The Most Excellent Engineers of LPL Co., Tokyo

One of the very first of the 250 or so published articles I wrote for various photography magazines was about enlargers. I got into a rather bitter fight with a manufacturer, which had a salutary side effect: very early in my career, it taught me to go ahead and say what I meant and to pay no attention to pressure. Ever since then my priorities have been ordered: readers first, employer second, manufacturers third. I didn't go to the mat with employers very often, but I did so when I thought it necessary to look after the readers' interests. I lost at least a couple of those fights. But I won some, too.

That early disputation over enlargers had another happy result: it introduced me to the Saunders/LPL 4500II 4x5 enlarger. At the time, the enlarger of choice for large-format and Zone System photographers was the Beseler 45MXT, which is still available new, equipped with an aftermarket cold-light head of the type manufactured by Aristo. (The cold light head was what caused all the ruckus, mainly because it was not manufactured by Aristo. I'll tell the story someday.)

The Saunders, which I will henceforth refer to as the LPL—Saunders was the then-importer, LPL Co. of Tokyo the manufacturer—was a whole 'nuther animal. It was based on dichroic color enlarger technology, and seemed to me clearly to be built to an altogether higher standard than the American enlargers of the day. It was slick and very convenient to use, and technically very competent.

Fast-forward to 1994. I lived in a very beautiful loft apartment in Chicago, with 14-foot ceilings, exposed brick walls, giant wooden beams, naked ductwork, and panoramic rooftop views. The only place for a darkroom was a converted powder room or half-bath. There was no room for the big Saunders, which therefore had to be de-accessioned. To replace it, because I had been so happy with the larger one, I bought the smaller, medium-format Saunders/LPL 670 VCCE (670 refers to the largest format the enlarger handle—6x7cm—and VCCE stands for "variable contrast constant exposure").

Saunders/LPL VCCE, c. 1994

I quite honestly didn't think a lot about it one way or the other. It wasn't terribly fancy and it did what I expected it to do. Nothing to get excited about—it was clearly a step down from its big brother.

Fast forward to today. I've been happily puttering in the new darkroom—which I find relaxing. The aging LPL has been sitting, neglected, in a corner, for almost a decade. So I had to take it entirely apart.

As you can see, spiders had set up house in the bellows! The whole thing needed a thorough clean-and-check.

Having it all apart gave me a renewed appreciation for the thought and care that went into making this thing. I know it's not rocket science, but the engineering problems aren't trivial, either—not when they're solved to this degree of elegance—and there are a number of them that all have to be satisfied equally well. For instance, the light source must be perfectly even and bright; no light can come out of the device except where it's supposed to; many different parts need to move and adjust relative to each other yet still remain rigidly positioned with a really pretty high degree of precision; the color of the light has to change without changing the intensity; and the whole thing must be easy and intuitive to use.

From what I hear, LPL's engineers derived a number of their solutions from earlier Durst enlargers, Durst (1936–2006) being the longtime European leader in enlargers. But wherever the "prior art" came from, this is clearly a refined design with a long engineering evolution behind it, cleverly and thoroughly thought through.

This is the enlarger head, removed from the chassis, upright, and with its top off and the light mixing box removed. The three small glass filters you can see—one yellow, one magenta, and one neutral density (ND)—slide up and and down in varying ratios as a single knob on the side of the side of the head—the big black one visible in the first picture—is turned. The effect is to change the color of the light without varying its intensity. The bulb itself, a regular 12V, 100-watt halogen projector bulb like the one pictured here, is hidden in the chamber behind the filters.

Here's a detail. As usual, you can click on any of these pictures to make them larger.

The three filters do an independently-variable little up-and-down dance when you turn the contrast-control knob. The weird color and the apparent green bar are caused by reflections from the optical coatings.

After passing through the filters, the light enters the light-mixing box through a hole. This is what sits directly above the negative carrier. (And this whole arrangement raises and lowers with a lever, too, to allow easy insertion and removal of the negative carrier.)

The core of the mixing box—and thus, in essence, the core of the enlarger—is made of styrofoam! Not fancy, but ideal from a functional standpoint. I've heard that these styrofoam mixing boxes were known to yellow over time in early 4x5 models, but this one is still bright white after 16 years or so (the yellowish-greenish tint comes from my horrid mixed lighting). The last piece—what the negative sees—is a diffuser made of translucent plastic that comprises the bottom of the box. You can see a bit of it there to the right of the mixing box.

I wonder if the engineers who designed the 670 VCCE are still active and working for LPL? Wherever they may be now, they have my respect, admiration, and regards. For all its modesty, this is a well-made, high-value product.

My enlarger seems to have held up well over time, for the most part, despite the spiders. The big question for me is whether the contrast filters have held their values over the years. If they've faded, either the parts or the whole head will have to be replaced.

LPL enlargers are now distributed in the U.S. by former competitor Omega. The 670 VCCE now costs $1,295, which isn't much of an increase from the ~$895 I paid in '94, especially when you factor in today's considerably reduced demand. Used ones, of course, are not difficult to find.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Helcio J. Tagliolatto:

Comments

[Chris Nicholls]

Hi Mike. A 7700 VCCE was the second enlarger I collected at the local flea market, for a price that reflected the fact that the seller was keen to clear out their old "junk". I think the enlarger was the last remains of a teenager's brief flirtation with darkroom photography before the digital wave swept them away, and the parent had long ago written-off the investment. Mine was in similar state with spiders installed, and I had a fun afternoon pulling it apart, cleaning it and discovering how it worked. That exercise stood me in good stead when I later acquired a Durst Laborator 1200, with CLS450 colour head, which also needed a good cleanup after years of neglect. You'd like the Durst - it is very nicely made.

I recall you wrote a short series for B&W Photography magazine about the imperfections that can creep into enlarger performance over time and how these degrade print quality. As you set up the enlarger in the new darkroom could you write about the necessary setting-up checks and what's needed to get the best performance? Cheers!

[Phil Maus]

Nice enlarger Mike and thanks for the detailed, ad hoc 'review' of it's construction.

What gets me is when I got my enlarger, a like new Omega D5-XL from a guy who'd bought three of them for nothing at a hospital liquidation, I missed out on the 2 he had with the Omega cold light VCCE heads. Both came with the latest sophisticated looking timers/supplies to boot. He was selling for $100 each. I, in my infinite wisdom, chose the old fashioned condenser head enlarger and I'd just use my old clunky Kearsarge timer.

I wish I'd known better then what those other two funny looking ones were! Ouch! Not that my condenser isn't a good enlarger, I just didn't know the difference.

[Steve G, Mendocino]

Mike:

A local friend is a glass artist, using dichroic glass in jewelry and art pieces. If I understand her correctly, dichroic glass essentially has the color built into it's structure - if the filters are intact they're the same color (or, more accurately, they pass the same color) as when new.

[Doug C]

LPL was certainly smart to look at the work of Durst. I recall a college darkroom that had 12 or more different Durst enlargers, and I mean different. They have engineered at least 100 entirely different enlargers in the 50 years that really mattered. I have the 1840, quite a machine, and quite a truck. But working with it reminds me that northern Italy produced the greatest musical instuments, art and armaments (armour, swords, guns, you name it) of the second half of the second millenium.

[ctein]

Dear Mike,

Don't worry about the dichroics. They don't fade. If the coating gets damaged in some way or gets crud on the surface, there's a very obvious color change.

I've seen darkening in diffuser boxes. I used a Super Chromega Dichroic D for over 20 years. After about fifteen, I started seeing some unevenness in prints. Took me longer than it should have to notice and too long to track down, but it turned out to be yellowing in one of my diffusion boxes.

Just another in a long list of equipment 'gotchas'.

pax / Ctein

[Jeff]

About 20 years ago I had the Beseler 45MXT with a Zone VI cold light head. I'm curious about your story. Please do tell.

[Dave Karp]

I have a 4500-II with the VC head. I love it. I had a 670 VCCE, and could not stand it. It was the ND filter they used to equalize exposures using the lower grade filters to the times needed to expose the higher grades. It made exposures unreasonably long. My late father-in-law had the 670 with a dichroic head for color work, and it was a great enlarger. No similar problems, because it does not use the neutral density filter.

I chatted with John Sexton about this during a workshop, and after looking at my negs, he thought that things did not sound right. He gave me a contact to talk with at Saunders. Saunders was great and sent me a different sample in exchange, but it had the same problem. So, after talking about the ND filter issue, Saunders took back the 670 and sold me a refurbished 4500-II, the one I love. Its the additional horsepower (wattage) that makes the difference.

One trick to remember with the LPL enlargers: They are not always in alignment, even though they are supposed to be perfectly aligned. Try a Versalab Parallel or similar device to make sure you are in alignment. I used shims of 120 film at the base to align mine (another tip from John Sexton).

[Oren Grad]

>> One trick to remember with the LPL enlargers: They are not always in alignment, even though they are supposed to be perfectly aligned. Try a Versalab Parallel or similar device to make sure you are in alignment. I used shims of 120 film at the base to align mine (another tip from John Sexton). <<

I've got shims tucked under the corners of the masking attachment. :-)

[Jeff Damron]

The LPL enlargers are amazing. I bought mine, the medium format version, on Ebay a couple of years ago. I didn't really need it as I had a very serviceable Omega with a dichro head, but the VCCE head seemed like an even better idea. I'm not sure how I did this, but I got it for less than $70. Including a El Nikkor 50mm f2.8 lens! Actually came out ahead when I sold the Omega with its identical lens. Well, I did have to spring for a negative carrier which I couldn't find on Ebay and which cost almost as much as the enlarger did.

[Stephen Best]

I bought the smaller, medium-format Saunders/LPL 670 VCCE

I used to have one of these but some time with a Leitz Focomat convinced me that the latter was superior. Sorry!

[Mike Johnston]

No need to be sorry, Stephen. I'm not trying to claim some sort of status here...the LPL is a utilitarian piece, modestly priced, a sort of Toyota Camry of enlargers. I'm just more impressed with it now that I used to be, is all.

I still would love a brand new full-dress LPL 4x5 enlarger, but it has almost always been priced beyond my reach--despite the fact that I did own one for a few years in there. And it continues that way, what with the price increases of recent years.

Mike

[Gordon Lewis]

I have an LPL 670 VCCE sitting on the workbench in my office, patiently waiting for me to set up my darkroom again. It has a glass carrier with adjustable masking, is the best enlarger I have ever owned and has produced some of the best black and white prints I have ever made. Perhaps we will once again team up to do great things.

[Terry]

I still use a Saunders 670 MXL dichroic enlarger that I bought years ago and I love it! In combination with my 50mm Schneider Companon-S lens and my Leica-based negatives, I get perfect prints all the time!

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

I remember an article I read after the Leitz Focomat was changed dramatically from the huge ol' one with a point light source to the modern one with color filters. The article said that it had styrofoam in the light mixing box, and the Leitz engineers said that they had tried everything, but the cheapest simply was the best!

[Jon Shiu]

I've been using a pair of Saunders LPL 670 VCCE enlargers for about 10 years. Very nice and easy to dial in just a fraction of a grade of contrast via the dials. Glass negative carrier is nice too and can print full frame with a little filing. One thing to watch out for with these enlargers is that they can leak a bit of light, mostly out of the back near the cord.

I had a LPL 4550XLG with VCCE head but sold it because I didn't have room for it when I moved and didn't care for the fan noise.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Wow, a whole new line of enlargers, essentially new since I was in the darkroom.

It was Besseler for most people and Omega for 4x5 (with a small side of Durst; my first enlarger was a Durst, an M35, but I never did like the 600 much) when I was paying attention (call it 1969-1985).

I've still got a D5 condenser enlarger in boxes, bags, and just standing around in the basement. I should find the lenses and make sure they're okay, and figure out a way to put one of them (probably the 135) onto the PB-4 bellows for macro photography.

I think my favorite was a D3 with the "autofocus" option, in the Alumni Office darkroom at college. It didn't actually autofocus, but it maintained focus as you ran the head up or down. Not perfectly, you had to fine tune, but close enough that getting the size right wasn't at least three trips around the adjustment loop any more.