Graflex.org

[Murray@uptowngallery.org]

1) I chose this forum because it was the 'least wrong'.

2) I chose this site because it's an old tech question and I'm not getting any bites on other sites.


Anyone know enough about mechanics/optics of point-source enlarging to discuss it?

Basically I'm interested in knowing how critical the lamps are, condenser location and behavior relative to a 'conventional lamp' condenser enlarger.

Lastly, if an enlarger is missing condensers, how critical is specifying/locating replacements? In other words, does a condenser simply have to spread out the light and would pristine generic or surplus ones work (if they fit) ?

I know point-source illumination is fraught with difficulties, but I'm just looking for info beyond all the caveats.

Thanks

Murray
_________________
Murray

[R_J]

[Henry]

Murray, what brand enlarger? There are parts available for a few of the old-line jobs like the Beseler. You might even be able to pick up a junker for parts that match yours.

[Murray@uptowngallery.org]

No brand. No enlarger. I do things a step at a time, sometime 1 forward & 2 back.

I just started acquiring enlarger lenses. I was looking for 90-100 mm lens & saw an Ektar lens from a 'color printer' with fixed iris. Reading led me to the point-source concept.

It seemed like it was as much or more work to adapt an existing enlarger to point source than start from scratch, because of the lamp movement requirements.

I didnt know if it was possible to generically select a condenser or pair to cover a specific format like it's not hard to find a taking lens to cover a given format.

And it looks like any good enlarger lens could be pressed into point-source service if the rest of the system was there.

I won a 100 mm lens Saturday on eBay anyway (with iris :O).

My original plan was a horizontal one with cold head. Maybe an optical bench type construction will allow me to hack different light sources into the system.

I hope they still make paper by the time I have one running :O(

While R_J is here, back to the cold head idea...

Surplus Shed has inexpensive EK flashed opal glass in 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. I thought I should hide a piece of each for someday when the next phase 'happens'.

I understand one wants one's existing enlarger condenser lenses to be free of defects or they may show. Does the inherent dififfusion in opal glass give one some leeway for imperfections in the glass or should I specify 'mint condition or never mind' on the opal glass?

If nothing else, this has been (another) educational adventure. Other than one hound lens I naively bought (Rodenstock EL-Omegar 75 mm) before I really researched, the others are good ones.

Thank you both (and any upcoming posters). Dan, too, in anticipation of any forthcoming harassment :O).
_________________
Murray

[Dan Fromm]

Murray, why does a fixed aperture enlarging lens want a point source?

[Murray@uptowngallery.org]

Well, I'm told that an aperture has no useful effect with a point source light source and that exposure times are adjusted by varying light intensity (which has color temperature issues) or ND filters.

Because that 108 mm Ektar lens I saw was fixed aperture, some said one possible origin for it may have been a point source system. But someone else tod me that the color printers were sometimes for fixed sizes, sometimes had interchangeable fixed apertures.

But since people use whatever normal enlarger lens they have on things like Durst 138's when they go point-source, that Ektar is looking less attractive.
_________________
Murray

[R_J]

Hi Murray,

Not sure why I'm finding myself thinking how remote cold head diffusion is, when compared to lensless point source light enlarging.

There is a marked difference in the final print from both methods: classically, a cold cathode enlarger endows prints with a contact print quality, with none of the harshness characteristic of condenser enlargers. The condenser-diffusers take a middle-ground compromise rendition between a diffuser and a condenser.

Perhaps most modern heads fall into this middle category, however the cold light cathode enlargement is an aesthetic which seems to be sidelined as more photographers assume that split-grade printing (which overcomes the inherent problems with variable contrast papers) is oddly superior in any way to a completely different printing technique with graded papers. The point source enlarging practice, fits on the same side of condenser-enlarging practice, away from diffuser-enlarging practice. Your project could come up with some fascinating results. I'm curious: how would a cold head diffuser, with the opposite extreme, of a single point light source alter print characteristics - what would the prints look like

[Murray@uptowngallery.org]

Thanks for the detailed answers. Not that I'm qualified to gauge it, but you're obviously a skilled writer too.

I guess the short answer is that what I've read of PS performance makes it a 'must-see' if at all practical.

Burning the negative with a lamp sounds like my luck. Thanks for the warning.

Murray
_________________
Murray

[Murray@uptowngallery.org]

I got a dose of reality with the Durst Latico/Lacon condensers - I let an 85 and 130 pass, thinking they were on the small side; they closed on eBay at US$36 and 41 each & seller wanted $25.40 each to ship.

Next I saw a pair of Lacon 380's, and realized there were people with deeper pockets than me. They closed at US$301 + 48# shipping weight. Winning bidder had a Japanese name - I'll just imagine they have to be shipped to Japan.

I realized there were alot more issues that just getting the parts...

I found a Dejur condenser 6.5" diameter fairly cheap, bought-it-now, then realized the Dejur 4x5 has two lenses...and I do not .

I >thought< I read somewhere that a second condenser allows the condenser ass'y to be closer to the negative to minimize enlarger height.

I hope a single condenser can be made to work and isn't just half the function...or I have another useless item to go with some of the others.



Murray
_________________
Murray

[paxety]

You might PM Donald Miller on APUG. He converted an enlarger to a point source. IIRC, he used a 1000w bulb and had to build a fan to cool it.
_________________
http://simmonsphotos.com

[djon]

I've did a lot with "point source" ... about 30 years ago.

I don't recall the specific nomenclature, but the lamp that is/was used in Durst, Beseler, and Omega was literally a Volkswagen dome lamp (actually a 2" tubular l2V non-quartz amp that was used in many automobile brands)

There is/was an adapter socket that screwed in to replace the conventional light bulb socket in those three enlarger brands.

The 12V lamp naturally required a 12V source...that was available expensively from the enlarger manufacturer or cheaply from a junk store in the form of a variable voltage model train transformer (I used an ancient Lionel transformer). A fixed voltage 12V converter would be just as good because the variable transformer had to be used at full voltage to avoid strange optical effects as a result of the strange color that happens with lower voltage.

Aperture is crucial...it must be FULL aperture, eg. f2.8 with a 2.8 lens or f4 with an f4.0 lens. Stopping down produces crazy effects ...the diaphragm blades scatter light remarkably....presumably a waterhouse stop would be good...as you know, process lenses were never stopped down for the same reason, but they did use waterhouse stops...diaphragm blades do themselves inherently hurt resolution vs waterhouse stops.

Exposure is a matter of timing, not aperture...I don't recall typical exposure times, but I do recall them being critical.

Professional Dursts had excellent condenses for point source use.
Hobbiest Dursts did not, except for older versions such as 606 and my 609..I doubt subsequent hobbiest Dursts were comparably good.

Omega and Beseler had inferior condensers so they required optional condensers, part of their expensive point source kits (optically coated condensers, lamp, lamp adapter, transformer).

Focus is critical..slight out-of-focus is unusable...strange color effects are projected when slightly out of focus and the faintest abrasions on back of film become exaggerated.

I don't recall what film holder I used..I relied heavily on glass carriers that were standard with Durst..I used anti-newton on back and clear on the emulstion side (emulsion has its own texture to avoid newtons rings).

I also had glassless carriers, but rarely used them and the inevitable film curvature probably (don't recall) made strange effects away from the focus point...PERHAPS I focused off-center, just as I do with Nikon scanner, which is also focus-critical but not nearly so extremely.

What are the results? Remarkably high detail resolution..the best possible from any given lens. Strange print tonality...interesting...as "realistic" as B&W ever is, but startling, distinctive. Increased difficulty with dust and scratches, just as with 4000ppi Nikon scans without Ice.