Frankenlarger; or, the Modified 23/45

[Sundowner]

I was going to call this thread "Let's Destroy Modify an Enlarger" but I realized that I can't do strike-through text in titles and that just ruined my entire day. My next thought was "The Enlarger of Dr. Moreau" but that would have tempted me into way too many (Pren)dick jokes...so, at length, I settled on what I settled on because I don't even know if I'll be able to make this experiment work without losing my sanity, and that seemed either exceptionally apropos or close enough to serve without keeping me at 3:00AM. Besides, I've always wanted to take up climbing in the Alps.

So, what's the plan? Well, originally I was going to restomod this perfectly-functional Beseler 45 that I found for a very good price...

Pictured: Mer de Glace, here I come.

...but as I started looking more carefully, I realized that when I said "perfectly functional Beseler 45" I actually meant "perfectly functional-looking Beseler 45 that is in no way functional in its current state, but which may seem that way when viewed from a middling distance.". Among the absolute litany of problems are...

Pictured: Wracked carriage.

Pictured: Deformed rear X-braces.

Pictured: Missing and/or rusted fasteners.

Pictured: Depressingly-mangled mounting tabs.

Pictured: Bent limit stops.

Pictured: Rust-flavored cobweb-lint.

...and many, many more small issues.

Having restored a 45 in the past - read: assembled a working enlarger from the dissected remains of three separate chassis that I found in a dumpster - I can categorically state that literally none of this damage and dirt should be present in an enlarger that's in nice condition. Granted, there's a certain level of wear and tear that you see on a well-used machine that's been cared-for and kept in good condition...but this isn't it: the number of bends, twists, dents, dings, and the sheer amount miscellaneous destruction in areas that are normally unexposed to wear and tear is far too high. Collectively, this is indicative of a previous owner to whom basic care and maintenance was a foreign concept, and who owned a variety of tools that were all makeshift hammers.

All of this being said, I didn't write this one off immediately: I have a need for a 4x5 enlarger, and this one came at a good price even if it was in poor condition. So I did a pretty thorough survey to see if there was an actual diamond somewhere in the rough...and here's the short version of what I found:

• The chassis has likely been dropped or hit: the twisted x-braces, bent lower rails, bent limit stops, loose rear braces, wracked carriage and other areas of destruction all point towards some kind of impact. It's all fixable, but the heavier bits are gonna take some serious work.
• The motor and elevation system is working, but someone's been into it: the cover/housing is missing fasteners, the motor mounting tabs are bent, the wiring was jammed into place strangely, and the belt tension is off. I think this is a replacement motor that was installed by someone that didn't know what they were doing. Again, fixable, but not really my idea of a fun Saturday.
• The condenser head is in good shape; both lenses are intact, the heat-absorbing glass is intact, and I'm reasonably sure it's seen little use. There's some paint scarring on the exterior, but that's the worst of it.
• The Aristo head that came with the enlarger is in decent shape. It has an older W-series bulb in it, and it doesn't have the Zone VI photodiode mod, but I can remedy those issues.
• The lens and negative stages are dirty, but they're in very good shape; rust is limited, the bellows may be entirely intact, and even the nylon bushings are in good condition.
• Overall, the level of dirt and neglect implies that this thing has sat idle more than it's been used, which may be explained by some of the more traumatic damage that was found.

So, this may not be as bad as it originally seemed: some parts of the enlarger are mostly intact and need only minimal work, and that means it's really not as bad of a restoration candidate as I originally suspected. This being said: we already know I'm not going to do that, don't we?

Yes, we absolutely know that, because we know that I make really great choices in life.

So, yeah: instead of just cleaning it up and calling it good, or even doing everything that's needed to get it fully repaired and working correctly, I'm going to try to do something that may not even work at all. Specifically, I'm going to take this enlarger's mostly-intact head/negative/lens assemblynand graft it onto the chassis of a 23C-II XL, because that just makes all the sense in the world.

To be clear: I do not know if this is going to work. I don't even know that it can work; there may be very good reasons that the 23C carriage and/or frame simply cannot support the 45 head being placed on it...and I'm probably going to find out about all of them. However, I also know that Beseler tried some kind version of this exact concept, because they built the 45H; information on it is sketchy, but from the few online images and references I've found, it was literally a 45 head on a 23-sized chassis.

Pictured: Thusly.

That's a very bad image, but it's one of the only ones out there...and if it wasn't for the telltale 45 features - solid/geared lens stage, overall size of the head, etc. - it would easily pass for a 23C of some provenance or other. But, it proves one thing: an extra-big-ass 45 head can, in fact, fit on a smaller inclined-rail chassis...and the 23C-series fits that description.

Key takeaways from the above image, which I need to consider:

• A rear elevation mechanism is present, which implies that the same kind of mechanism on the 23C-series is a workable option. Counterbalance springs may or may not be different.
• The baseboard support is substantially larger than those found on the 23C frames; this may need to be addressed, depending on how much the assembled 45 head actually weighs when it's all said and done.
• The baseboard itself is similar to the stock 23 baseboard in both length and width, which makes sense: the 45H was supposed to be a compact unit, overall.
• There's a very substantial upper brace/reinforcement on the back of the chassis rails, which is entirely absent on any of the 23C-series frames that I've seen in the past. From this side of the screen, it looks even stronger and more effective than the method used on the CB7, which has a substantial chassis of its own.
• The height of the rails/chassis looks to be in the neighborhood of 36". I arrived at that number by comparing the measured height of a fully-assembled 45 condenser head/negative/lens stage (~29") with the scale of those parts as shown in the above image, and then referenced them to the rails: answer, 36"-ish, checked about three different ways.
• Because of how the bracing and elevation mechanisms are depicted, we can infer that the head assembly on the 45H doesn't go very far up the column; the upper 25% is off limits...as is the lower 25%. All told, there's probably about 20" to 21" of head travel, which would be similar to the 22.5" available on the 45MCRX that's now lying in pieces in my garage.

So, yeah...this entire project seems possible, and even roughly doable. The main things to tackle will be the chassis reinforcements and the head attachment; once those are solved the remainder shouldn't be as bad, and I have some thoughts on how I'm going to accomplish it...but that's for another post. Right now, I need to pull the head assembly apart, inspect it, clean it, reassemble it, and then fetch a 23C chassis from somewhere. I have two in storage that I don't exactly want to cannibalize, but if I can't come up with another one in short order I'll just vivisect one of them and use it for the rearward portions of what will hopefully become the Frankenlarger.

I guess that means it's time to get to it, then. Stay tuned...and by all means: chip in with any thoughts, ideas, opinions, callous insults, aspersions regarding my lineage, or brilliant insights as to what I should be doing instead of this nonsense.

 

[Fujicaman1957]

FYI-the black enlarger you show is the rare Beseler 45H (H for hand). I have one. Near as I can tell, it was Beseler's "bargain" 4 X 5 enlarger.

 

[Sundowner]

FYI-the black enlarger you show is the rare Beseler 45H (H for hand). I have one. Near as I can tell, it was Beseler's "bargain" 4 X 5 enlarger.

Yes, I specifically mentioned that model designation in the sentence immediately preceding the image thereof, but sometimes information presented in that way can be missed.

In researching this model, I've found conflicting information about what the "H" stands for. Most often, I've seen "Hybrid" and "Home" in reference to it being either a factory 45/23 hybrid or a model meant for home/small-space 4x5 enlargement, respectively; I haven't heard "Hand" before. Personally, I now use "H" to stand for "Hard to find information about."

I can see how it would be a "bargain" model without the power elevation mechanism of the standard 45 or the CB7. I may have a way to fix that.

Meanwhile...

Pictured: "He's dead, Jim."

Head is off, springs and negative stage lever-dingus are removed, etc. It's actually in very good shape, as I suspected. The shaft for the upper negative stage adjustment gear looks a bit shabby...

Pictured: Could be worse.

...but aside from that, it's not bad. There's a ton of some kind of dried oil on things, so I'll be at it with degreaser and a brass brush for a bit, but I think there's minimal work to do, here.

 

[Sundowner]

Pictured: Tonight's Fun.

That's the shouldered pivot stud for the lens stage, and that nut did not want to come off; a drop of oil, a torch and an impact wrench finally got it loose. More coverage tomorrow.

 

[Joel_L]

I would say you have the makings of a nice enlarger, nothing to daunting and so far all looks addressable. When I was looking for a 4x5 enlarger, the 45MXT was on my short list. In the end I ended up with a D5 and a D5500. I had to do a lot of repair on the D5500, but I find that kind of stuff fun.

 

[choiliefan]

OT but nice to see a Burke Millrite in a well-lit shop.

 

[Sundowner]

I would say you have the makings of a nice enlarger, nothing to daunting and so far all looks addressable.

It could all be fixed, yes; I do have the feeling that the motor isn't very happy, but that part is available as well.

The main issue with a straight-up rebuild would be the overall size; the 45 baseboard is about 3" too deep for my space, and that's actually enough to make a difference. As I considered those implications, a series of thoughts ran through my head:

"I guess I could cut down the baseboard on the front...but if I do that, I'll actually lose quite a bit of enlargement capacity on that end. Hmmm."

And then:

"I could actually save a lot of space on the back if I just eliminated the factory back stays and ran a pair of supports to the wall...but then I'd still be into cutting the factory baseboard rails apart and I'd rather save those in case someone needs them. Hmmm.'

And then:

"I guess I could just wall-mount the entire thing. That would make more sense anyway, and that would save some overhead height as well. Hopefully there's a pair of studs exactly where I need them. Hmmm."

And then:

"I could just build a modular system that would let me wall-mount both this one and a 23, which would take care of my baseboard and height issues. But that's two different mounts. Hmmm."

And finally:

"If I'm going to take the time to build a separate mount for this enlarger, why don't I build a mount that puts a 45 head on a 23? That's way more interesting than rebuilding a 45 again. Now, how am I gonna do that? Hmmm."

And then I started a thread.

When I was looking for a 4x5 enlarger, the 45MXT was on my short list. In the end I ended up with a D5 and a D5500. I had to do a lot of repair on the D5500, but I find that kind of stuff fun.

I enjoy it as well, and I also enjoy solving problems; mostly, I solve the ones that I blithely create for myself when I hop down mental rabbit trails like the one detailed above. In this case, I realized that I definitely need the ability to enlarge 4x5, but I don't exactly want the physical size of the typical Beseler 4x5 enlarger; it may not seem so, but those are two very different parts of the equation.

OT but nice to see a Burke Millrite in a well-lit shop.

That was a total rebuild as well. It came out of a workshop about five hours away, and even though it needed some work, the important parts were still in really good shape. I thought about doing a complete resto on it, but 1) I'm lazy, and B) I rather enjoyed the cosmetic scars on the finish: they tell a story, and I didn't want to take that away.

Pictured: Battered, but happy.

The mechanical scars were a different story: those, I fixed. This machine was evidently once owned by the same chimp that owned the 45 I'm dissecting, which - and this is another parallel - was not the person from which I purchased the machine. I'm at least the third owner of each machine, and each was in a rather abashed state by the time it came into the possession of the person from whom I bought it. Compared to the condition of the Burke, however, the Beseler looked new; that mill was in bad shape.

Moving back to the 45 for a minute: something that wasn't in bad shape were the factory nylon bushings on the negative and lens stages; this makes me happy because now I don't have to make new ones.

Pictured: Yay, laziness!

Granted, I've considered making new ones anyway because I've never generated/printed a shape like that - or worked with nylon in my printer, come to think of it - but that's extra work, and extra work is the type of work to which I'm the most allergic.

Fun Fact: I'm also allergic to roll pins, and when I say that, I actually mean "I just really, really, REALLY hate those stupid things." They seem to always pein over at one end or the other, even if you use a proper roll pin punch...

Pictured: Seen here.

...and even if you take the time to flatten and lightly taper the ends so that they don't pein/distort/bend/bind/whatever. I seriously thought about taking a small taper pin reamer to this gear and shaft, just to avoid dealing with the roll pin when I have to take this thing apart again...and taking it all apart again is likely to happen, because of one critically-important reason:

I don't really like this blue color.



Okay, before anyone starts: I know that the Beseler blue color is classic and fun, but I really just don't like it as a primary color. As an accent, yes: it's fine...but not as the main color. It's just too much...so if I can get this entire thing working - and that's an "if" of approximately the same size as the defense budget of Moldova - I'm going to pull all of the blue parts back out and repaint them in black to match the 23 chassis.

Thus, the question of the taper pin reamer arose... but since I don't have a reamer of that size, it doesn't matter. I can always modify it later, if need be.

Pictured: Need.

Well, there's the reason the roll pin wss difficult to remove from one direction and impossible from the other: a tiny little deformation on the gear surface. Looks like a bad punch strike, to me; it's not much, but it's more than enough...so, it looks like I'll be going over to Tacoma Screw tomorrow to pick up a reamer. While I'm there, I'll grab some additional 800-grit sandpaper, because I used the last of it to help polish out this shaft.

Pictured: Shiny.

That's looking a lot better than it did when it came out, but it's still bare steel; I'll have to come up with a solution for that. Both this and the other adjustment shaft are some of the few parts that didn't get Beseler's industrial chrome or nickel finishes over the bare metal. I guess I could nickel-plate them; I've been wanting to try that out...but I may do some cold-blueing and just call it good.

Anyway, that's where we are right now. I did a bit more disassembly last night, so I'll post some pictures of that process once I get done digging my 23s out of storage today.

Stay tuned.

 

[Sundowner]

Well, I did make a bit more progress, but while investigating the 45's condenser head I suddenly found myself sidetracked by the idea of making a few dedicated filter holders for it. A few minutes later I realized that six hours had passed...so I didn't get much done on any other part of the project. But I did manage a working prototype of the holder, so that was good.

Tomorrow, I shall do better! And I say that in full intent of actually doing so, and with knowledge that I likely will get just as sidetracked as today...but at least I'll be making progress on something.

 

[Harry Callahan]

....

• Because of how the bracing and elevation mechanisms are depicted, we can infer that the head assembly on the 45H doesn't go very far up the column; the upper 25% is off limits...as is the lower 25%. All told, there's probably about 20" to 21" of head travel, which would be similar to the 22.5" available on the 45MCRX that's now lying in pieces in my garage.

I guess that means it's time to get to it, then. Stay tuned...and by all means: chip in with any thoughts, ideas, opinions, callous insults, aspersions regarding my lineage, or brilliant insights as to what I should be doing instead of this nonsense.

As any comments are allowed, i tune in, though i assume that you already considered this:

As 45 is bigger than 23, bigger prints are possible. If the original stand of the 45 head is limited in elevation, why not built your own stand to increase head movement - as you would need it for 45. Putting the 45 head on a 23 stand will limit print size.
If you`re limited in space i would built a stand for enough head movement for 45, but also put the 23 head on if needed. Then there was one stand for both formats, saving space but not limiting 45 format.

 

[ic-racer]

As 45 is bigger than 23, bigger prints are possible.

Not without a very very wide angle lens (that probably does not exist). With a lens appropriate for the film format, projection size on the baseboard will be the same for all formats at the same head height.

 

[Sundowner]

As any comments are allowed, i tune in, though i assume that you already considered this:

In general, the vast number of things that I consider in reference to any given project is only exceeded by the exponentially higher number of far-more-important things that I was not smart enough to even think about in the first place...so please, please comment. The most likely eventuality is that you're either going to mention something I've not yet thought about, or something about how you've phrased things will spark a parallel train of thought.

As 45 is bigger than 23, bigger prints are possible.

That is definitely the case. This being said: I don't print very large in relation to any given negative, and my enlargements tend to scale downward as the negative size increases. It's very common for me to print between 6" to 8" square from a 35mm negative, and often that size doesn't go up when I move into 120 formats; very occasionally, I'll do 10"- to 11"-ish enlargements. On 4x5, I'm expecting that I'll not go over 14", but I'm giving myself room for 16"... even though that seems insanely massive to my 6"-square brain.

Now, my partner is a different story: she would print 48" on the short side and roll the prints thought the bathtub, if I'd let her...

If the original stand of the 45 head is limited in elevation, why not built your own stand to increase head movement - as you would need it for 45. Putting the 45 head on a 23 stand will limit print size.

I'm not sure that there's going to be a ton of difference in the maximum size that will be possible between the two configurations. Based on sheer guesswork (that's probably wrong, knowing me) it looks like I'm basically limited to a 16" by 20" print either way, because I know that's the effective limit of a 45MCRX, and any 23 column I use probably won't give me much more effective height than that...

...

...unless I wall-mount the enlarger and change the effective head height entirely, which means that all bets are off in regards to print sizing. However, I may have a better idea than that:

If you`re limited in space i would built a stand for enough head movement for 45, but also put the 23 head on if needed. Then there was one stand for both formats, saving space but not limiting 45 format.

How about a stand that does exactly that, but which also moves?



So, full disclosure: I was going to hint-at and tease the idea before revealing that part of The Master Plan, but since you've hit on the exact situation I'm planning I feel like I should just go ahead and discuss it, and then find some better Easter eggs to throw in, here and there. So, with that said:

My previous darkroom had a custom-built cabinet for the enlarger(s); it was 40" tall with a 60" by 30" top made from a double layer of white melamine, two drawers directly underneath, and a shelving area underneath that. The enlargers bolted directly to it; I cut the bolt pattern into the top with a rather large CNC router, and the enlarger columns were connected to the wall with turnbuckles at the top. The entire cabinet was on leveling legs, so when we installed it we leveled it as well as possible and then screwed it to the wall: it was rock solid and just about perfect...

...for me, at least.

For my partner - who is 6" shorter than I am - it was too tall; she really struggled to use it comfortably...so as a result I spent a lot of time and effort designing and building an object that simply didn't work for 50% of the anticipated users, mostly because I went through that entire design/build process without ever thinking that it might be asking a bit much for them to just deal with what I blithely thought to be the ideal. So, it was like I suddenly turned into Apple.

At that point I started planning a movable stand that would be height-adjustable for different users...and let me tell you: in the last couple of years I've had a LOT of ideas about exactly what that concept entails. Adjustable-top workbenches, wall-mounted constructions made from 8020 extrusions, a tabletop platform held steady by a quartet of enthralled gnomes: basically, all the common solutions. Eventually, I hit upon a possible solution: an adjustable-height standing desk.

Now, before anyone objects: I know there are problems with this solution. Specifically: most standing desks are of lighter construction, not deep enough to handle sizable easels, and usually somewhat unfriendly to a darkroom in terms of materials and design...and all of that makes perfect sense because most standing desks are intended to be trendy and useful in a home office. Finding one of the correct size, shape, construction and capacity is extremely difficult.

Pictured: Except that it isn't.

That, amazingly enough, is exactly what I was looking for...and it wasn't even hard to find once I knew what I needed: it's a commercial desk. I found it at a secondhand furniture store that had an office-equipment section. It's 58" by 29", with a 30mm-thick melamine/MDO top and 1mm poly edgebanding, and it has one of the heaviest leg sets I've ever seen in a desk.

Pictured: I have axles with less gusseting than this.

The legs and frame are all 12-gauge powdercoated steel, and the foot sections and other braces are just ridiculous: they're 5-gauge, formed on a press brake.

Pictured: Beef.

Controls are pretty simple: a single power unit supplies a motor and actuator in each leg, synchronized to both sides and controlled through a basic touch pad. Up, down, four memory pre-sets, and infinite adjustment through the height range; it'll drop to 24.5" at the lowest, and it will raise to 50".

Pictured: Wasn't that height the problem that started all of this nonsense?

That, Dear Reader, is a better solution to a movable-height enlarging stand than I could ever hope to design and build in a home shop; it was also significantly cheaper. My plan is to wall-mount the two enlargers - along with the majority of their power sources - and only use the desk/table as a base for the easels, timer and tools. The wall-mount will definitely limit the upward travel of the work surface, so I'll mount the enlargers at the absolute maximum working height - probably around 41" off the floor - and let that be the upper limit. The lower limit will be set by whatever storage solution we place beneath it; probably a file cabinet that holds working prints, or a small-sized dorm fridge that functions as a paper safe, or a combination of both. Vertical rigidity is pretty good on this desk, so I don't have to worry about that, and I'm working on a simple solution for locking it to the wall at any given height; once that's sorted out, there's not much to build.

So, yeah, I guess that it's actually a modular drop-table setup, in the end. Hopefully it'll work well.

 

[Sundowner]

Not without a very very wide angle lens (that probably does not exist). With a lens appropriate for the film format, projection size on the baseboard will be the same for all formats at the same head height.

I know there are some specialty lenses that'll get close-ish to that idea, but I just don't print large enough to warrant finding them. Mostly, my desire to enlarge 4x5 comes from two sources:

1. 4x5 is not quite the size that I want for contact printing; most other formats aren't, either, but that's a different story.
2. I like the tonal qualities of the larger negative, in some cases; being able to create and enlarge those would be nice.

I know this will sound insane, but the ability to create prints that are only enlarged to about 150% of the 4x5 negative would be really nice, for me. For me, 4x5 enlargement isn't so much about print size as it is depth, and there are times when I want a ton of depth in the print. At other times...eh, not so much; that's why it's important to maintain the ability to easily enlarge smaller formats and create that specific, different look.

 

[Harry Callahan]

So he basically does already know the solution to his problems...
... and he does print 45 rather small.


You must be kidding me/us.

But ok. Still i would look for enough headroom, in case you want to crop a 45 neg or a 23 neg having fine grain. You can get very far with 23 nowadays - also on depth . I assume you not only mean tonality, but also a grainless print.
Which indeed can look very good.

 

[choiliefan]

I used to tilt the Beseler head for bigger enlargements.
Once you align everything to the wall it works great, big as you want.

 

[Sundowner]

Yes, that would be the correct expression.

So he basically does already know the solution to his problems...

Well, yes and no; I know some solutions, but definitely not all of them.

Example: I'm still working on the solution for locking the desk to the wall at any given height within the desired range of travel. I've been through several ideas and haven't fully settled on the final one, yet.

Second Example: I'm working on 3D-printing some small parts - a set of filter holders, some adjustable lens boards, etc. - and I'm using those as a material test for larger things, such as the pieces that will mount the 45 head to the 23 column. The designs are evolving nicely, but I'm not sure what the final material and process will be.

... and he does print 45 rather small.

Yep. My stuff usually tends to be smaller, no matter the negative size.

You must be kidding me/us.

No, I just have serious issues.

But ok. Still i would look for enough headroom, in case you want to crop a 45 neg or a 23 neg having fine grain. You can get very far with 23 nowadays - also on depth . I assume you not only mean tonality, but also a grainless print. Which indeed can look very good.

I crop almost everything I print... mostly because I seem to like squares. I started noticing that years ago: no matter the aspect ratio of the negative, I would end up pulling it back to a square...or at least very close to one. I'm not sure why I see things that way, but it's a definite trend with me.

Regarding depth: it's hard to explain. Tonality is important, and grain definitely plays a part along with many other physical variables, but there's a less-tangible aspect to this as well; often, my thought process and working methodology change when I use a different format...and that comes through in the prints. For me, large format is a slower, composed, and methodical effort, and I'd like to be able to showcase those values in a print size that works with how I generally see things.

I used to tilt the Beseler head for bigger enlargements.
Once you align everything to the wall it works great, big as you want.

I don't think I've ever tilted the head on one of mine...unless I was physically relocating the enlarger and I accidentally turned something the wrong way. Cool feature, though, for those that need it.

Also, I meant to do a bit of catch-up posting on the cleanup of the 45 head, but things have been insane at the house in the last few days: my partner went to work on Friday morning and learned - along with 800 other people - that her company had sold her entire division to a competitor. So, that was a bit of a massive shakeup...but regardless: things have been happening with Frankenlarger. I pulled the lens stage apart and was happy to find that it was in good shape as well.

Pictured: It's not so terrible.

Next, I got to deal with yet another roll pin...and seriously, I hate these things. That being said, this roll pin is at least of a standard size: 3/32", to be exact...which is only standard for the US and Liberia, I think.

Pictured: And for whatever Burma is, now.

The careful observer will note that the weird double-shouldered-pivot-stud-dingus is removed in that previous picture...and that's because it was clamped in a vise and cooling down when I took this picture. I threw in a shot of a torch flame on a nut a few posts back, and as I said then: that nut did NOT want to come off...and even though I used a leather strap as a protective surface between the stud and the vise jaws, there were still a few small scratches and mars left on it when I was done removing the nut.

Pictured: So I went ahead and fixed those.

Beseler machined these things pretty well, but they didn't do a lot of work on the surface finish: I think they got it good enough for their hard-chroming or nickeling processes, and stopped there...so there's no point in getting it to being flawless. Clean and shiny, sure; a mirror polish is another thing entirely, though...and a totally-pointless thing on a part that basically won't be seen. So yeah: this is good enough.

I didn't find anything wrong with the rest of this part of the negative stage, so I basically just cleaned the surface of the adjustment shaft, got all the grime off of the paint, and then cleaned up the all of the little fasteners and specialty bolts and screws. I'd love to have a small tumbler for that kind of thing - and an ultrasonic for dirt removal, too - but I think I did well enough, regardless.

Pictured: I just really hate that color, though...

Also, those adjustment knobs look almost brand-new...but anyways: after all that was done I got all my parts organized and started to look over the lower bellows and the bits attached thereto.

Pictured: More work.

I don't really need or want that filter drawer, but I guess it'll be more work to remove it than to just let it hang out and be in the way. The holder is in okay shape, but it either needs a coat of matte black or a good sanding and then a coat of matte black...and that reminds me: when I pull all of this apart for painting in The Future Time, I should see if I can get a small container of Black 4.0 for the interior of the head. I like painting light chambers a matte white, but I have very strong convictions and prejudices about everything below the negative being as light-drinkingly dark as is possible. So, I'll need to address that, and also consider if I actually do want that filter drawer for anything; it's not that it isn't useful, it's just that with an above-the-negative filter drawer, it becomes redundant.

Also, on that note...

Pictured: Getting sidetracked again.

That would be a prototype for an above-the-negative filter that actually fits the filter drawer of a Beseler 45 condenser head from the Disco Era. It's orange because I'm told that all prototypes are orange; the final version will look a lot more like this.

Pictured: Albeit trimmed to fit correctly.

I literally never use the #3 filter, so I figured it would be a good one to cut apart as a tester for this tombstone-shaped dingus. Surprisingly, I got the overall profile correct on my first try: it fits the upper filter drawer rather perfectly, so now it's just down to refining the details of construction and assembly and finding an affordable source for 6" round acrylic disks that are only .060" thick. That's not as easy as one might think, surprisingly.

Also, I just realized that it would be really cool to somehow salvage the printed number on the filter, but since I'm obviously making a square peg fit a round hole, I might need to get creative: there might need to be a second round hole.

Lastly, there's the other side-project I mentioned: the adjustable lens board.

Pictured: It's like a replicator, but real.

Again, this is just a prototype...and I don't really think I'll be able to print these; the PETG is just too flexible, and I think that might be the case for other filaments as well. I might be able to get creative with the design and introduce some ribbing into the mix in order to stiffen it up, but I honestly think that just using aluminum for the planar surfaces makes more sense: by the time I'm done reinforcing the printed version my material and labor costs will have exceeded the cost of a laser-cut pair of aluminum panels. It's a Soviet-era solution, but it works; that's probably why the original Beseler adjustable boards were all aluminum as well. So that might be the next step in this effort.

Now, the light-trap for that adjustable board: that's a different story. That could absolutely be printed.

Okay, back to Fusion I go. Maybe this time I'll actually make some headway on a 23/45 mount.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Example: I'm still working on the solution for locking the desk to the wall at any given height within the desired range of travel. I've been through several ideas and haven't fully settled on the final one, yet.

Second Example: I'm working on 3D-printing some small parts - a set of filter holders, some adjustable lens boards, etc. - and I'm using those as a material test for larger things, such as the pieces that will mount the 45 head to the 23 column. The designs are evolving nicely, but I'm not sure what the final material and process will be.

Vertical rods, going from bottom to ceiling on every corner of the table, lugs with screws at every corner of the table?

Printed lens boards probably would be problematic regarding precision and, depending on the light source of the head, regarding heat.

Yep. My stuff usually tends to be smaller, no matter the negative size.



No, I just have serious issues.

But what about size, man? What about prints you can walk into?
Maybe someone else wanted to make bigger prints on your setup.

My comment rather was meant to be funny, well, also meant to be funny.

I crop almost everything I print... mostly because I seem to like squares. I started noticing that years ago: no matter the aspect ratio of the negative, I would end up pulling it back to a square...or at least very close to one. I'm not sure why I see things that way, but it's a definite trend with me.

Regarding depth: it's hard to explain. Tonality is important, and grain definitely plays a part along with many other physical variables, but there's a less-tangible aspect to this as well; often, my thought process and working methodology change when I use a different format...and that comes through in the prints. For me, large format is a slower, composed, and methodical effort, and I'd like to be able to showcase those values in a print size that works with how I generally see things.

Squares are "more symmetrical", i think... sometimes they can do something as they just differ from other ratios, but only squares was too narrow for me.
You can create "depth" on a two-dimensional print by means of composition. As 45 usually takes longer than a small format snapshot, usually more consideration is put into composition - which can result in more "depth".
One benefit i see in LF is that you can capture more image detail. Therefore i also think that LF only does make sense with subjects having a lot of detail. Because of that i`d also print bigger, to get the benefit of the format and the subject.
Printing small(er) would mean a loss to me.

...and that reminds me: when I pull all of this apart for painting in The Future Time, I should see if I can get a small container of Black 4.0 for the interior of the head. I like painting light chambers a matte white, but I have very strong convictions and prejudices about everything below the negative being as light-drinkingly dark as is possible. So, I'll need to address that, and also consider if I actually do want that filter drawer for anything; it's not that it isn't useful, it's just that with an above-the-negative filter drawer, it becomes redundant.

Yes, below the neg everything should be dark. But beware, you can overdo contrast increase. When is started with a simple lens and not entirely internal darkened enlarger i often suffered too low contrast on the print - now i sometimes run into too high contrast on the print; unless you want to print big. Then you should get as much contrast as possible.
You may want the filter drawer to reduce negative contrast, by putting some glass in it.

 

[Sundowner]

Vertical rods, going from bottom to ceiling on every corner of the table, lugs with screws at every corner of the table?

Well, that would take care of the vertical aspect of things...but the desk itself takes care of that. I can actually jump up and down on the top of one without it moving; don't ask how I know that.

What I really need is lateral stability...so I have to lock the table to the wall, which is what stabilized my previous cabinet so well. And that's actually easy to do: I could just screw the top of the desk to the wall...but then it wouldn't be adjustable. So, I thought long and hard and came up with a bunch of workable solutions, but none of them really fit 1) the form factor that I was looking for, spatially, or B) my inherent desire to be as lazy as possible. Like, I don't want to do actual work to secure and unsecure my table every time we change users. Can't I just, like, push a button or something and have the desk automagically lock itself to the wall?

As it turns out that the answer is ye: I can do exactly that. All it takes is a 1200-pound electromagnet that's rated for constant duty...and that's an object that is surprisingly easy to find. You just have to know what to look for.

For those that didn't follow the link: the answer is an electromagnetic door lock. My current plan is to install a simple steel plate on the wall, and install a generic door locking kit onto the underside of the desktop; I can use a very thin sheet of adhesive-backed UHMWPE as a slip surface between the magnet and the plate, and run power to the magnet from the power distribution strip/block that will likely be installed in the same general vicinity. From there, it's just a matter of either running a wire or using the remote controls that come with most of those kits; when I power up the enlarger area, the magnet will come online and secure the table to the wall, and if I want to move the table I can just temporarily unlock it - just like you'd do with a security door - and then move the table before relocking it. It's simple and workable, and although I may have to futz with it a bit I should be able to use that kind of kit mostly-as-is...and that's the kind of lazy solution that I like.

Printed lens boards probably would be problematic regarding precision and, depending on the light source of the head, regarding heat.

Depends on the material. PETG is too flexy in just a flat sheet, but carbon-reinforced materials with high heat resistance shouldn't exhibit nearly as much movement, no matter the heat setting. I've also used standard ABS for some under-hood parts, and they're perfectly stable right next to a very warm diesel engine.

This being said: I think a simple piece of aluminum solves most of my lens board woes. Mostly, I want that for rigidity and the ability to thread it; if I can get both of those in a common material, I'll be happy. Also, even if I get them roughly laser-cut and then do the final machining and threading here, it likely comes out much cheaper than the material and time investment it'll take for me to print the panels and then install threaded fasteners into them; that became apparent after I sat down and did the math.

But what about size, man?

I've been told that it matters, but I didn't think that person was talking about prints...

What about prints you can walk into? Maybe someone else wanted to make bigger prints on your setup.

I like a print that you can walk into, but creating those isn't really my bag, baby. What I do like to create is a print that inexorably draws you closer, and deeper; rather, a print that doesn't need size to catch your eye from across the room or to hold your attention. I learned the importance of that quality within my work after having seen Vermeer's Girl with a Red Hat; that painting is literally smaller than an 8" by 10" sheet of paper but it has the event horizon of a galaxy-eating black hole. It'll pull you in whether you like it or not and it doesn't need massive size to do so...and although my work will never equal what Vermeer produced, I can certainly learn from him. Size, access and invitation are all to be respected, but I print smaller because it creates gravity within my work.

That being said: my partner prints larger than I do, so I need to accommodate her. She's also way better at this than I am, so she pretty much gets first priority when it comes to what's gonna happen in the darkroom.

Squares are "more symmetrical", i think... sometimes they can do something as they just differ from other ratios, but only squares was too narrow for me.
You can create "depth" on a two-dimensional print by means of composition. As 45 usually takes longer than a small format snapshot, usually more consideration is put into composition - which can result in more "depth".

One benefit i see in LF is that you can capture more image detail. Therefore i also think that LF only does make sense with subjects having a lot of detail. Because of that i`d also print bigger, to get the benefit of the format and the subject.
Printing small(er) would mean a loss to me.

Understandable, and all good points. I don't necessarily agree with them in total, but I certainly see where you're coming from. But hey, there's no right way to do any of this...so all methodologies have merit, methinks.

Yes, below the neg everything should be dark. But beware, you can overdo contrast increase. When is started with a simple lens and not entirely internal darkened enlarger i often suffered too low contrast on the print - now i sometimes run into too high contrast on the print; unless you want to print big. Then you should get as much contrast as possible. You may want the filter drawer to reduce negative contrast, by putting some glass in it.

Solid points! I'll certainly think on them, especially the straight glass layer in the drawer. I've had that suggested before but have not yet tried it.

Also, there's something else to think on: if one is exclusively using a diffusion enlarger, then there are certain parts of the head assembly that aren't really needed, aren't there?

Pictured: Specifically, the crinkly part.

I know that sounds kind of weird, but as I learn more about the interplay between condensers and diffusers and how they actually work - both things that I only thought I understood until recently - I've realized that the entire upper portion of the negative stage is just kind of in the way. If I convert this thing over to pure diffusion - which may well happen - there's not really much of a reason to have any adjustability in that area: according to the instructions with my cold light heads and every bit of advice I've ever received on the subject, the diffuser should sit directly on top of the carrier, and everything above that point is somewhat fixed into place. That's how I've run my cold lights in the past, and it's worked well...but there's no variance from the light source to the negative, ever; thus, why keep that bellows in place at all? Why not just build an oversized 8" by 8" diffusion head that fits into that space and replaces the bellows? That's more compact, probably lighter, and definitely simpler than the collar-and-drop-in arrangement that the Aristo requires. Assuming no real desire to back-convert, I don't see a downside.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Well, that would take care of the vertical aspect of things...but the desk itself takes care of that. I can actually jump up and down on the top of one without it moving; don't ask how I know that.

What I really need is lateral stability...so I have to lock the table to the wall, which is what stabilized my previous cabinet so well. And that's actually easy to do: I could just screw the top of the desk to the wall...but then it wouldn't be adjustable. So, I thought long and hard and came up with a bunch of workable solutions, but none of them really fit 1) the form factor that I was looking for, spatially, or B) my inherent desire to be as lazy as possible. Like, I don't want to do actual work to secure and unsecure my table every time we change users. Can't I just, like, push a button or something and have the desk automagically lock itself to the wall?

The rods also would create vertical stability, but i see you already have a solution ( ).

I've been told that it matters, but I didn't think that person was talking about prints...

But I am talking about prints. ( What kind of friends do you have? )

I like a print that you can walk into, but creating those isn't really my bag, baby. What I do like to create is a print that inexorably draws you closer, and deeper; rather, a print that doesn't need size to catch your eye from across the room or to hold your attention. I learned the importance of that quality within my work after having seen Vermeer's Girl with a Red Hat; that painting is literally smaller than an 8" by 10" sheet of paper but it has the event horizon of a galaxy-eating black hole. It'll pull you in whether you like it or not and it doesn't need massive size to do so...and although my work will never equal what Vermeer produced, I can certainly learn from him. Size, access and invitation are all to be respected, but I print smaller because it creates gravity within my work.

That being said: my partner prints larger than I do, so I need to accommodate her. She's also way better at this than I am, so she pretty much gets first priority when it comes to what's gonna happen in the darkroom.



Understandable, and all good points. I don't necessarily agree with them in total, but I certainly see where you're coming from. But hey, there's no right way to do any of this...so all methodologies have merit, methinks.

I see where you coming from and this is a good approach i think. But me reasoning for larger prints is not for the big print to attract attention, but to do justice to the format. With 45 you have to print big, for all the details being visible. You have to step back to see the entire picture, but you have "to walk into" to get all the details. Such a print - assuming the subject is good and detail-rich - can be looked at longer, to counter this fast swiping through hundreds of snapshots.

Solid points! I'll certainly think on them, especially the straight glass layer in the drawer. I've had that suggested before but have not yet tried it.

Also, there's something else to think on: if one is exclusively using a diffusion enlarger, then there are certain parts of the head assembly that aren't really needed, aren't there?

Pictured: Specifically, the crinkly part.


I know that sounds kind of weird, but as I learn more about the interplay between condensers and diffusers and how they actually work - both things that I only thought I understood until recently - I've realized that the entire upper portion of the negative stage is just kind of in the way. If I convert this thing over to pure diffusion - which may well happen - there's not really much of a reason to have any adjustability in that area: according to the instructions with my cold light heads and every bit of advice I've ever received on the subject, the diffuser should sit directly on top of the carrier, and everything above that point is somewhat fixed into place. That's how I've run my cold lights in the past, and it's worked well...but there's no variance from the light source to the negative, ever; thus, why keep that bellows in place at all? Why not just build an oversized 8" by 8" diffusion head that fits into that space and replaces the bellows? That's more compact, probably lighter, and definitely simpler than the collar-and-drop-in arrangement that the Aristo requires. Assuming no real desire to back-convert, I don't see a downside.

Ain`t this to adjust the light source when stepping down to a smaller format?

 

[Sundowner]

The rods also would create vertical stability, but i see you already have a solution ( ).

Yeah, the desk is solid. I still haven't found a weight rating, but it's likely between 300-400 pounds, based on the metal thicknesses and the ease which which it raises and lowers when loaded. I think a three-pound easel and a two-pound timer won't ask much of it.

( What kind of friends do you have? )

I wasn't issued any. That's why I spend so much time building ridiculous stuff; there's nobody to talk me out of it.

I see where you coming from and this is a good approach i think. But me reasoning for larger prints is not for the big print to attract attention, but to do justice to the format. With 45 you have to print big, for all the details being visible. You have to step back to see the entire picture, but you have "to walk into" to get all the details. Such a print - assuming the subject is good and detail-rich - can be looked at longer, to counter this fast swiping through hundreds of snapshots.

Warning: Absolute Blasphemy Ahead.

I get where you're coming from, but in the eternal words of Judge Chamberlain Haller: "That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out objection: overruled."

Further warning: the following is an opinion...and something of a strong one. It is in no way intended as a provocation, attack, or dismissal, and is here shared for expressly that reason: to share it. Please read it with the positive connotations with which it was written.

I do not agree with the assertion that a larger print is required to do justice to the 4x5 format, because I do not agree with the concept of "doing justice" to any format; I believe that such a concept carries the burden of both inherent and inviolable propriety, and I avow that absolutism in terms of form and worth are antithetical to the freedom that defines artistic expression. Further, I do not agree that when using the 4x5 format you must print large; there is simply no intrinsic necessity for doing so, in my opinion. Additionally, to hang any portion of the argument upon the level of rendered detail - the reproduction of which should be rightfully lauded in regards to any of the larger formats - is to assume that in all given works of said format, detail is not only desired, but necessary for value. Predictably, I disagree with that as well, because it places even further confines on the process, the media, the work itself, and even the ideology and/or permissible desires of the artist. Lastly, I disagree with the unstated assertion of value that accompanies the idea that larger prints "can be looked at longer"; yes, of course they can be, but so can any print of any quality. Whether or not someone swipes hurriedly though snapshots is a different matter, and likely not addressable by showing them art of any provenance. All of this being said: I really do get where you're coming from, and I honestly don't think anything you've said about the format is wrong. Rather, I see your assertions as your particular understandings, opinions and guidelines, and as such I value them immensely. I simply approach things from a different perspective.

Now...I hope of all that didn't come across too harshly because I've really enjoyed your participation and contributions thus far; thank you, sincerely, for sharing them.

Ain`t this to adjust the light source when stepping down to a smaller format?

'Tis for that, surely enough...but when one is using a diffused light source, the final diffusion media is always placed as close to the negative as is possible. At least, that's what I've been told...and for once, what people have told me seems to be accurate. If it proves inaccurate in the future...well, at least I won't lose any friends over it.

 

[Sundowner]

Pictured: Took me long enough...

 

[Sundowner]

Did You know? If a 23C-series works out for long enough, it will be strong enough to carry the weight of a 45 head.

Pictured: Control the eccentric! Control!!

Also, here's a free PSA, kids: don't do drugs hang dumbbells from your enlarger chassis in order to find out what happens when its carriage return springs get overloaded.

Lastly, here's a very short list of weights and measures, for those of you that are like me and do not have a social life that can be detected with any form of scientific instrumentation:

• A complete Beseler 45 upper and lower negative stage weighs about 9.5 pounds.
• A complete Beseler 45 condenser head weighs just under 10.5 pounds.
• The condenser housing portion of the 45 head weighs 7.5 pounds by itself, with both lenses and all of the trimmings included.
• The bare condenser housing of a 45 only weighs about a pound or so.
• A complete 23C-II head weighs just over 13.5 pounds.
• The 23C return springs will hold a 20-pound dumbbell stationary, although only just.

I'll just stop there, because I don't think anyone really wants to do the math right now...but I will say this: I find that particular set of numbers to be very interesting.

 

[Sundowner]

I posted this in another thread, earlier, but it seems to have a bearing here as well:

Pictured: Relevancy is relative.

It occurs to me that with a very small amount of work, Configurations 2 through 3 - and all variants in between - are imminently possible with the 45 head. Configuration 4 would require a bit of work, but it could also be done.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Now...I hope of all that didn't come across too harshly because I've really enjoyed your participation and contributions thus far; thank you, sincerely, for sharing them.

No, it didn`t and thank you for thanking me.
I don`t consider my view to be the one-and-only-law of doing it - and everything you said is correct. I only wanted to point out my approach to different formats - and i`m not always doing so, as this approach is rather technical.
I rather was wondering why you do 45 but print rather small - and wanted to show another perspective to the different formats, resp. print sizes.
But now i understand your approach and of course you`re free to do so.

'Tis for that, surely enough...but when one is using a diffused light source, the final diffusion media is always placed as close to the negative as is possible. At least, that's what I've been told...and for once, what people have told me seems to be accurate. If it proves inaccurate in the future...well, at least I won't lose any friends over it.

Let`s see...

...because this reminds me of an idea i had years ago, but never managed to realize/test it. Seems like others thought about this too:

The fact that there also are bellows between light source and negative does give the possibility to adjust the light source if a smaller format is put into the carrier - to increase contrast of the print and to reduce printing time.
BUT this may also serve another purpose: Years ago i started to wonder whether the angle the light is hitting the negative also does influence sharpness of the print. In most enlargers there are light bulbs, which at first produce light in every direction. Then there is a lamp housing to reflect most of the light back to the negative, as most of the light produced is not directed to the negative in the first place.
How likely is it now that every light ray is hitting the negative vertical at an 90 degree angle?
I don`t consider this likely, there should be a lot of rays hitting the negative at a different angle than 90 degrees.
This, in theory, should lead to fewer sharpness on the print, because if a film grain on the negative is hit by non-vertical rays, there should develop a glow around the grain, a corona. This corona will print black or grey, decreasing sharpness of the film grain on the print. As the grain is the limit of resolution, a less sharper grain also could result in less sharper detail - finest detail only of course.

If the light source of the enlarger now was moved further away from the negative - and a light absorbing material between light source and negative, like a bellows for example - those light rays being most off 90 degrees would be filtered out. By that the corona around each film grain was reduced, resulting in sharper prints - at least the grain on the print should be sharper.

I wanted to built a spacer for my enlarger, to be put between light source and negative holder, but never made it and therefore never was able to test this theoretical effect.
But your Beseler has this implemented, even adjustable.

 

[Sundowner]

I don`t consider my view to be the one-and-only-law of doing it - and everything you said is correct. I only wanted to point out my approach to different formats - and i`m not always doing so, as this approach is rather technical.

It is, but there's a measure of technique to be found in all actions, and in all approaches. There is also validity to be found in both places, whether we agree with it or not; rather, there's room for everyone's way of doing things.

I rather was wondering why you do 45 but print rather small - and wanted to show another perspective to the different formats, resp. print sizes. But now i understand your approach and of course you`re free to do so.

There's a certain look that's inherent to small enlargements, and you can't get it with other methods...and you described the reason for it your following paragraphs.

The fact that there also are bellows between light source and negative does give the possibility to adjust the light source if a smaller format is put into the carrier - to increase contrast of the print and to reduce printing time.

They adjust overall light intensity, yes, but in a system with condenser lenses and an adjustable lamp position, said position also controls light distribution, i.e. hot-spotting, or the lack thereof. Beseler calls it "adequate coverage of the negative" in their book for the 23.

BUT this may also serve another purpose: Years ago i started to wonder whether the angle the light is hitting the negative also does influence sharpness of the print.

There is an influence, yes. A big one.

In most enlargers there are light bulbs, which at first produce light in every direction. Then there is a lamp housing to reflect most of the light back to the negative, as most of the light produced is not directed to the negative in the first place.

Also correct. Mostly. Some housings do more absorption than reflection.

How likely is it now that every light ray is hitting the negative vertical at an 90 degree angle?

Literally impossible, even with a laser inside a vacuum. There will always be a scattering effect somewhere in the travel path of any light, although in many cases it may be well beneath any threshold of detection or significance.

I don`t consider this likely, there should be a lot of rays hitting the negative at a different angle than 90 degrees.

...and that would be the Callier effect, which I've always struggled to understand, until about 48 hours ago. Here's an excerpt from an article that someone sent me, which helped immensely:

The Callier Effect is the result of the granular structure of the silver image: if the image were perfectly homogeneous, this effect would not occur. What happens is that the individual grains of silver block some of the light while most of the remaining light passes between the grains. That is, the individual grains are opaque, and the differences in light transmission in the image result from the amount of light blocked by the grains as compared with the amount of light that passes between them. Even this would not matter if it were not for a further occurrence. Some of the light rays that strike the edge of a grain are reflected from their normal paths and go off at odd angles; the total effect of the various light rays is called scattering, and it is this scattering that causes the Callier Effect.

The scattering is least where there is little silver deposit, and most where there is the most silver. The deflection of the light is small but becomes significant in the case of a projected image. In an enlarger, much of the scattered light is deflected sufficiently to miss the lens altogether; if this occurred uniformly in all negative areas, it would make little or no difference, but the amount of deflection actually depends upon the way in which an enlarger is built.

This, in theory, should lead to fewer sharpness on the print, because if a film grain on the negative is hit by non-vertical rays, there should develop a glow around the grain, a corona. This corona will print black or grey, decreasing sharpness of the film grain on the print. As the grain is the limit of resolution, a less sharper grain also could result in less sharper detail - finest detail only of course.

Here's the next portion of things from that article.

The condenser enlarger represents the opposite extreme. Where there is little silver in the negative, as in the shadow areas, light rays from the condensers travel in a straight line directly to the enlarger lens. In the middle tones, only those rays which pass directly between grains can travel to the lens undeflected; any light scattered by the image never reaches the lens. In the highlights, there is more silver, more scattering, and an even larger proportion of light fails to reach the lens.

Summing up, light from the shadows reaches the light in toto; some of the light from the middle tones is lost by scattering; and still more light is scattered and lost from the highlights. Thus, the projected image definitely has a higher contrast than the negative itself.

In a diffusion enlarger, the scattering still takes place in the negative, but there is also some random scattering in the diffuser. This does not change the situation in the middle tones and highlights, where scattering still takes place as before; it does, however, result in some loss of light due to scattering in the shadows, where little silver image is present. There is still more loss in the highlights and the middle tones than in the shadows, so the projected image will have some increase in contrast, but the increase will not be as great as with the condenser enlarger.

So it's basically a zone of confusion around the each grain, and the more collimated the light is, the more contrasty the print seems to be...but one could also say that the more distance there is between the lens and the print, the larger that confusion zone becomes. This is why that certain look I mentioned earlier is important, and why it happens in small enlargements: they don't have the insane level of detail and tonal separation that you find in a contact print, but they also exactly look like typical enlargements. They are deep, dense, and - when shot on a diffusion enlarger - ethereal.

If the light source of the enlarger now was moved further away from the negative - and a light absorbing material between light source and negative, like a bellows for example - those light rays being most off 90 degrees would be filtered out. By that the corona around each film grain was reduced, resulting in sharper prints - at least the grain on the print should be sharper.

Yes, the interior of the lamp enclosure does have an impact on what light is emitted; darker colors and matte surfaces absorb more, and lighter colors reflect more.

I wanted to built a spacer for my enlarger, to be put between light source and negative holder, but never made it and therefore never was able to test this theoretical effect.
But your Beseler has this implemented, even adjustable.

It does, yes, and the light source's position over the negative definitely makes a difference...but I don't go by what the manual says, which is to use the scale on the condenser stage as intended. I generally keep the light source pretty far away with the condensers, but with the diffuser I have the diffusion plate right against the negative.

 

[Sundowner]

Pictured: Saturday in the operating theatre.

It all seems so simple, from a distance: you just take the chassis from Enlarger A and graft the head from Enlarger B onto it, using thermoplastic and large amounts of caffeine. What could possibly go wrong?