Digital "Enlarger"

[Shootitalready]

Hi All,


I was wondering if anyone knows if there's such a thing as a good old fashioned enlarger turned digital?
FYI, an enlarger is a big machine with a lens and strong light inside that was used by old farts, like myself, to magically print pictures on sheets of light sensitive paper

I am what can be considered a pre-digital generation photographer (i.e. I learned photography the 'wet way') and eventhough I am very happy with the digital revolution and all the conveniences it offers (changing iso without having to rewinding your film and change it, or having a B&W result of the picture you just shot appear on the little screen on the back, all great stuff, but, I REALLY MISS THE DARKROOM ACTION!

I actually rather spend an evening 'dodging and burning' than sitting in front of a computer screen handeling a mouse and keyboard...

So I was wondering why (as far as I could check) no one has ever produced and marketed a Digital enlarger? I would jump at the chance to stick my CF or Sd card in a digital enlarger and print pictures the old fashioned way :-*
That darkroom magic (red light and smelly chemicals) cannot be replaced by the humming of a printer...

Anybody else shares this feeling or am I the only one?

Cheers!

 

[rpt]

I did a Google search and got this link.
http://www.de-vere.com/products.htm

I am sure you can find more if you google.

 

[old-pr-pix]

As a long ago public relations photog I have printed tens of thousands of 8x10's the "analog" way - mostly B/W but some color as well. I agree it was always magical and the skills to do effective dodging and burning were something I was proud to have. And, yes, there are times I long for "the old way." But when I do, I remember what a pain it was to have to develop several roles of film (often pushed to the amazing ASA of 1600) , select one key shot and then print two dozen copies of the same negative, all dodged and burned as needed, washed, dried and ready for courier delivery to news outlets within a couple hours of an event to make their deadlines. Let's not even suggest doing localized color corrections.

The chemical stains have faded from my fingers now and I think my lungs are clear. While it might be fun to do a chemical print or two just for old times sake, I'll take digital any day. Emailing a .jpg is soooo much easier.

 

[pj1974]

As a long ago public relations photog I have printed tens of thousands of 8x10's the "analog" way - mostly B/W but some color as well. I agree it was always magical and the skills to do effective dodging and burning were something I was proud to have. And, yes, there are times I long for "the old way." But when I do, I remember what a pain it was to have to develop several roles of film (often pushed to the amazing ASA of 1600) , select one key shot and then print two dozen copies of the same negative, all dodged and burned as needed, washed, dried and ready for courier delivery to news outlets within a couple hours of an event to make their deadlines. Let's not even suggest doing localized color corrections.

The chemical stains have faded from my fingers now and I think my lungs are clear. While it might be fun to do a chemical print or two just for old times sake, I'll take digital any day. Emailing a .jpg is soooo much easier.

+1

I definitely do not miss the analogue days, with the hassles of film, chemicals and much slower processes and limitations to what we can do easier (& often better) with digital these days.

The ability to share my photos with friends easily is one of the BEST things about the internet and digital imagery. (I use many methods, including Google/Picasa, Facebook, 500px, and I have a number of other accounts, eg Flickr, Imagebucket, etc)

Printing multiple copies of a 'favourite photo' and then giving (or sending/posting) to people around the world was so much more expensive - before the internet & digital photography came into their own.

Long live convenience, cost savings and more environmentally friendly options I say!

Paul

 

[MrFotoFool]

Never heard of that Devere enlarger, that is interesting. Still I think you would be hard pressed to find many people that agree with you the old way is better. And those that do I imagine would also think film is an integral part of the process.

As you may already know, a lot of digital prints done at commercial labs and even drug stores are in fact true, developed photographic prints. (I work at a photo lab that serves both consumers and professionals). However the prints are not projected through an enlarging head as you are describing. The machine uses either colored lasers or colored LEDs to draw a picture of your picture on the photographic paper, which then gets developed in chemicals. Of course this is all done by the machine, so you are not moving prints from tray to tray.

 

[Shootitalready]

I did a Google search and got this link.
http://www.de-vere.com/products.htm

I am sure you can find more if you google.

Great stuff! Thanks very much for the link

 

[Hillsilly]

The low cost way of doing this is to print your digital file onto a sheet of transparency film and then contact print them. I've never tried it myself, but apparently it works best if you have an 8x10 enlarger. But if you are semi-sane and don't own such a beasty, depending on your quality expectations, you can use the same process with smaller enlargers.

I still do the occasional bit or printing, but I don't think I've even fired up my darkroom this year. Not that I've gone off it as such, but I sold all my medium format film camera gear and I find 35mm film a little fiddly. Plus I've been using films such as Kodak Portra almost exclusively for the last couple. So much easier to get it developed and printed at the local supermarket.

 

[TexPhoto]

If you want to go analog, why not shoot film? The equipment is incredibly inexpensive, and freely available. You could shoot 35mm, medium format, or even large format.

Then enlarge with a regular enlarger. Again, so cheap to buy used.

Heck you could shoot digital, print 8x10 at Walmart, set up a copy stand and shoot film of the prints, then print via regular enlarger.

 

[TAF]

An enlarger is a projector for film, right? So why not take a digital projector (of the sort used in offices to project Powerpoint slides), set it up aimed at the wall, set the photo file to 'inverse' (or is the setting actually called negative?) and you then can adjust the distance until you have the right size image you want. Focus properly, tape the paper holder to the wall, put in your print paper, and you've rigged up a digital enlarger.

Proceed normally from there.

Decades ago I would turn my enlarger head 90 degrees and tape the paper to the wall so I could get massive amounts of enlargement. Same deal here.

Would that satisfy the urge to go analog from digital (cheaply)?

 

[AcutancePhotography]

There are times when I miss the darkroom experience. Many many memories. Some good, some not so good.

No matter how many prints I have made, I still got that giddy feeling of magic seeing the image "magically" appear on the paper in the developer.

When I had my current house built, I had a fantasy of having a darkroom in the basement. As a fantasy, it's great.

I suppose if I were rich and had the time, I would shoot both digital and film. But looking at the big picture, I am kinda glad we have digital today.

I think my experience with film gave me some valuable training in photography, but digital has come a long way and will continue to improve.

 

[TexPhoto]

An enlarger is a projector for film, right? So why not take a digital projector (of the sort used in offices to project Powerpoint slides), set it up aimed at the wall, set the photo file to 'inverse' (or is the setting actually called negative?) and you then can adjust the distance until you have the right size image you want. Focus properly, tape the paper holder to the wall, put in your print paper, and you've rigged up a digital enlarger.

Proceed normally from there.

Decades ago I would turn my enlarger head 90 degrees and tape the paper to the wall so I could get massive amounts of enlargement. Same deal here.

Would that satisfy the urge to go analog from digital (cheaply)?

Digital projectors actually make a very low resolution image. Normal ones are 600x800 or 768 x 1024. Very high end ones star to get into HD video levels, but would still produce a picture that would look pixelated, and lack detail vs a 35mm print. You could probably make some cool artsy prints.