Leitz Focomat IIc: The Tiger Tank of Enlargers

It's now been almost a quarter-century since I regularly worked in the traditional darkroom, and I admit I haven't kept up with...developments. (It was also customary in the old days to apologize for the pun whenever one used any form of the verb "develop" when talking about film processing or enlarging.)

However it has just come to my attention that a company named Kienzle either built, or is still building, a replica Leitz Focomat IIc enlarger, the Kienzle A69S. The website looks like one from the 1990s—small, inadequate pictures and crude design. It doesn't make much of the design of the enlarger, which is said to be patterned exactly on the Focomat IIc.

Not to indulge in stereotypes, but if Germany has a reputation for building over-specified, over-engineered, overbuilt mechanical devices to the point of excess, then the Leitz Focomat IIc must be the most German device of any kind that Germans ever made. Maybe next to the Mercedes-Benz 540K and, say, the Tiger tank.

A German-built product only slightly less sturdy and durable than a Leitz Focomat IIc. (Tiger I from the collection of the Tank Museum, Bovington Camp, Dorset, UK. Photo by Simon Q.)

What an enlarger that was. I owned one for three days—I snapped it up on sight from Oak Park Camera because I was helpless to do otherwise, and only came to my senses after I realized it took up two-thirds of the free space in my tiny converted powder-room darkroom. It also took up two-thirds of my cash reserves at the time.

It wasn't actually the best enlarger I ever used. The reason is something that is little-known any more—different kinds of enlarger light sources had very different kinds of "character" which needed to be factored in to your technique. The Focomat IIc was one of the outlier embodiments of this. Compared to my usual enlarger, prints made from the same negative looked for all the world like they had been taken with a different kind of film!

It wasn't just the commonly known "cold light head" versus "condenser" enlarger, and the difference was not only contrast. The cold light head was basically a miniature, folded fluorescent tube. There were full and partial condenser arrangements, partial diffusion condensers which paired a large frosted light bulb with condensers, LED light sources, dichroic-style light-mixing boxes, point-source enlargers (which I only ever heard of one photographer using successfully for artwork, although that one was Brett Weston)—even one, the ill-fated SaltHill (which torpedoed the business of my friend and colleague Joe Saltzer) that used a fabric of woven fiber-optic strands. The light source for that one was not even in the enlarger head.

The Focomat IIc was close to a true collimated source, with oversized, superbly made condensers. The flat bottom of the lower one came right into contact with the negative carrier, meaning that the enlarger was merciless about showing grain in the negative as well as flaws and dust on the negative. I wouldn't like to be stuck with a Focomat IIc as my only enlarger, even if it was working flawlessly; however, the one I briefly owned had a tiny scratch on the bottom of the lower condenser, right in the middle, a spot which had to be included even in 35mm enlargements. Since the enlarger was no longer made by that time and the condenser couldn't be replaced, the tiny scratch effectively ruined the whole enlarger, which seemed fantastical—talk about an Achilles' heel!

Soon after, Leitz abandoned medium-format enlargers and created the then-modern V35 in 1979. The V35 was 35mm-only, autofocus, and used a crude but effective light-mixing box for illumination. Autofocus only worked with the supplied 40mm lens, which, fortunately, was a good one, one of the only lenses I ever tested for 35mm enlarging of less than 50mm focal length that was any good. For optical enlarging, "use a 50mm lens or longer for 35mm" is as close as it gets to a Universal rule. Since Leicas were 35mm cameras, it made sense for the V35 to be 35mm-only. The V35 came along after Leica's prices started heading toward the stratosphere, though, so I never owned one. But I heard good things from owners, as long as they could accept its lack of flexibility.

I can geek out over cameras as cunning, clever, and cool little devices that are pleasing in and of themselves and that elicit pride of ownership. But I could never extend that kind of fond pride to enlargers. (Although I do admit I have a brand new in the box enlarger still slumbering in my basement, as venerated as the mummified remains of a pharaoh. I need to sell that.) And I don't attach sentimental value to them. Ralph Gibson owns and uses Robert Frank's old enlarger, and that's pretty cool. But to me they were always just tools. My technique with enlargers was outstanding; not a brag, just a fact. But I just needed them to do what I needed them to do.

However, if there is ever a "Museum of Cool Stuff," a pristine Focomat IIc ought to be prominently displayed therein. Not the best enlarger ever built, but the best-built enlarger ever built. That thing was over the top, and a marvel.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Ken Bennett: "I was an AP stringer for a while early in my career, and there were two Leica Fotomats in the darkroom. Loved using those things, though I wasn't experienced enough to really understand how good they were.

Mike replies: They might not have been Focomat IIc's. The Focomat I was far more common and ubiquitous. The Focomat IIc was always rare. Here is a link to a photo of a IIc next to a Ic. As you can see, very different!

Ken replies to Mike: "Thanks for the comment reply, Mike. The ones we used were white and boxy; I think they were V35 models. Like this."

Mike: Ah, that makes sense.

The reason for the mechanical AF was so you didn't get caught in that back-and-forth between refocusing and resizing (refocusing changes the projected image size; then you have to readjust the size; then you have to refocus again; and so on). It was really designed for newsroom darkrooms, or wherever speed was of the essence. Not something that amateurs, enthusiasts, artists or hobbyists really need.

Comments

[Peter Wright]

It’s been many years since I used or took any interest in enlargers, but you got me wondering what else I might find in the “Museum of Cool Stuff”. How about the very first Apple Mac? (The one with the tiny B&W screen and no hard drive). Or what about my egg-beater hand drill that my father bought for his work as a carpenter before WW2? (I’m waiting for one of my grandkids to ask what it is, and I will tell them it’s a cordless drill 😆). Any other suggestions?

[kirk]

My first enlager was a Focomat 1 but after I had some success in the commercial and advertising space I upgraded to a V35. You could buy two different "heads" or light sources for that enlarger. One was a color head with three dials for color wheels and the other was a unit set up to work with multi-grade papers. You could dial in contrast settings to mimic specific paper grades. The V35 sat right next to an Omega D-5 in my commercial darkroom since much of our ad work was done on 4x5 sheet film and two and quarter square, medium format film. All black and white. I always wanted a IIC but didn't have the extra counter space for a third enlarger. The multi-grade head for the V35 was a great time saver and one didn't have to worry about dust on multi-grade filters sitting under the lens... Great stuff.

Now please do a post on Leica Pradovit slide projects. I can send you a couple if you need to revisit them first.... They are right over there in the closet.

[calvin amari]

did folks who peeked into tiny converted powder-room think you repurposed the float from inside your toilet?

[I don't know, but I had to re-re-model that powder room when I sold the place! Did everything myself except attach the mirror to the wall. Would have needed four hands for that. --Mike]

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I only ever owned one good enlarger, at the end of my darkroom career (a Omega D5XL). My darkroom in my parent's basement had a Durst M35, which was 35mm only and pretty wimpy, I got some decent prints from it but it never impressed me as a good tool.

The college photo co-op darkroom was better, that had some Besseler 23Cs and a 45MX.

But the real win was the alumni publication office darkroom, which had an Omega D3. So I'm familiar with the kind of autofocus the Focomat II provided. It saved considerable time especially if doing a lot of custom cropping, since while you had to fine-tune the focus at the final size, I could nearly always short-circuit the resize-refocus-resize-refocus loop; you could just run the head up and down until you got the size you needed.

(I've been remembering that as a D2, but research tells me that wasn't auto-focus, and the D3 was. I'm absolutely clear on the auto-focus, so that's what it must have been.)

[Henning]

I think the Focomat Iic was produced from 1956 to 1983, not the 5 year span that you mention.

I also believe, although I have no documentation here to substantiate it, that the Iic was not actually manufactured by Leitz, but was only designed by them. In any case, it was (is) a sturdy piece of machinery. I never had a Iic, but I've had a Ic that I inherited from my dad in 1962. It also has not fallen apart. A friend here in Vancouver had a couple of IIc's, one with the standard head and one similar to one specced for the Canadian military from Leitz Midland that had a point source light. That was high contrast to put it mildly, and film grains were definitely imaged individually. I don't know about the IIc, but the Ic had an intermediate diffused/condenser light. Of course, you have to use and develop your film for your enlarging setup to achieve optimal results in any case, so it's less important which type of light source you have as long as you're working with it in mind.

A friend in Oxford, England spent a fair bit of the COVID interregnum building and outfitting his custom teaching darkroom, in which he has at least 2 Iic's and 3? - 4? - 5? Ic's. plus some DeVeres, Dursts, etc. Oxforddarkrooms.com. It's very impressive. Prices for enlargers can apparently can be very, very reasonable especially if you have some patience and the ability to go pick the item up.

[I couldn't find good information online about the history of the IIc. The internet is great for things that are happening now, but it's generally poor for history.

The bit about table tennis highlights a problem of copy editing. We knew the game as ping-pong, and never called it "table tennis." So which is then proper in this case? I changed the post, but I'm not willing to simply say "my brother Scott's table tennis table," as that would not really be accurate either, even though it's correct. This is a common issue in copyediting. On the other hand, copy editors are generally people who love to debate about precisely this type of thing, so no harm, no foul.

A final issue in your comment--about your friend's teaching darkroom. We actually had faculty meetings about an issue in some of the schools where I taught. It was felt that by making the school darkroom too fancy and well equipped, students might be encouraged to believe they couldn't work unless or until they were similarly equipped and outfitted. One school actually build its darkroom to mimic a more crude, extemporized space, to help make the point that most photographers (even some very famous ones) do work in less than ideal surroundings. --Mike]

[Mike Plews]

I still have a Focomat Ic that I bought at an estate sale for $30 mint along with the lock down easel.
Great machine. Someone told me that Robert Frank printed The Americans on a Ic.
Wonder if that's true.

[Yes and that's the 1c that Ralph Gibson has. I've seen it. --Mike]

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Our friends of the photography program at Cégep du Vieux-Montréal have put together an excellent video tutorial on using the Focomat IIc.

Just listen to the sound of the enlarger:

https://youtu.be/-jY3o2ZaFSo?si=a9IDmIJqnpXr0gX5

[Rob L.]

Mike! I have been over wanting to get back to film for over a year and you bring back the idea of a v35 enlarger or a Focomat II? I love my Beseler, which has been through more than a few head changes (let's have a moment to mourn the splendid, arcane, Minolta/Beseler flashtube insanity that remains the most brilliant high contrast black and white printing machine I've ever loved), but the V35 was absolutely
a newspaper photog's dream. I was able to use one for one afternoon and I can still remember the motions, just perfectly set up for my brain.

...And they just dropped the price of Tri-X....

[Lars Jansen]

Ah, Kienzle. I found out about them at one of the last Photokinas, in 2016. They still build a great range of enlargers, up to a wopping 12"x12"! They had it at show and it's obviously a beast.

At home I have two enlargers to get unpacked and setup in my updated room. One Focomat I and I think a Japanese frame, both adorned with Ilford Multigrade 500 heads. Those heads are great to use, especially with the RH Design Analyser 500 I have with it. I'm really looking forward to using that setup again.

[Chuck Albertson]

A Focomat enlarger had a brief cameo in the recent film, "The Boys in the Boat," when the big race at the 1936 Olympics was a photo finish.

[Dogman]

We used Focomat 1c enlargers in the newspaper darkroom where I worked. Wonderful enlargers. Larger formats were done with Omegas.

When I was setting up a home darkroom years later one of the former news photographers offered to give me a 1c he had bought from the newspaper when it shut down the photo lab. Unfortunately for me it had the long column and it was too tall to fit in my makeshift darkroom's low ceiling.

Not long after this, I was dragged by my wife to a garage sale. I protested but...well, wife. Wondering around the place I saw something familiar. I picked it up and walked around picking up pieces and found all the parts to a Leitz Valoy enlarger with 50mm Leitz lens plus a copy camera arm to fit the column. Total price: $7.00! 'Course when I took it home and plugged it in, it blew the circuit in the house due to the bad wiring. I rewired it and used it for several years. Not as nice as the 1c but really well built.

[Dave]

Unfortunately, as you noted, little of history is on the internet.

Only specialist websites, such as the HP museum (https://www.hpmuseum.org/ ), the Asahi Optical Historical Club (https://www.aohc.it/index.php ), the K-Mount page (http://kmp.pentaxians.eu/ ) and other similar sites have info about long-ago items.

I tagged along with a news photographer one day when I was in college. The newspaper had enlargers that had "Leitz" on the side and were auto-focus, but that's about all I remember about the enlarger she was using. That enlarger had a '40s vintage look.

[Mark Sampson]

Oddly enough, in a career that began in 1977, I've never used a Leitz enlarger. Two custom labs and my department at EK were all supplied with various Omegas. So when I set up my home darkroom around 1988, I bought a Korean-war era 4x5 Omega D-II. I still use it; it does the job as it always has. But as a Leica camera user for decades, I'll say that German precision manufacture can be a wonderful thing.

[Dale]

Similar to you, Mike, I view enlargers as tools and don't obsess over them, however, I must say that my Saunders/LPL 4500 enlarger is a joy to use. The fine focus control is silky and precise, plus it's built like a tank.

Dale

[V.I. Voltz]

It was Kienzle that made the original Leitz Focomat IIc.

Voltz

[David Lee]

I had, actually still have a V35. Love it. Even though autofocus always worked perfectly I still checked it with a focus magnifier. I changed the color head for a Heiland splitgrade. A perfect working print at the first try always. It was a pleasure to use and a beautiful machine.

[David Glos]

For a decade, starting around 1991, I worked in a medical research at a local university. Had a buddy that ran imaging for the histology department. One of his main duties was developing and printing large format negatives from the transmission electron microscope (TEM).

His enlarger was a Durst Laborator 138. That floorstanding beast had a turret of the best optics money could buy, a full complement of condensors, diffuse and a point light sources (latter used for the TEM negs), and negative carriers from 35mm through 4x5. Spent many joyful hours in there printing my personal work on that ne plus ultra of enlargers. Had some fun enlarging 35mm Techpan negatives with the points source to explore what I could achieve with my motley collection of Nikon glass.

Sadly, never had a chance to experience a Focomat. Perhaps it would have usurped the Laborator.