold light setup, how did you address the issue of printing your old negs without switching heads all the time. Sure, I can bump my home processing 20 or 30 percent from here on, but the existing negs... well... exist. Can't imagine telling a client from two weeks ago that I can't give him a good print now. Also, I send bigger jobs to a lab for processing (anything more than a few rolls). How have you dealt with that? Do you have them push everything you've shot at (your) normal speed, then push your "pushes" two stops? While I've begun to tweak things to the point where I can see some of the advantages, I'm almost sorry I started messing with the cold light for the reasons I just stated. If you've dealt successfully with those tics, I'd sure appreciate knowing how. Thanks again, Rusty Russell. (By the way, I have neither the space or the money to buy and set up a second enlarger for two "generations" of negatives.)

-- Rusty Russell (writeruss@aol.com), September 19, 1999.

For Jim at MVlabs:

I've tried to e-mail you, but messages get returned as undeliverable, so I've posted a couple here. Hope you don't mind.

Hey Jim: Just re-read your answer (thanks again), and I'm curious about something... You say that the negs shot for my condenser setup will require a higher paper grade... Given my results so far, shouldn't that be the other way around, or am I missing something here? I'm getting WAY too much contrast with the old negs on the (VC) cold light head. You're saying I should go to a HIGHER grade of paper (or the filtered equivalent?) I'm befuddled! Thanks, Rusty

-- Rusty Russell (writeruss@aol.com), September 19, 1999.

Rusty,

If you don't have any controls on the Aristo it is their standard model that is meant for graded papers. The VC head uses rheostat type controls to adjust the intensity of blue and green grids thereby varying the contrast.

Befor you give up you might want to try some graded papers and see what the results yield. You might also want to see if the dealer will exchange that head for the variable contrast model. I have never used a standard cold light head with VC papers but I am told that the results are less than stellar. Some folks have added additional filtration below the light and got acceptable results.

Don't give up yet. There is a reason why many fold swear by the VC Cold Light Head. The vast majority of Fine Art photographers that I know all use the VC Colf Light Head.

I regularly print onld negatives that I made in the days when I had a condenser enlarger. Although there may be fifferences in teh final grade used, I have not had any problems.

It does sound like you are getting frustrated. Just take a step back and a deep breath then re-assess the situation. I am sure that in the long run you will be able to work out the problem and will find that the cold light head is a most superior tool for your use.

Again, best of luck.

-- Mike Kravit (mkravit@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

With much appreciation to all who are trying to help:

Please understand this: The cold-light head I'm having trouble with is NOT a standard head made for graded papers! Aristo makes a self- contained VC head for several enlargers, with adjustments for contrast control, and they also make a "V54" head (mine), with seperate head and regulator with NO adjustments, that is designed specifically for VC paper. Their V54 tube was released with great fanfare and is touted as a plug-in replacement for the tubes on standard heads, thus making them "seamlessly compatible with VC papers." I'm not assuming this, I'm not making it up. I ordered mine direct from Alan Johnson at Aristo (drop-shipped through B&H) after much careful research. Alan's first comment confirmed the results of my exhaustive fact-finding: "If you're going to use VC papers, you want the V54 head. It's made for VC papers." He then went through a long explanation (wasted on my low-tech mind, I'm afraid) about the way they conquered the VC-paper problem by adding green or blue or whatever, with the result that the new tube does more for papers like Ilford MGIV than any condenser ever could. On the top of my brand new, straight-from-the-manufacturer Aristo unit, "V54" is stamped very clearly. I am looking at the catalog as I write this. I've had probably ten people tell me that I've got to get a head meant for VC paper, and I can't convince anyone that I already DO have one, unless B&H has lied to me, seven or eight photogs I asked before buying it were lying to me, and Aristo itself has conspired to deceive customers through their catalog and on-the-phone consultation. No, you can't vary the contrast via controls on the unit, but it is designed for VC PAPER. That said, once again, I'm getting unusably high contrast with nice, thick negatives that have printed very well with condensers. I can get passable results by adding a #1 filter; a little more snap than some of my condenser prints, but lacking good shadow detail. Also the prints are grainy as all get-out. Without filtration, they look like overdeveloped TMZ printed on about a number 4! Several people have suggested that my negatives are too thin for good results on a cold light head. I know cold light "likes" a denser neg; Aristo even suggests in their installation guide that film should be given 20 to 30 percent more developement than those intended for condenser printing. Okay, fine. But if I develop film for an increased time, I'm going to get more contrast, period. That's just film. It has nothing to do with cold light. Any elementary text on darkroom work will tell the reader that most shadow areas have developed about as much as they're going to within the first few minutes, and subsequent time in the developer will just keep pushing the highlights up, up and away. Is cold light so other-worldly that, to get rid of this ridiculous, nearly lith-looking contrast, I need negs with even HIGHER contrast? Just to check it out, I found a roll that I overdeveloped a couple years ago to give a client the "rough, jagged" look he'd seen in a print ad. Worked fine, but MAN it's a thick neg; takes about two and a half times the enlarger exposure (condenser) that most of my negs do. The results with the cold light head? Totally burned-out highlights, no mids whatsoever, and instead of "shadows," deep, deep black areas with no detail at all. (Hair, eyes, shadow from softbox/reflector combo) Still at a loss, and having a print order due tomorrow (I put the guy off from last Thursday because my new "amazing" gizmo would be here soon and according to what everyone said, the prints from it ought to be stunning!), I put my condensers back in and made the prints. Maybe I just don't know what a "good" print is. I've always gone for sharp detail, creamy mids, deep genuine blacks and shadows you can peek into, with highlights that show detail and good gradation. Call me crazy, but please DON'T tell me about graded papers. Thanks again. (Sorry to rant. This has all made for a very, very long and unproductive weekend.) Rusty Russell

-- Rusty Russell (writeruss@aol.com), September 19, 1999.

Hi Rusty,

That was a rant? You've never heard me after a bad darkroom day! Anyway, no cold light here, but your description indicates high contrast. The increase in grain confirms it beyond a shadow of a doubt. If it looks like a duck... Anyway, the change from condenser to cold light (basically diffuse illumination) couldn't account for a problem of this magnitude or even direction- should be just the opposite. Forget negative density and all the rest. Good negs will print on either system with a slight change in filtration. The problem has to be wavelength related. My guess is that if your unit has no adjustments, there's either an internal adjustment for color balance, or there's something just plain wrong with the grid, tube, or whatever. You need to talk to the people who build these things and see what they say. If no satisfaction there, you need to print a standard step tablet and prove it to 'em. It sounds like you know exactly what you're doing, and your prints aren't lying to you. Good luck.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), September 20, 1999.

Conrad:

Good God! Finally, someone who doesn't begin with the assumption that I just souped my first roll of Plus-X in pursuit of my photography merit badge! God BLESS you! I have just finished screwing with that X*:@%$!/#& cold light head again, convinced that I am the only human being on the planet this won't work for, and MAN you oughta see the contrast! This is grade 5, I swear, achieved after carefully (like a total maroon!) reading the installation instructions like a good little boy for the umpteenth #$*&! time, and setting the thing up JUST like it's supposed to be (it's really pretty much a no- brainer), and sticking in a REALLY good 35mm neg (XP2 Super @ ISO 200, portrait, female, soft studio light with painted background) if I do say so myself, which has printed well enough at 11X14 to cause a couple of my friends (pros, both) to suggest that I'm trying to look good by passing off things I've shot on my RB as 35mm, thank you. As for contacting the manufacturer, that was the very first thing I did. They're extremely good about talking to you, trying to help, but mainly their take was that most people see exactly the oposite results, so what I really needed to do was go with THAT, and bump my contrast up a grade through filtration, because that's what most people end up having to do. I tried to explain that, while I'm no rocket scientist, I really, really REALLY mean it when I say we're talking about high contrast here. Mousey-brown human hair (in real life) that looks like "clumps" because the strands are either BLACK BLACK BLACK or paper white. Not much in between at all. Human skin that looks like asphalt pavement with flour sprinkled on it. Sorry, I just can't see giving this to clients and trying to convice them it's "artsy" and they just don't know what a good print is. Nor can I accept that results this lame should be expected from normal (for condenser) negs. And the LAST thing that'll help (trust me, I tried it just out of desperation), is to use a thicker neg or bump the contrast up a grade. Overdeveloping film will give you more contrast, period. No sane person could look at these prints and suggest that more development (denser highlights while shadows remain largely unchanged) would smooth them out. If Ansel Adams rose up from the grave, knocked on my door and promised to make me his incarnation if I made it work that way, I'd have to tell him, with all due respect, that he's out of his mind! Tomorrow I'm going to call up Aristo & tell them I'm sending the unit back, along with prints made from my condenser and their unit, both from the same negative. If they can actually tell me with a straight face that their head is giving me "a better range of tonalities," I will walk down the busiest street in my city at lunchtime wearing nothing but an FM2n! (I know, this amounts to terrorism, but I am desperate to be rid of this problem.) Now THAT'S a rant! Thanks again, Conrad, and I hope you appreciate my humble attempts to find some humor in an extremely frustrating situation. Rusty Russell

-- Rusty Russell (writeruss@aol.com), September 20, 1999.

Rusty: When you send your prints to Aristo, do make sure that you clearly label which is which. I suggest sticky labels on the front of the prints. Otherwise the good people at Aristo might make the usual assumption that the softer print is from the cold light.

Sorry I can't help with your problem. Like most people, I find that cold light makes softer prints, but I've no experience with Aristo.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), September 20, 1999.

Rusty,

You need to stop talking and listen. (Not intended to be curt or nasty).

No one said you have a "standard" head meaning a base model. Aristo makes a head that is a cold light source that is not adjustable for contrast and has only one grid. Then thay make a VC head that is adjustable using two color grids. One green and one blue.

The model number on the adjustable head for your Bessler is the V4500. I believe that B&H sold you the "standard" head that is NOT adjustable for VC paper w/o the use of external filters.

Here is the Aristo info. -----------------------------------------------------------

Variable Contrast Cold Light Heads

Features

Complete Variable Contrast Control from grade 0 to grade 5 with 50 settings over entire range without using filters. Full 4X5 and 8x10 coverage Fast consistant exposures Low power consumption May be used with any timer

MODEL: VCL 4500

Light Head

2 Lamps HI Intensity Size: 7 11/16 X 7 11/16 X 4 5/16 high Weight: 3.3 Lbs. 6' secondary cable Adjustable thermostat controlled heater Fits: Beseler 23C, 4X5, and Omega "D"Series, Durst 5x7, Zone VI 5x7

Power Supply

120 VAC, 60 Hz, 195 Watts Fuse: AGC 3 AMP Size: 8" X 8" x 3 3/4" high Weight: 10.2 Lbs. Primary Cord: 6' long, 3 prong grounded Built in relay with 6' 2-line cord for timer connection

----------------------------------------------------------

My suggestion would be to return the model that B&H sold you and order the one above. Also you can visit the Aristo web page.

Good luck. Mike

-- Michael J. Kravit (mkravit@mindspring.com), September 20, 1999.

Rusty, I bought my Aristo light source second hand. Luckily, it was the lamp for use with VC papers. This is what I can tell you: the contrast on Agfa Classic 111 fiber has gone down by about 1/2-1 grade. Grain and dust is slightly less apparent. The light emitted seems a blue-ish color. There are two wires coming out of the lamp, one that plugs into the regulator(which has on/off swith, that's it), and one that plugs directly into an electrical outlet. I print 11x14's, filterless, that blow me away. My prints were nice with the original condenser enlarger, but they jump off the paper using the cold light lamp. Hey, I'm no rocket scientist, and I'm certainly not a pro printer, or photographer, I'm sure you know what your doing, and thus my conclusion is that something is really screwed up with that lamp. Send it back, and try another. Incedentally, I can easily use old negatives from my condensor days, and even print some friends negatives with little trouble(#1 filter, usually). The folks at Aristo seemed very customer-oriented when I spoke with them. I'm sure they'll make you a happy camper once again. Best of luck, Paul

-- Paul Klingaman (paul.klingaman@veritas.com), September 20, 1999.

Rusty,

Maybe the head was mistakenly shipped with the wrong tube(s). Does the light look blueish, or more neutral? Can you get a part # off the tube and confirm it with Aristo? You should definately get less contrast with a cold light head than condenser. Something is definately wrong. It's not you.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), September 20, 1999.

Rusty,

I did some checking. The V54 cold light tube is a single grid that can be used for VC papers, but oly with grade 00-5 filters. That is why you are having so many problems. Your negatives (condenser optimized) most likely need a grade 00, 0, or 1 to print acceptably. This head, for your enlarger sells for around $220.00.

I spoke with a buddy of mine who runs a number of printing workshops. It seems that there had been many who asked Aristo to develop a grid that can be used with both graded papers and VC paper. So in fact you were not lied to. The V54 will work with VC paper but it is a compromise. And as such you are seeing the result. VC filtration is not completely adequate or acceptable with the V54 tube. BUT! with graded papers that tube is said to be stellar.

Their VCL 4500 is actually the VC head that will utilize blue and green tubes and is optimized for VC papers. This head is $1150.00. A big differnce but as you have already found out, a difference that is necessary for excellent VC results.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Mike

-- Mike Kravit (mkravit@mindspring.com), September 21, 1999.

Hi Rusty,

Mike seems to be on to something, though it's hard to believe Aristo would even claim the thing is good for VC paper if it's this bad. What an amazing number of responses! Anyway, I'm very curious how this will turn out- let us know!

CH

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), September 23, 1999.

Rysty, with all respect If your head has a knob somewhere for changing the color of the light, it is built for multigrade papers. If it hasn't, it simply can be used, which only means, that the papers are sensitive to the color of it's light. Probably the results are better with graded papers in that case.

Sakari

-- Sakari Mdkeld (sakari.makela@koulut.vantaa.fi), September 24, 1999.

My experience is that condensers do a better job than cold light and dichroic heads. I tend to like tack sharp prints with gleeming whites and black blacks!

A simple solution is to return the head and say ten times very slowly; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". You'r a working pro who has to deliver the goods on schedule, so perhaps you don't need this frustration.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), September 27, 1999.

I am afraid I have to agree with Gene. I have both a condenser and Zone VI cold light for a Beseler 4x5. The cold light is slightly softer for grain. Otherwise, when the contrast is adjusted to make the print what it should be, I cannot for the life of me tell which light I used. The only difference is the cold light is actually uneven compared to the stock condenser! I store the cold light, sometimes play with it for medium format where it will not go dark in the corners, and bought a second condenser head as a back-up. Luckily, the cold light was a gift, otherwise it would have gone back. Also, think about it, if a simple cold light was so great compared to those heavy complicated lenses, why didn't Beseler go with them to begin with?

-- Chris Wray (cpwray@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.

Negs developed for condenser printing should, if anything, give _lower_ contrast when printed with a cold light, not the other way around. I think there's something wrong with the head or tube.

-- John Hicks / John's Camera Shop (jbh@magicnet.net), October 02, 1999.