Do they make a digital enlarger?

ZimtokZimtok Registered Users Posts: 41 Big grins
edited September 22, 2014 in Digital Darkroom
A normal darkroom enlarger is used with a film negative to produce the photo on photo paper...

Do they make a digital enlarger to project the photo from your computer onto photo paper for processing? (of course it would have to be a negative image)


.

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 23,764 moderator
    edited September 17, 2014
    Most photofinishers, including your local XMart and pharmacy (minilabs in general), print directly from a digital image onto silver-based photographic paper. I believe that the most popular equipment is the "Fuji Frontier" line of minilab.

    I'm afraid that I have not seen anything for the average consumer as most minilabs are expensive to purchase and not designed for small volumes of images.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Gary752Gary752 Registered Users Posts: 934 Major grins
    edited September 18, 2014
    Most mini labs are going with inkjet printing systems lately. Walmart is in the process of changing over to this new system. They are doing this to get away from having to use the chemicals. About 3 or 4 years ago our local Walmart even changed over to Inkjet from the Kodak dyesub instant printers. Just recently they switched from being a wet lab to a dry lab.

    GaryB
    GaryB
    “The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!” - Ansel Adams
  • GlortGlort Registered Users Posts: 1,015 Major grins
    edited September 18, 2014
    Zimtok wrote: »
    A normal darkroom enlarger is used with a film negative to produce the photo on photo paper...

    Do they make a digital enlarger to project the photo from your computer onto photo paper for processing? (of course it would have to be a negative image)

    .

    They made positive paper for printing Trannys. Those old enough and with enough experience would remember Ciba chrome. Expensive as gold but the depth and shine of the paper was better than anything around since.

    I suppose anyone that's never Done their own colour silver halide printing could have any idea of what's involved. The chemistry has to be accurately mixed. The temp of the chemicals has to be held within .3 of a 0 C , The immersion time is short and critical so it requires a machine to maintain consistancy of the immersion in the baths as well as the chemistry temp. The images have to have a colour calibration dialed in to at least compensate the colour cast in the paper which varies from batch to batch as well as the inherent casts in the image. In the old days even the base of the films was different and required a different colour calibration.

    Then of course it's a wet process so you need to wash and dry the prints. Again normally done in the machine but I had a desktop unit that did the temp stabilisation and the movement through the baths but spat out wet unwashed prints. Finshing them after processing was the biggest chore of all.

    I used to run a Lambda machine years ago. Now that's a digital enlarger! I think it did rolls up to 84" wide or thereabouts and could print the whole roll of paper as one pic as well which we did for a display print. All that machine did was the printing or exposure of the paper then you had to take it out of the machine ( in complete Darkness) and feed it into the processing machine, again in complete darkness.

    Pro labs generally print on Silver halide paper and have machines like Lambda and others. The minilab market as said is changing to Inkjet because of the benifits to them. No more need for a high amp power supply would probably be a big one as well as no more water required. Things would be infinately kighter and more portable as well. You could put them anywhere there was a standard wall outlet.

    When I worked for Kodak setting up minilabs, The biggest problem with the things was people putting the wrong chemicals in the wrong tanks. No matter how colour coded and obvious they made it, people still did it. The 2nd mistake they frequently made was to drain and wash the tanks then fill them with the right chemistry..... Without changing the filterws which then contaminated all the chemistry and required a 2nd batch be wasted. Man they sure sold some chemistry just from that.

    If they are smart they will make the ink cartridges so they only go in the correct spot...... Or maybe they would be smarter to make them fit any spot at all.

    Much more money in service and parts that way! rolleyes1.gif
  • ZimtokZimtok Registered Users Posts: 41 Big grins
    edited September 18, 2014
    My line of thinking was a bit simpler...

    I would have thought that someone had tried to put a projector of some kind in an enlarger type of device that would be connected to a computer.
    On the computer you can create a negative of your photo and send it to the "projector enlarger" and expose the paper just like using a film negative.
    Then just process the paper like in a normal darkroom.

    I guess it can't be that simple or someone would have thought of it....


    .
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,904 moderator
    edited September 18, 2014
    I see where you're headed but today, that wouldn't be at all practical. And probably more costly and less accurate by comparison to almost any printing method used today.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • ZimtokZimtok Registered Users Posts: 41 Big grins
    edited September 18, 2014
    Yea... I figured as much...

    Sometimes the mind wanders outside of the box so far that it can get lost...



    .
  • clupicaclupica Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
    edited September 18, 2014
    If you want the best there is in sending images to a lab, look into doing a digital c-print. Some high end galleries won't accept anything else. A c-print is printed on true photo paper using 3 lasers, one for red, blue, and green. They're expensive but there's nothing like a c-print for reproducing colors and deep blacks. B&W prints are especially stunning.
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,694 moderator
    edited September 22, 2014
    Zimtok,

    Like Glort, I grew up in the darkroom days, and printed both black and white and Cibachrome color prints in my own darkroom. Simple it was not.

    I was and still am thrilled with the capabilities of current modern inkjet printers, and I can't imagine trying to run a silver halide darkroom these days if the chemistry was still available.

    Ink jet printing is just so much easier, cheaper, safer, and more consistent than my darkroom ever was. No comparison. And modern ink jets color stability far outshines halide color prints.

    My enlarger now is my Epson 3800 connected to my computer, and I would not trade it for a real enlarger for any sum.

    I have a very nice 2 1/4 square Besseler 23C II enlarger, with a dichroic color head, if you would like to purchase it. Make me an offer, I won't refuse you.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Sign In or Register to comment.