 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2005Digital enlarger
For projecting digital file images onto photographic paper. For those who miss the chemicals!~ http://www.benboardman.com.au/bb/devere/dv504d.shtml RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:0lkc115grf29r40uahkv7puqtj5sud6pr9@ 4ax.com: > For projecting digital file images > onto photographic paper. For those > who miss the chemicals!~ > > http://www.benboardman.com.au/bb/devere/dv504d.shtml Hehe . I DONT miss the chemicals. Devere makes high end enlargers for large format film. The enlarger used is the 504 that takes 5x4" film, so I assume that the LCD is rather large. It is also 8 Mpixels. Hmmm ... I wonder if this is competetive to a printer. Mabe it is for companies that already has a certain work flow. /Roland > Hmmm ... I wonder if this is competetive to a printer. > Mabe it is for companies that already has a certain work flow. It should be much faster than a printer for consecutive prints.  SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > Hmmm ... I wonder if this is competetive to a printer. > > Mabe it is for companies that already has a certain work flow. > > It should be much faster than a printer for consecutive prints. Perhaps in overall time, but certainly not in labor, and it's the labor that's more expensive. By the time you pay a guy to run one of these for a single day (including taxes, medicare, benefits, etc.), you probably could have bought a second printer to parralellize the job. In an extreme sense, an LVS load-balancer in front of a number of network printers can blow through a workload pretty quickly.... steve > > > Hmmm ... I wonder if this is competetive to a printer. > > > Mabe it is for companies that already has a certain work flow. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > single day (including taxes, medicare, benefits, etc.), you probably could > have bought a second printer to parralellize the job. The same could be said of having some tech running your computer work stations, I guess. > In an extreme sense, an LVS load-balancer in front of a number of network > printers can blow through a workload pretty quickly. How quickly and how many printers? That costs money right? Not to mention the average life span of a printer might be 3 years, versus say 15 for a heavily used enlarger. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > Hmmm ... I wonder if this is competetive to a printer. > > Mabe it is for companies that already has a certain work flow. > > It should be much faster than a printer for consecutive prints. Indeed, if one already has a darkroom set up that is. And for the person accustomed to doing their own color printing, this might be easier than learning Photoshop and calibration. Lisa > For projecting digital file images > onto photographic paper. For those > who miss the chemicals!~ > > http://www.benboardman.com.au/bb/devere/dv504d.shtml One (other) advantage of digital is going to a printer w/o another set of lenses to worry about. OTOH this product could address the high contrast B&W printing interest that some photogs miss with digital. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >> For projecting digital file images >> onto photographic paper. For those [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Cheers, > Alan I'm one of those! There are black and white photo papers that just cannot be emulated with currently available inkjet or Fuji Crystal type papers, like Ilford Gallerie and some of the Agfa and Seagull papers. This would work well, and shortcut my attempt at printing "negatives" on my inkjet and using them to make contact prints on my enlarger. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> For projecting digital file images >>> onto photographic paper. For those [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >work well, and shortcut my attempt at printing "negatives" on my inkjet and >using them to make contact prints on my enlarger. Not to mention avoiding the cost of printing large format ink jet pictures. Not many people buy wide-bed digital printers and letting some lab do it takes away control. -Rich > Not to mention avoiding the cost of printing large format ink jet > pictures. Not many people buy wide-bed digital printers and > letting some lab do it takes away control. > -Rich I wonder what the cost is,...it might be prohibitively expensive. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > >> For projecting digital file images > >> onto photographic paper. For those [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > work well, and shortcut my attempt at printing "negatives" on my inkjet and > using them to make contact prints on my enlarger. You might be interested in this then http://www.bestlab.com/sanmig15.html A lab offering digital B&W prints. Lisa > You might be interested in this then > http://www.bestlab.com/sanmig15.html > > A lab offering digital B&W prints. > > Lisa San Miguel is the lab I was referring to further up in the thread, but couldn't remember the name,Thanks. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> >> For projecting digital file images >> >> onto photographic paper. For those [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Lisa Sorry, Lisa, that's what I'm trying to avoid. Ilford Gallerie and the Agfa papers to which I refer are fiber based, either matte or gloss, but the gloss has a quality lacking in RC papers. And their pricing, for RC or fiber, is outlandish. I can get a black and white print on RC paper for less than $5.00, and there's no way in hell I'm going to pay someone $50.00 for a print on fiber. The volume I used to print, the digital enlarger that started this thread would make complete economic sense in that context. The paper costs me about a buck a sheet. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Sorry, Lisa, that's what I'm trying to avoid. Ilford Gallerie and the Agfa > papers to which I refer are fiber based, either matte or gloss, but the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > started this thread would make complete economic sense in that context. The > paper costs me about a buck a sheet. Yeah, those prices are rather nuts. You could try these guys, but any one that wants you to apply before they sell to you... "Coo-coo!" http://www.hhcolorlab.com/Services/Printing.aspx But considering what you do, they might be ideal... or overpriced. These guys don't seem too bad, but for the price you probably don't get a lot of QC or adjustments. 8x10" B&W prints on resin-coated paper are $2.49. http://www.mpix.com/productsinfo.aspx >> Sorry, Lisa, that's what I'm trying to avoid. Ilford Gallerie and the >> Agfa [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > http://www.mpix.com/productsinfo.aspx Thanks for that info, it may come in handy. I've been using Silverwire to send files to a local lab, but they don't offer the Kodak metallic paper on line, and I've been having problems uploading files, sometimes. And the guys you sent links to offer larger sizes than the local guys. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > > These guys don't seem too bad, but for the price you probably don't get > > a lot of QC or adjustments. 8x10" B&W prints on resin-coated paper are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > line, and I've been having problems uploading files, sometimes. And the > guys you sent links to offer larger sizes than the local guys. They're a on-line branch of Miller Photographic, who apparently is pretty big. Hopefully they'll turn off any auto-correction for your batch, but it's hard to say. But the prices seem very competitive so I might use them for a test of lightjet B&W prints. Better that then spending $75 on a 8x10"! > They're a on-line branch of Miller Photographic, who apparently is > pretty big. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for a test of lightjet B&W prints. Better that then spending $75 on a > 8x10"! I did an order of 8"x12"s from those folks. The website is flaky and slow, and it took me longer than I'd have liked to receive the prints in the mail. However, they arrived in good condition, which is what really counts. (I didn't learn until today that miller is in Kansas. It's strange to do business with a company and not even know where they are.) I kept a light touch with Photoshop, and the prints came back lacking contrast. I punched up some of the images and re-submitted them this morning. I don't mind; I hope that once I get a feel for their system, I'll be able to get things right the first try. Adorama told me that they're planning to start doing B&W digital prints on April 1. Their website is also slow and hard to use, but it's better than mpix.com's. And it'll be nice to not have to worry about shipping. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >> They're a on-line branch of Miller Photographic, who apparently is >> pretty big. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >but it's better than mpix.com's. And it'll be nice to not have to >worry about shipping. Where do you find frames and mats for 8x12's? I've had some printed at Walmart and now its VERY expensive to get framed. -- ------------------------------------------------ http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain. ------------------------------------------------ >>I did an order of 8"x12"s from [mpix.com]. > > Where do you find frames and mats for 8x12's? I've had some printed > at Walmart and now its VERY expensive to get framed. I haven't tried yet. These are some of my first 8x12 prints, and I'm not yet sure what I think of the format. If I do frame any 8x12s unmatted, I'll probably use one of these: http://www.adorama.com/FRCF812.html http://www.adorama.com/FRFOF812BK.html Dunno what I'll do if I want to mat something. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall > >> >> For projecting digital file images > >> >> onto photographic paper. For those [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > started this thread would make complete economic sense in that context. The > paper costs me about a buck a sheet. Their prices did seem rather high to me. You do sound like someone who could actually use this though. Lisa . >> >> I'm one of those! There are black and white photo papers that just >> >> cannot [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Lisa Could, yes, would, no. At those prices, I can't sell a print and make a reasonable profit. Loose 8x10 prints, matted, but unframed, sell in galleries for between $60 and $75. Since I'm not one of the best known photographers (to say the least) mine sell more in the $60 range. And I'm supposed to pay somebody $50 for a print? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > . > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > photographers (to say the least) mine sell more in the $60 range. And I'm > supposed to pay somebody $50 for a print? Sorry, I meant that you could perhaps use the device, not the seemingly overpriced service :) Lisa >> . >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Lisa Ah, then... :-) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Their prices did seem rather high to me. You do sound like someone who > could actually use this though. > > Lisa Its the lack of people in general doing FB silver printing that dictates the high price and wether in fact people are willing to pay it. Though I don't feel 50.00 for an 8x10 is a good price,...plus its untoned at that price. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Sorry, Lisa, that's what I'm trying to avoid. Ilford Gallerie and the Agfa > papers to which I refer are fiber based, either matte or gloss, but the > gloss has a quality lacking in RC papers. And their pricing, for RC or > fiber, is outlandish. I can get a black and white print on RC paper for > less than $5.00, and there's no way in hell I'm going to pay someone $50.00 > for a print on fiber. Very true, why should I pay 50 bucks,...maybe I am charging too little to do the FB printing for my clients. >The volume I used to print, the digital enlarger that > started this thread would make complete economic sense in that context. The > paper costs me about a buck a sheet. If the enlarger is not too expensive,....under 3K? SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in news:bugstopped_- 70CF00.09435320022005@news.verizon.net: > If the enlarger is not too expensive,....under 3K? I would guess rather 30K. It is a rather exotic equipment. The enlarger is based on a 4x5 inch film enlarger that probably is more than 3K. Then you need a large format enlarging lens. Also that more than 3K maybe. And then the actual led/lcd unit. Ouch - that sounds expensive. So - no - it is not 3K. /Roland > > If the enlarger is not too expensive,....under 3K? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So - no - it is not 3K. To my knowledge, you just use a lightjet that has been set up to handle B&W paper in its profile. No enlarger issues - the machine cost is in the same ballpark as a Fuji Frontier or any other modern developing machine. > To my knowledge, you just use a lightjet that has been set up to handle > B&W paper in its profile. No enlarger issues - the machine cost is in > the same ballpark as a Fuji Frontier or any other modern developing > machine. B&W resin coated paper. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > To my knowledge, you just use a lightjet that has been set up to handle > > B&W paper in its profile. No enlarger issues - the machine cost is in > > the same ballpark as a Fuji Frontier or any other modern developing > > machine. > > B&W resin coated paper. Yes, B&W RC paper. > Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in news:bugstopped_- > 70CF00.09435320022005@news.verizon.net: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > /Roland The unit works with the Durst model as well. It slips in between where the negative usually goes, so if one already does have an enlarger maybe not. My enlarger's lenses didn't cost near 3k nor did the enlarger 45MXT when I bought it new. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in news:bugstopped_- > 70CF00.09435320022005@news.verizon.net: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > /Roland I've got an LED head for my lab printer which from time to time I use to make small Illfochrome prints. I doubt the system is suited to continuous tone B&W prints of the quality called "Fine Art". The one most likely to provide an affordable system for Pros intent on doing their own printing or a small lab, is a development of an OKI brand laser printer. These are LED printers. As they arrive from the factory, print dots in a grid but a developer I have been in contact with recently claims to have a conversion for one of the printers to enable continuous tone printing on photographic paper. He's aiming at B&W and 'chrome prints. I don't have any information on the prototype but he made a legitimate approach through the right channels for access to my digital enlargement algorithm for incorporation in the printer. He is aiming at sub $5k for the smaller production model. Claims it will do B&W and 'Chrome up to A4 and another planned up to A3 paper sizes. If he is right and his idea is workable, B&W photography will benefit considerably. I still see the future on Photography as not chemical based but this would at least extend another 5 years to the life to traditional processing. Doug > >The volume I used to print, the digital enlarger that > > started this thread would make complete economic sense in that context. The > > paper costs me about a buck a sheet. > > If the enlarger is not too expensive,....under 3K? Well, it's not really an enlarger (which would have optical degradation and costly digital projector issues) as much as it would be a laser or LED exposing method. These techniques are used for color photography, and the newer machines can run true B&W photo paper on the same machine. > > >The volume I used to print, the digital enlarger that > > > started this thread would make complete economic sense in that context. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > LED exposing method. These techniques are used for color photography, > and the newer machines can run true B&W photo paper on the same machine. The PDF indicates its an LED. Its an enlarger chassis for sure, appears not to use glass optics as you state but it does suggest projection of the image as it can make prints up to 20x24 on base board . SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in news:bugstopped_- 794C0A.15575420022005@news.verizon.net: > The PDF indicates its an LED. Its an enlarger chassis for sure, > appears not to use glass optics as you state but it does suggest > projection of the image as it can make prints up to 20x24 on base board . As far as I understand it is a LCD panel that you insert instead of your normal negitive holder. There is an example how to do it with a Durst L1200. You can replace the head in the enlarger with a LED based head instead. The L1200 takes 4x5 inch, just as the Devere 504. So - you need a 4x5 inch enlarger and a large format enlarging lensa and the LCD panel. /Roland > Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in news:bugstopped_- > 794C0A.15575420022005@news.verizon.net: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > /Roland Thats correct the digital part is the LED panel, it just happens its being shown on a Devere. Personally I would rather have a Beseler Model so I don't have to buy another #3 enlarger,....the 4x5 and the 8x10 one I have take up plenty of room :-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >>> >> For projecting digital file images >>> >> onto photographic paper. For those [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >less than $5.00, and there's no way in hell I'm going to pay someone $50.00 >for a print on fiber. Printing on fibre entails more work than resin. The wash process being one aspect. -Rich |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.