Re: [Leica] Enlarger advice

[S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net>]

Mike

While My V35 might not be the "best" enlarger it still makes my darkroom feel
complete. The contrast and specular highlights I get , with what are virtually
straight prints, I've never been able to replicate with other maker's products.
I've printed with literally everything available and still find the Leitz better.
Frankly, I wish they made a 4x5 enlarger, that way I wouldn't have my space
cluttered with my two other machines.

Slobodan Dimitrov


Mike Johnston wrote:

> > Now I need additional advice:  what's a good, relatively compact enlarger
> > and lens? Must be good for 35mm, optionally 6x7 negs. Color is optional.
> > Called D.C. today inquiring about a V35 he has available. I might bite, but
> > could I do just as well with a more conservative setup?  For reference, it's
> > been 20 years since I used a darkroom.  My reference back then was the
> > sturdy old Beseler 23C. I'm willing to even downgrade to the 67's if there
> > are enough good recommendations from you.  Or what else is in that realm?
> > Omega? Others?
>
> John,
> A V35 is not necessary. It's not the best enlarger; it mainly offers a
> feature (autofocus) that beginners don't need; it's not very versatile (only
> handles 35mm); its VC module is primitive (though it seems to work well);
> and it's comparatively very expensive. It's also no longer made.
>
> If you want the _ne plus ultra_ of enlargers, the best money can buy for
> 35mm, I recommend the Durst M70 with a variable contrast head. Beautiful
> machine, from the world's best and most experienced manufacturer of
> enlargers. This, not the Leica, is the M6 of enlargers. Approaches $2K
> loaded, but you can start without the VC head for much less.
>
> If you want something not quite as good but much more cost-efficient, I
> recommend the Saunders 670 VCCE, an amateur enlarger of good if not
> fantastic build-quality but very good functionality. It's easy to use, easy
> to learn on, and gives excellent results. Light source is a
> non-interchangeable dichroic-style diffusion head. About $800.
>
> If you want to save still more money, look for a Durst 601 on the used
> morket. You can get perfectly good ones for as low as $100. Make sure the
> one you buy has the negative carriers you need; these are still available
> new (from JOBO USA in the U.S.) but they're expensive. The 601 doesn't have
> built-in variable-contrast filtering like the two mentioned above, and it
> cannot be converted to color like the M70. It's a nice, tough, well-made,
> utilitarian machine, however, and it's comfortable to use and works well for
> B&W enlarging. I like the light source of the classic Durst head; it's
> simple, consisting of a large frosted bulb reflecting off an angled mirror
> then down (usually) through a single condenser to the lens. In practice it's
> about midway on the spectrum between pure condenser (point-source) and pure
> diffusion (cold light), which may be about the best compromise for
> black-and-white, balancing good subjective sharpness with good tonality. I
> like it, anyway. Some but not all other Dursts share this head design.
>
> The Beseler 23CIII was completely retooled only four or five years ago, and
> is actually quite a nice enlarger; you can buy three separate
> interchangeable heads for B&W condenser, B&W VC (diffusion head), and color,
> so if you buy it with one head now it's upgradeable. It works well and it's
> a nice enlarger, although in terms of status it's definitely in the Pentax
> category and will not earn you any bragging rights around here. I'm working
> on the assumption that maybe your 10-year-old isn't a snob and doesn't care.
> <g>
>
> As far as enlarging lenses are concerned, buy a 50mm f/2.8 for 35mm. Any of
> the current generation 6-element lenses are very good and will be perfectly
> serviceable: Nikon El-Nikkor, Rodenstock Rodagon, and Schneider Componon-S.
> These can be purchased new for reasonable prices or used for even more
> reasonable prices. The latter two manufacturers make premium versions that
> are more expensive, called Apo-Rodagon-N and APO-Componon. These are better
> lenses but not by all that much, and might be overkill for your son, at
> least until you have evidence that his technique is getting very good.
>
> The very best enlarging lenses are not available.
>
> If I can offer any more advice, please just ask. To toot my own horn a bit,
> I was Editor-in-Chief of the world's leading darkroom magazine (well, in
> English at least, but I believe the assertion still holds) for six years,
> and have a long resumé of acknowledged darkroom expertise. And when I speak
> on this subject, I speak from practical, hands-on experience, having logged
> more than ten thousand hours in professional, school, and personal
> darkrooms; I've taught the subject at the high school, college, and adult
> levels, written articles (including enlarger reviews) for numerous
> publications internationally, and for several years made my living full-time
> as a custom exhibition fine printer (B&W only). Pictures I've printed (not
> taken, mind you, merely printed) have appeared in major national magazines
> and major corporate annual reports, have been exhibited at the Monterey Jazz
> Festival, the Smithsonian, in the offices of high-level government
> officials, in the lobbies of banks and the public spaces of giant
> corporations, and in numerous art galleries and museums, including the
> Museum of Modern Art, and reside in private and public collections here and
> there around the world. (One sometimes needs to give one's c.v. around here,
> especially seeing as how Erwin was willing to conclude, on the basis one
> verbal-only internet posting from me, that I don't know how to print a
> black-and-white picture. Not to be immodest, but I would say that the
> preponderance of the actual evidence tilts in favor of the opposite
> conclusion <g>.) On this list, I defer only to Pierce, whose resumé as a
> black-and-white exhibition printer is similar to mine but better. I would
> match my technical knowledge to his, but he has more experience as a printer
> than I do.
>
> --Mike