Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Takeshi Hashimoto wrote: > > > -- > > On Thu, 18 May 2000 23:17:46 Walter Levy wrote: > >I just finished my first session printing my Leica (OT) negatives on my new > >used 23CII with a Zone VI cold light head. Wow! How many o's in > >smooooooooth? If I had known how great it is using this kind of light > >source I would have started years ago! What a difference from that nasty > >old condenser light! > > > >Walter (Cold is cool) Levy > > > > > > Wait a minute! Have you been using Kodak's recommended times all those years? Ifso, then you've probably not seen how very good condenser can be. You MUST reduceyou developing times from the "standard" Kodak times by about 25%; even better, use a compensating developer like Rodinal or Acutol (better) AND reduce your times by 25%. This will give a MUCH better result with the condenser than youcan get with cold light. Trust me. > I've extensively used both and I don't think there is much difference between them even the contrast is really not that different. I've pre popped hundreds of negs as I printed them on a condenser enlarger (D2). It becomes Very automatic you dont even think. (like focasing) But I don't have to pre pop them with a cold light! My bursitis is slightly pleased. Condensers add about a half a grade of contrast to a print which people think is "sharpness." I don't think all this fluff about highlight separation with cold lights is true or much less retouching either. I think if you were using a glass carrier it wouldn't matter much: moot point: condenser verses diffusion even if it was fluorescent. A "Point source" head (not a moot point) though might show up the sub atomic particles hiding between your grain clumps but I'll live without that pile of worms.. Mark Rabiner