Whacky Walt Wrote:
>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.
Bzzt. Try again.
Sharpness isn't determined by light source, but the quality of
the lens and the careful alignment of film, lens and paper.
(along with a good grain magnifier...)
With modern, thin-emulsion films, the increase in acutance is
very minimal with condenser enlargers. Thicker emulsion films,
such as Plus-X and FP-4 will show some difference, but nearly
everything else, including TriX and HP5, is very thin emulsioned
now. The emulsion is getting more and more simular to dye-cloud
emulsions in characteristic. When Saint AA wrote his tomes, the
films (even Tri-X) were very different than they are today.
I have both types of heads for my enlarger and in my testing
there is no visible difference in sharpness or contrast.
However, with a diffusion head there is much better tonal
seperation in the high values where a condensor enlarger will
tend to blow the high values out.
When it comes to dust, scratches and fingerprints--it's no
contest. Diffusion wins.
Last time I used my condensor enlarger, it was because I had
blown a bulb in my primary enlarger and had no spare. I've got
spares now.
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
< 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 >
|