To keep the size of the condensers manageable.  The light
from the condensers exits in a cone that comes to a 'focus'
on the rear element of the enlarger lens.

If the condensers were 1 inch above then they would have to be
17% larger.  To get the mass of the condenser one cubes the
linear dimension: 1.17^3 = 1.6.  In fact the whole lamphouse
would be 1.6x as heavy (and at a minimum 60% more expensive)
than one where the bottom condenser sits just above the negative.

The 17% comes from ratioing the present distance from the
condensers to the lens ~6 inches, by the new distance ~7".

February 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Although the discussion is about condensers
rather than negatives or carriers, I have to
remark about glass negative carriers.

For many years (many) I used glassless
carriers. My reason was the supposed ease of
operation. Laziness doesn't really even
qualify as a reason, because I had never
tried glass carriers so I could not say which
was easier or 'lazier'.

Well, after I finally slipped the glass
inserts into my negative carrier and made
some prints, I realized the prints were
better. Glass negative carriers help one make
better prints. Period. The reason is negative
flatness. The results are plainly visible in
prints; the corners are noticeably sharper
when glass a carrier is used. It saddens me
to say this, because I have years of prints
made glasses. But it is true.

It is accurate to say my reluctance to try
the glass carrier was based on laziness. I
believed the extra four surfaces would be a
nightmare of dust and specks and print
spotting.

But no nightmare ensued when I finally tried
glass. I made sure the glass inserts were
clean before I put them in. One was
anti-Newton ring glass, and both were brand
new, so pretty clean. In any case, cleaning
them was no problem, and took only a moment.
Since they are just glass, cleaning in
distilled water would be simple where
necessary. The glasses are plain flat
surfaces, so they're far easier and quicker
than cleaning a lens, at any rate, although
even that is hardly an onerous task. And like
a lens -- especially a nice house-trained
enlarger lens -- it will stay clean. Yes we
can mess it up, but how often does that
happen, even for slobs? I find cleaning the
glass carrier is extremely easy with one of
those cloths they include with a pair of
eyeglasses, and a bit of breath on the glass.
No spit, please.

So the glass negative carrier is really
extremely little more work than glassless,
but it has a definite payoff in print
improvement.

We have Bob Saloman to thank for persisting
in pushing the notion of glass negative
carriers. I read his exhortations a long time
before I tried.

regards,
--le

It depends on just what color tube you have. The one in my D2-HI looks white
to mey eye. I can use Kodak polycontrast acetate filters in the filter
drawer of my 45MCRX, but I also put in a fairly strong yellow filter (#12, I
think, but maybe #15, possibly just a CC60Y). I have not done this in a long
time. Just one more thing to dust off before making a print, because it is
so close to the negative.

Even Ansel Adams was seen purching Agfa Brovira Grade 6 paper on at least
one occasion. Maybe he could not develop the negative enough to get the
contrast he wanted. Or maybe he was buying it for a friend. That I do not know.

On the Beseler, the glass is about 1/8 to 1/4 inch away from the negative,
so that smoothes it out somewhat. I do not notice any flaws in the glass,
such as bubbles or striations visible to the naked eye. There are tiny chips
at the edges, but this does not seem to matter.

I added a 20CC Yelow gel to my Aristo head as the light output made
for extremely short exposures and the contrast was about G3.5. It
subsequently lost about 1.5 stops of light and the contrast dropped to
G3.0 which worked fine for my needs generally.

FWIW, I've rarely printed on a G2 that I liked. I prefer the slightly
better shadow contrasts produced on a G3.

You probably have enough room to add a piece of diffusion glass such
as white translucent acrylic or even simply a piece of etched glass
such as the non-glare glass used in framing.

If you have enother 1/8th inch you can add in a spacer of some sort.
Are you running very high apertures ? I stopped doing this some time
ago myself and have adjusted all of my enlargers to work at 2 stops
down from wide open by simply changing the bulbs out for lower output
types.

John

P.S. Another "trick" I did with the D2V w/condensers was to polish the
lamp-house. This effectively made the light being projected a little
softer. I just used some sulfuric to remove the finish and then
polished it with steel wool.

  Glad you mentioned that. I've a B8. The condensers have
not been checked for years. I also make low diameter enlargements.
One trick would be to use a faster stop and thus a more shallow
depth of field. Very short exposure times may result. Dan