Since getting into Leica photography a few months ago, I have turned my hand to B&W for the first time in over a decade. However, without a darkroom of my own, I have relied on commercial labs. All of a sudden I'm looking for more creative control in the printing process.

Early attempts at digital have disappointed, so I'm leaning towards building a traditional darkroom in the coming months. I confess that I have been bitten by the Leica bug, so the Focomat V35 is under serious consideration. I'm looking for objective information from those of you who do or have used the V35. What makes this enlarger superior for B&W printing?

I have read Rudolph Seck's Leica Darkroom Practice, and older threads on this forum which describe the various virtues of the lens, the autofocus mechanism, the speed with which prints can be made, etc. But I can't point to a single piece of objective data which convinces me (and, to be honest, my wife) to drop a fairly large amount of cash on a used V35.

Price and the 35mm format limitation do count against the V35. The former I can cope with; the latter I'm having a little more trouble with. Not so much because I wouldn't be able to print larger format negatives, but because a friend who owns a 4x5 Omega Super Dichro insists that anything less than a 4x5 will lack the stability and the powerful light source to produce high quality fiber prints.

Quite frankly, I don't have the space for such a beast; finding a suitable home for a 35mm enlarger will be enough of a challenge. But how much stock should I put in his opinion?

This morning I read a thread across on photo.net which discussed the viability of an all-digital darkroom. The link (if my html doesn't fail me) is: Digital vs Analog

The reason it grabbed my attention was a comment made by Scott Eaton, a pretty well-respected contributor over there. He was strongly pro-digital, but he made the following statement: The Leitz Focomat enlarger is the *ONLY* enlarger I'm aware of that produces high quality B/W prints from 35mm without serious mods'. The rest of you guys should stick to contact prints.

Again, can you V35 owners/users shed any light on Scott's comment? Should I take it with a grain of salt, or does he have something here? Could this be the reason I'm looking for? Again, I'm looking for objective data rather than subjective views. (I know, I'm probably asking too much. But hey, I have to try.)

I hope I haven't gone on too much. Your views will be much appreciated.

Cheers,

-- Stuart Dorman (stuart.dorman@us.pwcglobal.com), December 28, 2001

Answers

You might want to consider the Valloy 2 or the 1c for B+W. I own both and they are great! The Valloy 2 for space savings is unbeatable. Its tiny. All manual though...which I really like. Helical focus with no bellows. Coupled with a 50mm focotar or focotar 2 is unbeatable for B+W. A really beautiful look to the prints ...the best! If you need autofocus go to the 1c. If you want diffusion and a color or B+W dial in head I guess you can do the V- 35 but it is expensive and I've heard the 40mm focotar is not the greatest...though some like it.The 50mm focotar 2 is supposed to be the best 50mm enlarging lens ever made...I like the older focotar 50mm also.I have not used the V-35...and have no need for it. I do color too on the Valloy. Some of the best B+W prints in 35mm have come out of these enlargers...Ralph Gibson/1c and Eugene Smith/Valloy-2 for portability and size in his Japan series/1960's. Good luck and Happy New Year!

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), December 28, 2001.

Also...the V-35 uses only the 40mm focotar which was formulated especially for it and not the 50mm. I've been told that you lose 15% of image quality with a wide angle enlarging lens and have avoided such. Regards,

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), December 28, 2001.

The V35 is like all Leica products -- it does the job efficiantly and reliably, and somehow takes out much of the unnecessary diddling around which is a time consuming and frustrating part of darkroom work. If I were you, I'd go digital (I am, after 50 years in the darkroom, 20 of them with the V35).

-- (bmitch@home.com), December 28, 2001.

What's an enlarger?

j/k

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), December 28, 2001.

Bmitch, When you say "go digital" do you mean shooting and processing with negative/slide film, and then scanning/printing in the digital domain ... or do you mean shooting digital as well? Is there a reasonably- priced scanner that's good enough to merit the switch? Thanks, Rob

-- Rob Tourtelot (rob@pumpaudio.com), December 28, 2001.

Hope you've read this thread and follow the links from it...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004Fa9

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 28, 2001.

I'm not about to knock the Focomat, but experience with a variety of enlargers including a few Focomats assures me that they're certainly not the only way to do it.

However, all enlargers are definitely _not_ created equal; I once had a "big name brand" 4x5 enlarger that couldn't be induced to stay aligned through even one printing session.

At any rate, I'd suggest you look at the mid-range Durst enlargers.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), December 29, 2001.

Stuart,

As far as 35mm only enlargers go the V35 reigns supreme. Unlike many 35mm only enlargers it is extremely robust, very heavy and as solid as. I would disagree that the 40/2.8 Focotar lens is inferior in any way to a 50mm Focotar lens. The 40/2.8 Focotar lens has a world-wide reputation for optical excellence and the prints it is capable of producing are stunning.

There are several things to watch out for though with any intended purchase of the V35. The very early ones had only one condenser as oppossed to two in models made after 1985 (approxiamately) therefore the latter are slightly preferable. The very early models had a different lamp which is now vey difficult to obtain although this older model can have it's lamp housing changed to use the newer Philips 13-139 lamp. Check that the lens is indeed the 40/2.8 Focotar and not the 50mm Yasron lens which was a cheaper option with this enlarger. Check the lens for fungus or hazing as the Focotar is prone to this fault; although they can be cleaned. Check that the enlarger comes complete with the negative carrier as a new one from Leitz NJ will cost you the ridiculous sum of $175. For B&W work the best module to use is the Vario Contrast one. If you intend to do color and B&W then you will want your V35 to come with the color module which can do B&W as well. Be careful that a V35 you may intend buying doesn't come with just the plain older B&W module as the Vario Contrast one is superior and very easy to use.

Click here for more info

As to whether to go digital or wet, that's something you'll have to decide. There is obviously advantages and disadvantages to both. IMHO the biggest disadvantage to the traditional wet darkroom is space and time and the amount of different equipment needed. I don't exactly get off on mixing chemicals and cleaning up in my darkroom, also washing and drying fiber prints can be labor intensive. On the other hand an excellent B&W print made the traditional way is beautiful and unbeatable IMO.

Good luck.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), December 29, 2001.

I bought a Durst M 601 with a 50mm El-Nikkor lens at a garage sale for $75. I make small prints and these, to my eyes, look good except it is more difficult to dodge&burn with a small print. OTOH, I use it with Minolta CL and Nikon FM2 negatives so can't really say how well it would handle M6/Summicron stuff with all that delicate bokeh.

-- John Myers (mymacv@aol.com), December 29, 2001.

I'm not sure what Scott was talking about...but...it sounds like he has not used the Durst L1200 or any other high end enlarger. The V35 is an extremely user friendly enlarger and very quick to use. I have little trouble making 300 5X7" workprints in a session and then making 20X24's that sing. It does all of this with no fuss. The higher end Durst, older Beseler and Omega enlargers are incredibly good, I use an L-1200 and, with the 50mm Apo Rodagon-N, you can see what your camera glass is REALLY capable of doing. An amazing enlarger for 35mm, medium format and 4X5 (which I don't shoot) -- I use mine for Mamiya 7 and Xpan negs. About the digital thing? In comparison while I really love making archival inkjet prints, the work produced in my lab using silver materials still beat the hell out of my Epson 3000 quadtones in a side by side comparison. And I want to add the quadtones are really very beautiful, but different by comparison to the traditional silver image. Hope all of that is clear.

-- Michael Hintlian (michael@hintlian.com), December 29, 2001.

I second the comments about the Valloy II--a used one should run about $200. If you can't find a Leitz lens, it will produce great prints with any high quality LTM enlarger lens. I use the current model 50/2.8 El Nikkor and get very sharp prints. Like any Leica enlarger, make certain it comes with a negative carrier--they're VERY expensive to buy separately.

-- Robert Marvin (marvbej@earthlink.net), December 29, 2001.

I'm a huge fan of the V35, which has been my enlarger of choice for 8 years now, before which I used a series of others (Beseler 23C, Saunders 670DXL, followed by a Saunders 4500 and then a Durst 4X5 Laborator). So I feel somewhat confident in my advice. If all you're going to print is 35mm, or you can dedicate an enlarger for 35mm then IMHO the V35 is the way to go. Firstly the Focotar is first rate. Someone made mention that W/A lenses tend to be unsharp at the edges, but this is not true (I have found) with this particular lens. The design of the lens, coupled with the design of the light path and mixing chamber all lead to a lens that is at least as sharp as the 50mm Schnieder APOs that I had on my previous enlargers. The whole design concept is why, though they have been asked to, Leica does not sell this lens seperately. When used without the rest of the enlarger its performance is only average, and Leica did not want this reputation. What the 40mm gives you is the ability to print 20X24 inch on the baseboard, normally something you can only do with a big enlarger (Saunders 4500, etc) or with wall or floor projection. A big help when doing display prints. As well the lens, like all Leica optics has better contrast. I recently did a test print for someone on this forum - he sent me a neg and a print from his enlarger (a Beseler as I recall) and asked if I could to better, as he was considering purchasing a V35. At the same contrast settings as his enlarger (I know, this is not completely fair) the print from the V35 had much more shadow detail, was sharper and cleaner. He was, I think convinced to buy the V35. As to the wet v.s. digital debate some have mentioned. That's apples and oranges. If your doing color it can be a toss up, but I challenge anyone to produce a B&W off of a consumer printer that rivals a properly printed fibre print. It can't be done! Only a few of the upper end iris printers give this quality, and I for one don't have $15000.00 to spend on a printer. As well there is a different mind set to printing on the computer and going into your darkroom and getting your hands wet (so to speak). Again, they each have there places but can't be compared.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 29, 2001.

As good as the V35 is in almost every respect, it does have one fault that irritates me: it has to be on in order to see what the various settings, such as the enlargement ratio, lens f/stop, and contrast setting for the vario-contrast head. Other than that, I find it to be a joy to work with. It's Solid with a capital "S" and easy and quick.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), December 29, 2001.

Tony,

"As good as the V35 is in almost every respect, it does have one fault that irritates me: it has to be on in order to see what the various settings, such as the enlargement ratio, lens f/stop, and contrast setting for the vario-contrast head."

Yes I agree, that is an annoying little quirk with the V35. I'm thinking about a penlight with some red cellophane wrapped over the reflector for checking out the settings; should work.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), December 30, 2001.

Pardon my ignorance but is a Valloy enlarger a Leitz enlarger ? What era were they made ?

Kind Regards,

Tony Salce

-- Tony Salce (NadinaTony@bigpond.com), December 30, 2001.

I live in a small college town in the midwest, and when the only camera/darkroom supply store closed (major brand stores swept competition), I bought this V35 Focomat Autofocus that I have fallen in love with! As a tokien for my new interest, I sold my Bessler 23C Chromega (medium format, which I only use at work as a school-day photographer), dedicated my traditional darkroom to the use of the Focomat v35, and I haven't been sorry since. I know of a used v35 Focomat for sale, pretty inexpensive. Contact Steve Sisney- ssisney@oklahoman.com. Good Luck and keep me informed! Patrick Earnest

-- Patrick Earnest (Ephotopat@aol.com), December 30, 2001.

Having used numerous enlargers over the years - I built my first enlarger myself in the 1950s - I can say from happy and unhappy experience that nothing I have used so far matches the V35. Certainly not the Besselers or Saunders. The Durst I had was just plain shoddy.

I had used for some years a Valoy 1 which had served me well but the V35 was tempting though very expensive. When eventually I found a reasonably priced second-hand one I decided to switch. I have never regretted it in spite of using other enlargers in the past few years.

The build quality is unmatched and it is totally reliable on focus if set up properly for paper height. I have tried other lenses, Schneider etc. (but not APO) and I have not found anything better than the Focotar.

The bulb has only failed once in 8 years.

After 45 years of experience of all types of enlargers in my opinion the V35 rightly still holds the crown.

Inevitably it became just too expensive to manufacture - the quality is remarkable - and sales were falling so Leitz sensibly stopped manufacture. I cannot see my enlarger letting anyone down for years and years. I can't measure any wear on the cam after 8 years !

Of course what you use with familiarity often feels better than alternatives but I have never heard anyone who really knows about 35mm enlargers suggest anything better than the V35. In fact they all readily admit that the V35 will never be matched, rather like the Focomat IIC

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), December 30, 2001.

Wow! Thank you all for your collective wisdom. I tried contacting Scott Eaton about his comment, but to date have had no response. No matter - you have filled in the gaps very nicely. As B&W only enlargers, the Valoy II and the Focomat 1c seem to be quite the bargains (in Leitz/Leica terms), so I think I'll do some more homework on those models, while still considering the V35 for its ease of use, speed, and solid construction. My purchase is probably a couple of months away. In the meantime the dealer where I bought my M6 also has a number of rental darkrooms, two of which contain V35s. They should give me an opportunity to try the V35 before making a commitment.

Happy New Year to everyone.

-- Stuart Dorman (stuart.dorman@us.pwcglobal.com), December 31, 2001.

Tony Salce wrote, "Pardon my ignorance but is a Valloy enlarger a Leitz enlarger ? What era were they made ? "

The Valloys were manual focus Leitz enlargers, the original from the '30s; the Valloy II from the mid-'50s.

,

-- Robert Marvin (marvbej@earthlink.net), December 31, 2001.

I have never seen a definitive answer for the following question, which pops up on most threads on the V35 but is never addressed.

Does the autofocus work with any 40mm lens? e.g. does it work with the Schneider 40mm that some people have reported using with the V35?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 31, 2001.

Mani,

Good question! I wouldn't mind knowing the answer to that myself. I suspect the answer is no. I have read somewhere where each individual V35 is set up for the particular focotar lens it comes with. I don't know whether that is true or not, it is possible but probably unlikely due to the extra labour costs involved.

I asked the owner of a Schneider HM 40/2.8 Apo whether his lens worked on autofocus on his V35 and the answer was "not really well". That could be because the exact focal length of the Schneider may be different to the Focotar.

Anyway I think the autofocus function is overrated. I nearly always check my enlargement changes with a grain focuser. The difference in paper thickness one might use on different brands could also upset the autofocus accuracy. Especially since the Focotar 40/2.8 seems to give it's best performance between f4-f5.6 (at least on the four 40/2.8 Focotars I have used).

Apparently the Schneider HM 40/2.8 Apo lens is slightly superior. I have considered buying one although one probably wouldn't notice much of a difference from the Focotar 40/2.8 until 16"x 12" or larger enlargements are needed. This was more or less the opinion of Erwin Putts when I asked him whether the Schneider was better than the Focotar.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), January 01, 2002.

Sam.

Your point about not using the Focotar at full aperture is valid from 12x16 or larger but I have found that 5x7 , 10x8, and 12x16 can be printed perfectly at full aperture. I use a Highland Splitgrade which tends to lengthen exposures and the ability to use maximum aperture is very welcome. But then Leica have always said that their lenses are designed to be used at full aperture.

-- ferdinand (gdz00@lineone.net), January 07, 2002.

Ferdinand,

That's good to know. I have noticed though that the grain (when looking through my grain focuser) really seems to have the most contrast or 'snap' just under f5.6 on my current focotar 40/2.8 and similar on the other three I've owned.

To be honest I have never tried printing at full aperture. I recently changed the Philips 13139 bulb for a new one and my exposure times have been cut down to a quarter of what they used to be. Amazing, perplexing, but true.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), January 14, 2002.

I also have the Heiland Splitgrade and it works well to measure light falloff at the edges. Unlike the one poster above I have noticed light falloff when the Foctar is wide open. One stop down and it disappears. So I try to keep it at f4 or f5.6 for the most part.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), January 15, 2002.

Ive just got a Leitz V35 VC after a real search as a start to enlarging - and it is beautifully made and set up - but to be able to respond to a thread such as this Im going to need a full manual in machine readable/microfiche or machine-readable format to know Im using it to the best.. could anyone assist?

-- Marcus (oxsys@optushome.com.au), March 03, 2002.

Call Leitz at 1-800-222-0118. They sent a simple instruction pamphet within 3 days.

-- Richard Jepsen (rjepsen@mmcable.com), March 15, 2002.

Well, I just wanted to wrap up this thread by saying that my search for a V35 is over. Having borrowed a Focomat 1c from a friend, and battled with the electrics, I finally found a great deal a couple of weeks ago, and I took delivery of a V35 enlarger yesterday.

The enlarger is in amazing condition, and it has the colour module. A variocontrast module will be following soon. In the meantime I need to start experimenting with the filtration settings on my VC paper.

It's been a wait and a half, but now I'm eager to get back into the darkroom for the first time in over a decade.

-- Stuart Dorman (stuart.dorman@us.pwcglobal.com), March 23, 2002.