Monday, August 17, 2026

THE BEST 35mm ENLARGER EVER - LEITZ FOCOMAT V35


Please note:  For those unfamiliar with the history of Leica Camera AG,
the company used to be called Ernst Leitz Wetzlar GmbH in honor of
its founder Ernst Leitz.  Many of their product carried the prefix Leitz,
like the Leitz Focomat V35.


By Heinz Richter

It may seem strange to talk about an enlarger these days of digital photography, but this is not your average, amateur darkroom piece of equipment.  Film is still very much in use by many photographers and Leica is still making very high quality film cameras.  Of course, negatives (and transparencies) can be scanned and printed digitally, but even here many photographers still prefer to arrive at their final enlargements the old fashioned way..

With Leica film cameras and Leica lenses we have equipment with an unsurpassed performance potential.  In a conventional darkroom, it is a simple fact that only an enlarger and enlarger lens with an equal quality will be able to render enlargements with the same level of quality.

 
Such an enlarger is the Leitz Focomat V35 and its 40mm f/2.8 WA-Focotar lens.  It was made specifically for 35mm film by accepting only negatives up to 35mm, a 35mm enlarger only, not a copy camera, a graphic arts device, nor anything else.  There is no other enlarger made by anybody  that completely addresses itself to the wide range of 35mm photography.

Major points in favor of the V35 are the broad autofocus range, the brightness of the image, the 40mm wide angle enlarging lens, the streamlined design, and its extremely functional operation.

Autofocus is one of its prime features.  Many manufacturers have tried it over the years, and just as many disposed of it with the claim “Autofocus is out-of-focus.”  True enough in most cases, especially when final cost plays a role.

A good autofocus system in any case requires a focusing cam that is a perfect match for the precise focal length of the lens.  One can either take each individual lens and painstakingly match each individual cam to the respective lens, or do as Leitz did, using their expertise in precision lens manufacture  to make the 40mm Focotar to such tight optical tolerances that the focusing cams required little or no hand machining .

The focusing cam arrangement on the underside
of the V35 enlarger head

Modern Photography magazine said: "…over the years, there has only been one manufacturer consistently willing to submit to these financial and engineering tortures – E. Leitz.”

There is another problem involved with autofocus design.  Regardless of how well the focusing mechanism might be executed, it will not work if the negative does not stay where it belongs, and it has to do that within the depth of field of the lens.

This brings us to the negative carrier.  I don’t want to get involved in a discussion of glass verses glassless carriers, only the one that optimizes, results can be considered the right one.  Leitz used a combination of the two.

 
V35 negative carrier

    
The adjustment knobs for the cropping frames

A negative with the emulsion side toward the enlarger table (as it should be) will always have a slight upward curvature.  Utilizing this, the Focomat enlargers have always used the principle of lowering a glass surface onto the negative to hold it perfectly flat, without the necessity of a sandwich type glass carrier.  Such carriers often present dust problems as well as Newton’s rings, a phenomenon eliminated in the Focomat by using an anty newton glass design.  The Focomat carrier is no different from the inside of a camera, where we also have a precision cut aperture with a pressure plate.

The benefits of such a system cannot be underestimated.  As one person at Leitz put it, we “no longer have to peer through focusing magnifiers all day and go home tired and cross eyed.  The user will no longer have a stiff neck and a pulled shoulder from attempting to make 16 times enlargements.”  Autofocus will also eliminate the prints rejected after inaccurate eyeball focusing.

Many of us also know the hassle involved in making enlargements to exact sizes.  The endless height adjustments and refocusing can be very time consuming with non-autofocus enlargers.  By saving time, the autofocus enlarger allows more high quality work in less time.

A great deal can be said about the overall quality of the enlarger.  In a test, Modern Photography magazine said they were surprised to find none of the expected sideways wobble in the enlarger arm.  The V35 was truly built like the proverbial little brick house with crescent moons on the door (hearts in Germany).

 
The inside of the V35 height adjustment arm

 
Column height adjustment to compensate for
different easel height

This has some immediate as well as long term benefits.  Obviously, a piece of equipment built like this well will last a lot longer, but it has also an immediate effect on the quality of the results.  The most basic reason to build an enlarger as sturdy as possible is to assure perfect alignment and parallelism among the film plane, the lens stage, and the baseboard.   According to Modern Photography’s test, the parallelism was perfect, not “just about”, but perfect laterally and longitudinally.

Even the best optics in the world will become useless of the film and the printing paper are not properly aligned and parallel to one another.  Lens sharpness would become irrelevant.

The vibration damping of the V35 can be demonstrated by putting a glass of water on top and then hitting the enlarger with the knuckles.  The water will ripple slightly, then quickly settle.  All other enlargers, even the Beseler 23C or 45MCRX will vibrate substantially more when compared to the V35.  Part of the reason is the steel support plate underneath the baseboard.  No other enlarger has this solid column support.

The V35 commitment to quality is also shown in the baseboard and the Leitz easels.  They are manufactured to a flatness within 0.8mm, and the fact that when manually focused when necessary, the mount has no backlash at all, a problem very common with other enlargers; and there is no bellows to wear out.

The illumination system is most likely the best ever offered in any enlarger.  Even though brightness is somewhat subjective, with the V35 is has resulted in drastically shorter exposure times.  The efficiency of the illumination system is clearly shown when compared to the Wallner color head as it was available for the Focomat Ic.  Both have similar diffusion chambers and use identical bulbs.  With the lens and the color filters removed, the V35 is over two stops brighter at the lens stage.  This can aid the cost efficiency of the enlarger since it eliminates worries about reciprocity failure in color materials and further lessens potential vibration problems.

 
V35 light mixing chamber

Equally important is evenness of illumination.  To quote Modern Photography: “Illumination was the best we have ever seen.  Illumination, corner to corner, varies less than 1/20 stop, and the difference between center and edges was within 1/10 stop.  This is not just good performance, it is outstanding.”

Arriving at such impressive figures was not easy.  As is the case with any wide angle lens, the Focotar has slightly less corner illumination.  To even this out,  Leitz used a special diffuser on the bottom of the diffusion chamber.  It is shaped similar to a condenser, but has its curvature downwards to the negative stage.  Its density increases from the edge towards the center, compensating for the uneven illumination.  This is the main reason why the 40mm Focotar would not work anywhere near as well on any other enlarger, including the Focomat Ic.

One objection that is often heard is in regard to the lack of condensers.  While it may be generally true that a diffusion system cannot deliver the same contrast level as a good condenser system, it is a fact that the V35/Focotar combination delivers such a high contrast level that a condenser system without a point light source would hardly be an improvement.

Another critical point often raised concerns the use of Styrofoam in the mixing chamber of an enlarger that lists for almost $2000.  The reasons are quite valid.  With the use of high precision injection molding, the shape of the chamber can be maintained within very close tolerances.  That, combined with the very high reflectivity of the material, produces the very high light output of the enlarger.

The foam also has excellent thermal properties.  Heat buildup at the negative stage, even after prolonged use, is negligible.   So why not use Styrofoam?  Maybe it all wouldn’t sound so bad if we refer to it as polyalkene.

Other advantages of the enlarger cannot be shown in numbers, they have to be experienced.  In terms of ease of use there is nothing close to the V35.  Every knob and adjustment is within arm’s reach.  The f/stop illumination can easily be seen, the f/stop scale can be adjusted to the best working position.  Everything works with the proverbial Leica smoothness and precision, which is something few other manufacturers could make claim for.

The list of fine points goes on: the feet under the baseboard are high enough to put a 100 sheet box of paper beneath, and they are positioned such that in spite of the oversized baseboard, the enlarger will still fit an average size enlarging table.  These baseboard dimension are necessary because the V35 is one of the few enlarger’s which allow a 16 x 20 enlargement on the baseboard – with autofocus.

The negative carrier can be depressurized from either side.  The enlarger head can be swung around to make oversized prints, and does not have to be counterweighted.  The clickstops of the Focotar can be deactivated, allowing infinitely variable aperture adjustments to accommodate the use of color analyzers.  The negative can be masked from all four sides with four easily accessible knurled knobs in the front of the enlarger.

Wiring is internal.  There is not the usual clutter of wires and hookups on the outside of the enlarger.  For that matter, the overall styling contributes to the functionality of the enlarger, and the V35 looks like no other ever marketed.

This brings us to the color filtration of the V35.  Unlike any other enlarger, the V35 does not have a color head as an accessory.   Instead it has only a filter module.  The entire illumination system is shared by both black and white and color printing, and only the color filters need to be added.  The greatest versatility is gained with the color filter module.  Not only does it offer filtration for color printing, the color filters can also be used to change contrast levels with variable contrast paper.  For individuals not interested in color printing at all,  there is also a variable contrast module which allows infinitely adjustable contrast levels with variable contrast papers.

V35 color module
Please note: the variable contrast module is very
similar, except it has only one knob for the contrast adjustment

Filtration of all three colors for color printing goes up to the rather high values of 200 units.  The dials are illuminated and easily read (as are the dials of the variable contrast module).  A white light switch allows the removal and instant return of the filters to their preset values.  This is nothing new or really different, but it again works with Leica precision, and in combination with the V35 the capabilities of the dichroic filtration system are certainly maximized.

The general finish and design of the V35 shows extensive input from the designer as well as the manufacturer.  In comparison, other enlargers are crudely put together.  Their finish is rough, virtually screaming of mass production.

Even little things like lens boards that require lens retaining rings, or square lens boeads that make it impossible to adjust the viewing angle of the aperture scale, these things too show lack of thought in terms of functionality and further amplify the incredible finesse of the V35.

Finally, let’s look at the 40mm WA Focotar.  Again a quote from the test in Modern Photography: “Using a 40mm instead of the usual 50mm lens traditional on 35mm enlargers means a larger image for equal paper or negative distance.  The lens proved to be an outstanding performer.  It was at its best at f/5.6 where it provided a degree of crispness, corner to corner sharpness, and illumination evenness that was exemplary.  Prints had superb overall quality with the high color saturation characteristic of high optical quality.  This is a lens that matches the quality of the enlarger it is fitted to.  It was even usable at f/2.8.  In fact, it is the closest thing to our test apochromat that we have ever seen.”


IN FOCUS

a book by John Holts, Harper & Row

I usually don't accompany articles with a commentary, but this one is very fitting.  I came across this book quite some time ago.  Part of which deals with the purchase of an enlarger.  Mr. Holtz starts out by saying that it does not make sense to have the very best in cameras and lenses if one makes prints on a cheap enlarger.  That is good advise.

But a bit further on things get rather confusing.  After recommending an enlarger able to accommodate various negative sizes, Mr. Holtz goes on saying: ..."the only reason beyond your budget...are the discontinued Leitz Valoy and Focomat enlargers...  These 35mm format machines provide a kind of silvery long scale black and white print gradation that other sources can't match.  Neither the bigger Leitz Focomat II series machines...or the stylish, but almost useless Focomat V35 can produce prints as good."

Apparently, Mr. Holtz does not like diffusion enlargers.  While I agree with his general comment of diffusion enlargers giving a softer image than comparable condensor equipped counterparts, I most profoundly disagree with him in regard to his comment about the V35.  Generalizations like "almost useless" do not have any place in a book that is supposed to be written to help people gain knowledge about certain products.

It is obvious that Mr. Holtz either has never tried the V35, or he does not exactly know what he is talking about.  While he is right that the V35 is a diffusion enlarger, it certainly does not have to fear comparison to the older Focomat Ic enlarger..  If there is a loss in crispness, tonality or any other aspect, it definitely does not show.

I have used both of these enlargers and compared to the Focomat Ic, the V35 is superior in most any respect.  It should be obvious that the engineers at Leitz were well aware of the shortcomings of conventional diffusion systems.  But by optimizing the system as used in the V35, such fears are totally unfounded, and comments like those by Mr. Holtz are utterly out of place.

Had he raised the question whether the V35 might not be even better in performance with a condenser system like in the Focomat Ic, he would have given grounds for a sensible discussion, but "almost useless"...

I can't help wondering what terminology he might have used in regard to some enlargers that are way behind the V35 in terms of quality and performance.


For other articles on this blog please click on Blog Archive in the column to the right

To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.

All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.

_______________________________________________________________________

EDDYCAM - the first and only ergonomic elk-skin camera strap     
 www.eddycam.com        

      



Buy vintage Leica cameras from 
America's premier Leica specialist 
www.tamarkin.com

 http://www.tamarkin.com/leicagallery/upcoming-show


Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography


Posted by at 14 comments:

Thursday, August 13, 2026

A BRIEF HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHIC FILM


By Heinz Richter


Many are familiar with the history of the Leica and its influence on photography in general.  The photographic analog process Leica relied on essentially was no different from what we are using today.  Many of the early Leica photographs are well known.  Quite a few were taken by Oskar Barnack, the inventor of the Leica, himself.


Wetzlar Eisenmarkt 1914
Photo: Oscar Barnack

The earliest permanent photograph in existence was made in 1826 by Joseph Nicéphore Niepce, showing the roofs and chimneys visible from his workroom.  It required an exposure time of eight hours on a bright, sunny day.  He used a pewter plate with a light sensitive varnish of asphalt (bitumen of Judea) and then used oils as a fixing agent.  During the exposure, various areas of the asphalt would harden to different degrees.  The oils washed away the less hardened areas of the asphalt, resulting in a recognizable image.  The word snapshot doesn’t apply.

Joseph Nicéphore Niepce photograph from 1826 

Niepce’s process proved to be a dead end.  Through the company of Chevalier, the major manufacturer of lenses at the time, he met Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre.  They formed a company to research other means to take permanent photographs.  Unfortunately, Niepce died before they had any success.  A nephew of his continued to work with Daguerre, but when a viable process was developed, Daguerre took the credit all for himself.  This was the famous Daguerreotype, first introduced in 1839 to the French Académie des Sciences.  While a lot faster than Niepce’s first attempts, it still had the drawback of producing just a single picture at the time.  There were no negatives from which multiple copies could be made.

 "Boulevard du Temple", taken by Daguerre in 1838 in Paris, includes the earliest known candid photograph of a
person. The image shows a street, but because of the over ten-minute exposure time the moving traffic does not
appear. At the lower left, however, a man having his boots polished had both men motionless enough
for their images to be captured.

The first successful negative process was developed by William Henry Fox Talbot in 1840.  He used sensitized strips of paper, which, when developed, resulted in a negative which allowed the contact printing of multiple images.  Thus the photographic process closest to what we use today, was born.

 William Henry Fox Talbot, Laycock Abbey 1847

However, Talbot’s process still had one drawback, the texture of the paper which held the negative image easily transferred to the final print.  That problem was solved by the 1850s.  Thin glass plates coated with photographic emulsion became the standard material for use in the camera. Although fragile and relatively heavy, the glass used for photographic plates was of better optical quality than early transparent plastic like materials and was, at first, less expensive. Glass plates continued to be used long after the introduction of film, and were used for astrophotography and electron microscopy until the early 2000s.

Box of photographic glass plates

In 1887 Hannibal Goodwin, a minister, patented a celluloid backed photographic rollfilm.  He was motivated to search for a non-breakable, and clear substance on which he could place the images he utilized in his Biblical teachings.  He filed a patent for "a photographic pellicle and process of producing same ... especially in connection with roller cameras".    George Eastman of Kodak fame tried to get a patent for a similar film in 1892, only to learn that Goodwin’s patent was five years older.  A bitter court battle lasted eleven years; the patent right finally were given to Goodwin, but by that time his health had deteriorated sharply and he assigned his rights to the Ansco Company.  Another court battle started which was not decided until March, 1914.  Eastman Kodak Company ended up paying 5 million dollars of restitution.

Karl Kellner

Ernst Leitz I
Photograph by Oscar Barnack with the Ur-Leica

The middle of the 1800s saw the establishment of many of the well-known photographic companies.  In 1849 Karl Kellner founded the Optical Institute in Wetzlar.  The company was later taken over by Ernst Leitz and was to become the company that established 35mm photography with the Leica.  1867 saw the founding of AGFA in Germany.  It is interesting to note that one of the company’s founders was Dr. Mendessohn-Bartholdy, a son of the great composer Felix Mendelssohn.  Another giant of the photographic industry, Eastman Kodak was founded a few years later in 1888.

Early transparent roll films were made from highly flammable nitrocellulose, commonly known as celluloid, a highly flammable material.  Cellulose acetate or "safety film" was introduced by Kodak in 1908, but first it found only a few special applications as an alternative to the hazardous nitrate film, which had the advantages of being considerably tougher, slightly more transparent, and cheaper.

Initially, black and white films were only sensitive to blue, violet and ultraviolet light which posted quite a few problems.  For instance, blue sky was usually rendered as plain white without detail, while bright yellow and red appeared almost black.

Isochromatic or orthochromatic films, depending on the manufacturer, made a more accurate rendering of colored subject matter possible.  Because they were still disproportionately sensitive to blue, the use of a yellow filter and a consequently longer exposure time were required to take full advantage of their extended sensitivity.

In 1894, the Lumière Brothers of France introduced their Lumière Panchromatic plate, which was made sensitive to all colors including red, although very unequally.  In 1902 the much more evenly color-sensitive Perchromo panchromatic plate was introdiced by the German manufacturer Perutz.

All of these were glass-based plate products. Panchromatic emulsions on a film base did not become available until the 1910s. Many photographers who did their own darkroom work preferred to go with films not sensitive to red to be able to process their exposed film with a red safelight.  For instance, Kodak's popular Verichrome black-and-white film remained a red-insensitive orthochromatic product until 1956, when it was replaced by Verichrome Pan.

Early black and white roll films which survived, unused, until today.
The Gevaert film (Gevaert was incorporated into Agfa at a later date) has an expiration date of 1955
The Hauff film expired in 1960 while the Perutz has no expiration date

Virtually as soon as even early photographic processes became available, the quest for color photographs started.  The earliest color photographs were actually hand colored daguerreotypes.  Simultaneously, a number of individuals experimented with a variety of processes to produce color images.  Some were met with limited success while others could not be repeated with any certainty.

The three color process of red-green-blue, RGB, was first used by James Clerk Maxwell in 1861. His picture “Tartan Ribbon” is generally considered the first durable color photograph and the very first made by the three-color method Maxwell first suggested in 1855. Maxwell had the photographer Thomas Sutton photograph a tartan ribbon three times, each time with a different color filter (red, green, and blue-violet) over the lens. The three photographs were developed, printed on glass, and then projected onto a screen with three different projectors, each equipped with the same color filter used to photograph it. When superimposed on the screen, the three images formed a full-color image. Maxwell's three-color approach underlies nearly all forms of color photography, whether film-based, analogue video, or digital.

 
James Clerk Maxwell, "Tartan Ribbon" 1861

The credit for a valid color process goes to John Joly.  He was aware that a color image could be formed by mixing just three colors, red, green and blue, a process still used today in all types of color imaging.  He used a glass plate which contained a ruling of alternating RGB filters, about 200 per inch.  This was placed against the glass negative plate in the camera during exposure.  After developing, the same glass plate was put in register with the negative, resulting in a color transparency which could even be projected.

 
John Joly "Butterflies" 1893

The process worked, but was relatively cumbersome.  Obviously, it would be a lot easier to do away with the RGB plate and combine the RGB filters with the emulsion.  Such a process was developed by the Lumière brothers.  They patented their Autochrome process in 1903 and began marketing it in 1907.

Just like Joly’s process, Autochrome is an additive color process. The medium consists of a glass plate coated on one side with a random mosaic of microscopic grains of potato starch dyed red-orange, green, and blue-violet (an unusual but functional variant of the standard RGB additive colors) which act as color filters. Carbon particles fill the spaces between grains, and a black-and-white panchromatic silver halide emulsion is coated on top of the filter layer.  The glass plates were loaded with the filter layer facing the lens.  After developing, a color transparency was the result.  Autochrome was one of the most widely used color photography process in use before the advent of subtractive color film in the mid-1930s.

 
RGB colored starch particles function as a filter


 
 Autochrome Photographs by Lumiere brothers

A similar process was developed by Agfa in the 1920s.  Instead of the dyed starch particles, they developed a very fine RGB screen with also was attached to the glass plate.  It too produced color transparencies.  In 1932 Agfa was the first company to offer a film-based version of their Agfa-Farbenplatte (Agfa color plate), enabling Leica owners for the first time to take color photographs.

 
Agfacolor

But there were still drawbacks.  The Autochrome and Agfa systems were notoriously slow.  The RGB filters absorbed a huge amount of light.  Another process was needed to solve that problem.

In 1912 Rudolph Fisher at Agfa discovered chemicals would react to the silver halides in the emulsion and convert other compounds into insoluble dyes.  These color forming ingredients, called dye couplers, could be included in the emulsion.  Fisher’s work resulted in researching three emulsion layers in films to form a color image.  Initial trials were unsuccessful because some of the color dyes migrated from one emulsion layer to the other during development.

This was also the case with Leopold Mannes and Leopold Godowsky, who worked at the Kodak laboratories in Rochester, New York.  To solve the problem, they switched to incorporating the dyes in the developer.  This resulted in a breakthrough, and in 1935 the first three emulsion layer color film became reality, the Kodachrome.  Because the dye couplers of this film were added during the developing stage, this was a very complicated process and it was necessary to send the film to Kodak to have it processed.

 
The original 18 exposure 35mm Kodachrome
Note the "For use with Retina, Contax and Leica Cameras"

The first color film to incorporate the dye couplers in the emulsion was the Agfacolor Neu (new) in 1936.  It was the first time that photographers were able develop their own color film.  The Neu designation was used to distinguish these Agfacolor films from the previous Agfacolor films.  Both Kodachrome and Agfacolor very quickly spelled the end of Autochrome and other, similar films.

 

Both Kodachrome and Agfacolor were available as 35mm films giving Leica owners and owners of other 35mm cameras for the first time a convenient and reliable means to take color photographs.  It is interesting to note that both companies initially marketed their films with the reference to Leica and other 35mm cameras.  Thus we have a further indication how important the Leica was in creating photography as we know it today.


For other articles on this blog please click on Blog Archive in the column to the right

To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.

All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.

_______________________________________________________________________

EDDYCAM - the first and only ergonomic elk-skin camera strap     
 www.eddycam.com        

      



Buy vintage Leica cameras from 
America's premier Leica specialist 
www.tamarkin.com

 http://www.tamarkin.com/leicagallery/upcoming-show


Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography


Posted by at 4 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)