A Site for Photographers by Photographers

digital enlarger

Ray Clemmer , Aug 22, 2011; 07:53 a.m.

anyone ever retro a cheap digital projector into a digital Enlarger for their darkroom?... looking for equipt used and the results obtained....


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Steve Smith , Aug 22, 2011; 08:08 a.m.

The resolution would be terrible but it would work.

Ray Clemmer , Aug 22, 2011; 08:18 a.m.

steve, you mean the lens will be soft or there will be pixel problems?

Marc Rochkind , Aug 22, 2011; 08:43 a.m.

I suppose you know this, but producing a wet print from a digital image would be more expensive than and produce worse results than would making an inkjet print.

Dave Redmann , Aug 22, 2011; 09:49 a.m.

Any "cheap digital projector" is going to have extremely low resolution, 1 MP or less. Unless you're making wallet-size prints--and that would harly seem worth any trouble--the resolution is going to be very low. And that's ignoring all of the other problems and challenges that could well exist.

Durst or somebody made a digital enlarger, I guess mostly for printing digital images onto FB paper in a wet darkroom. I suspect it cost many thousands of dollars. From what I've seen (a couple of test prints), the quality was good, though.

Ray Clemmer , Aug 22, 2011; 09:53 a.m.

there is no 'ink jet' print that can compare with a silver gelatin b/w print and never will be... i'm not a rich man and can't afford this-->http://de-vere.com/products.htm .... looking for alternatives.... digital negative processing is simple with software, much more so than dodging and burning ever was . . . why the photo community hasn't embraced a cross between the old and new technologies, taking the best of both, and made the best of both possible i dont understand other than to say the corporate has had their influence too much so for the artist to see such a happening take place.... side by side in a gallery the 'ink jet' to me looks like a piece of @%^$ when hung beside a quality darkroom made product... the digital camera is a blessing but the counterpart inkjet print is not, and that is my humble opinion.yours will probably be different, i'm sure

Michael Axel , Aug 22, 2011; 10:01 a.m.

The problem they speak of with a digital projector is that there will be a lot of pixelation. It could be a neat effect if done right, but it would be nowhere close to that of a regular enlarger. DeVere and Durst make/made digital enlargers, and the price on the Dursts were well into the tens of thousands of dollars. Expensive enough you could only justify the cost by using it in a commercial lab setting.

Ray Clemmer , Aug 22, 2011; 10:06 a.m.

everyone, please explain what you mean by the 'resolution'..? pixels showing? what?... when i see a projected LARGE image from a projector it looks fine, why would it not result in a decent 16x20? when it looks good wall size..?

Dave S , Aug 22, 2011; 10:18 a.m.

You can get a B & W gelatin-silver print from a digital file using a lightjet printer, if that's what you want. Mpix (and probably many other labs) offer this as a routine service at a reasonable price.

IIRC, the paper is a special Ilford RC paper optimized for lightjet. Some high-end custom labs will do lightjet to fiber-based paper.

Ray Clemmer , Aug 22, 2011; 10:36 a.m.

Dave, thanks, never heard the term 'lightjet' so i did a search ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightJet .... and of course this cool idea is out of production, i guess its cost was just too much.. but i do see the labs that still have them in use.. thanks for the alternative.. but heck, i like to diy, of course, satisfying the creative urge.... but have almost completely given up film for a memory card from the great convenience, but the for the few 'good ones' i do prefer silver prints.. dang, just wish there was a good cross technology darkroom product avail for the home, guess not..

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses