I used a cold light (flourescent tube) head with diffusing plate on my Bogen.
Best thing I ever did. Of course, I had to calibrate my film processing for a
slightly different contrast range, but once done, it made printing so much
easier and better. No decrease in sharpness (I think that's a myth or at least
exaggerated), but a real decrease in "harshness". I learned with Ansel's books
at my elbow (along with mentoring), but remember he wrote that before the
advent of good cold light heads. I think later on he actually used cold light.
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/13/2003 at 5:03 PM Walt Wayman wrote:
>Peter,
>
>I didn't notice when I first read your post, but, looking back,
>you do seem to have them backwards.
>
>So I don't add to the confusion by getting something wrong, this
>is from Ansel Adams' "The Print":
>
>"...some enlargers, known as the diffusion type, interpose between
>lamp and negative a sheet of cloudy glass that spreads light
>uniformly. This diffusion system causes some loss of light;
>however, it scatters light rays in many directions and much of the
>light, consequently, never reaches the enlarger lens. It also
>gives a gently diffused appearance to the print. Many
>photographers like this effect, particularly for portraits, but
>such softening of detail may be objectionable when small negatives
>must be greatly enlarged.
>
>"Most enlargers designed for 35mm and other small film sizes
>commonly used by amateurs spread light uniformly over the negative
>with "condenser" lenses (and are called condenser enlargers).
>Between lamp and negative are two saucer-shaped lenses that
>concentrate the lamp's light so that it passes straight through
>the negative. Most of the light reaches the lens, increasing
>efficiency. The straight-line passage also yields crisp detail,
>since light rays from different points in the negative do not
>overlap one another."
>
>Walt
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it
>from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal, theologian
>
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: petertje@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:29:36 +0200
>
>>
>>Hi Walt,
>>
>>>Actually, it's exactly the opposite. Condenser enlargers are
>>>generally sharper and contrastier. Diffusion enlargers
>>>minimize the effects of dust and scratches on the negative.
>>
>>Did I just mix up the two types entirely (giving them just the
>wrong names), or did I explain them correctly but was my
>conclusion about the sharpness wrong ?
>>
>>
>>
>>Peter.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|