This is a follow up to a question that was asked earlier on the board. What’s the bottom line? Can we soften the light on a condenser enlarger to the point where an experienced photographer couldn't tell the difference between a cold light print and a condenser print? I have a Beseler 45MCRX and I would like to avoid the expense of buying a cold head especially if I can successfully modify the one I have. What I don't want is half-assed results. What do you think? Thanks, JC

-- Joe Corra (vsmi@aol.com), February 13, 2001

Answers

I don't think it can be done successfully.

Any thing that diffuses enough (like flashed opal glass) is likely to cut down the intensity of the light so much, you won't like the printing times. If you have to try, get a piece of opal glass. Ground glass won't work, because the texture will come into focus. Plastic won't work because of the heat.

The real question is, why would you feel the need to do this? Although I like diffused light sources (and use them), most of the recent investigations indicate you really can get extremely close results with a condensor if you vary your development times (and you really do have to reduce the development). I know this is heresy to some, but it does come from a fan of diffused sources who used to use condensors. I've gotten great prints and lousy prints with each. The equipment isn't the issue, the user is.

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), February 13, 2001.

I use a condenser enlarger with a opal bulb. With the proper tecnique you will not get the dreaded soot & chalk look.For my system I overexpose by 20% and under develop by 20%. All my negs print through a 2 1/2 or 3 polymax filter. I tried the diffusion trick and was not happy with the results. The opal glass just slowed down exposure, no real image improvement.You need a slightly less contrasty negative that is a little on the thin side. This combination works for me.

-- Robert Orofino (rorofino@iopener.net), February 13, 2001.

Joe, You absolutely won't be displeased with the results by getting a cold light head!!! There is no real good way to come close to the results of cold light printing!!! Cheers

-- Scott Walton (f64sw@hotmail.com), February 15, 2001.

I have:

1. Used a condenser enlargers (Beseler 23C, Beseler 45, and Omega D2V).

2. Converted the D2V to diffussion enlarger by putting flashed opal glass in it (printed with that setup for about 8 years).

3. Used (and still have) an Aristo cold light head for the D2V.

4. Currently use a Minolta 45A colorhead to print black and white (using split printing green/blue technique).

My conclusion: If you tailor your negative exposure and development to any of the above sources, you cannot tell what type of light source the final print was made with.

However, the diffusion light sources will allow you to more easily print longer scale negatives. This can translate into the ability to give the negative more exposure, which, in turn produces more shadow detail. With the cold light head or the colorhead and Galerie paper, I have been able to produce prints with incredible tonal ranges because of the "beafier" negatives. If I tried to print these negatives with a condenser enlarger, I would be using grade 1 paper, and would have to use a split developer technique (selectol soft / dektol) and probably major dodging/burning.

I think you should try the flashed opal glass (you will have to go to a higher wattage enlarger bulb), but I also think that you will like printing with a diffusion source and ultimately, you will buy a diffusion source as the heat caused by the larger lamp needed for the opal glass modification will often make negatives "pop" (momentarily warp from the heat).

This is aggravating as a nice print is ruined by the out-of-focus area caused by the warp. If you are using 16x20 or larger paper - it's also very expensive. Of course, this problem can be cured with a glass carrier - I just hate trying to keep the glass surfaces clean so there is not as much spotting required on the print.

You can soon pay for the cost of a cold light head with savings in paper from not having to reprint a negative. As many people say - that's just my .04 (long post = more change) - filtered through 34 years experience with photography.

-- steve (s.swinehart@worldnet.att.net), February 16, 2001.