Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital enlarger

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 6:40:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

For projecting digital file images
onto photographic paper. For those
who miss the chemicals!~

http://www.benboardman.com.au/bb/devere/dv504d.shtml

More about : digital enlarger

Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:09:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> 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

--
-- 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.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:09:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cv5p2q$9tp$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> RichA wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> --
> -- 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.

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.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Related resources
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 12:14:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 12:37:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Xns9601E22E016B8klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

--
LF 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
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 12:37:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> > 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
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 3:24:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:cv5p2q$9tp$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> > RichA wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >
> > --
> > -- 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.
>
> 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.

You might be interested in this then
http://www.bestlab.com/sanmig15.html

A lab offering digital B&W prints.

Lisa
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 3:26:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gregory Blank wrote:
>
> In article <Xns9601E22E016B8klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
> Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 5:26:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:22:43 -0800, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:cv5p2q$9tp$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> RichA wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> --
>> -- 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.
>
>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.

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
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 10:45:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <lk4f11dm9dcrohl7ckeuiegs9adcmodm8g@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>
> 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.

--
LF 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
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 10:51:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <37n6ghF5fq28sU1@individual.net>,
"Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> wrote:

> > > 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.

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.

--
LF 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
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 12:41:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <4217A09B.74E0E24A@lisahorton.net>,
Lisa Horton <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote:

> 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.

--
LF 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
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 1:26:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:4217A09B.74E0E24A@lisahorton.net...
>
>
> Skip M wrote:
>>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:cv5p2q$9tp$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> > RichA wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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
>> >
>> > --
>> > -- 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> You might be interested in this then
> http://www.bestlab.com/sanmig15.html
>
> A lab offering digital B&W prints.
>
> 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.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 2:54:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
>
> "Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
> news:4217A09B.74E0E24A@lisahorton.net...
> >
> >
> > Skip M wrote:
> >>
> >> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:cv5p2q$9tp$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> >> > RichA wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 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
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > -- 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > You might be interested in this then
> > http://www.bestlab.com/sanmig15.html
> >
> > A lab offering digital B&W prints.
> >
> > 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.

Their prices did seem rather high to me. You do sound like someone who
could actually use this though.

Lisa
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 8:34:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:4218422A.7899E625@lisahorton.net...
>
>
> Skip M wrote:
>>
>> "Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
>> news:4217A09B.74E0E24A@lisahorton.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > Skip M wrote:
>> >>
..
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > You might be interested in this then
>> > http://www.bestlab.com/sanmig15.html
>> >
>> > A lab offering digital B&W prints.
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> Their prices did seem rather high to me. You do sound like someone who
> could actually use this though.
>
> 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?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:22:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <D4WRd.32404$xt.12779@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
says...
> 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.

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
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:22:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@yeah.right> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8204c5151a9c3f98a616@news.verizon.net...
> In article <D4WRd.32404$xt.12779@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
> says...
>> 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.
>
> 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

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.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 2:09:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
>
> "Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
> news:4218422A.7899E625@lisahorton.net...
> >
> >
> > Skip M wrote:
> >>
> >> "Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
> >> news:4217A09B.74E0E24A@lisahorton.net...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Skip M wrote:
> >> >>
> .
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > You might be interested in this then
> >> > http://www.bestlab.com/sanmig15.html
> >> >
> >> > A lab offering digital B&W prints.
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >
> > Their prices did seem rather high to me. You do sound like someone who
> > could actually use this though.
> >
> > 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?
>

Sorry, I meant that you could perhaps use the device, not the seemingly
overpriced service :) 

Lisa
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 4:12:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:4218E080.4C345AA6@lisahorton.net...
>
>
> Skip M wrote:
>>
>> "Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
>> news:4218422A.7899E625@lisahorton.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > Skip M wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:4217A09B.74E0E24A@lisahorton.net...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Skip M wrote:
>> >> >>
>> .
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > You might be interested in this then
>> >> > http://www.bestlab.com/sanmig15.html
>> >> >
>> >> > A lab offering digital B&W prints.
>> >> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> > Their prices did seem rather high to me. You do sound like someone who
>> > could actually use this though.
>> >
>> > 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?
>>
>
> Sorry, I meant that you could perhaps use the device, not the seemingly
> overpriced service :) 
>
> Lisa

Ah, then... :-)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 5:38:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <D4WRd.32404$xt.12779@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> 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?

--
LF 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
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 5:41:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <4218422A.7899E625@lisahorton.net>,
Lisa Horton <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote:

>
> 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.

--
LF 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
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:14:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:45:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Vq0Sd.32419$xt.18632@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
says...
> > 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
>
> 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.

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"!
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:48:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <bugstopped_-70CF00.09435320022005@news.verizon.net>,
bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com says...
> >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.
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:50:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Xns9603CDD85C78Aklotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com says...
> > 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.

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.
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 11:35:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Xns9603CDD85C78Aklotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

> 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

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.

--
LF 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
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 11:42:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c82b4123017e46f98a61b@news.verizon.net>,
Brian Baird <no@yeah.right> wrote:

> 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.

--
LF 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
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 11:52:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c82b39346417aa798a61a@news.verizon.net>,
Brian Baird <no@yeah.right> wrote:

> In article <bugstopped_-70CF00.09435320022005@news.verizon.net>,
> bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com says...
> > >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 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 .

--
LF 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
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 12:31:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <bugstopped_-5EBE2F.15474820022005@news.verizon.net>,
bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com says...
> > 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.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:13:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 5:52:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Xns9603EC2A43AB7klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

> 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

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 :-)

--
LF 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
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 10:35:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> 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

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
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:49:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:45:47 GMT, Brian Baird <no@yeah.right> wrote:
>
> 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"!

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.

--
Ben 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
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 7:01:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:45:47 GMT, Brian Baird <no@yeah.right> wrote:
>>
>> 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"!
>
>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.

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.
------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 12:40:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:01:09 -0500, Doug Mitton <doug_mitton@hotmail.x.com>
wrote:
> Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>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.

--
Ben 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
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 7:42:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:26:45 -0800, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>"Lisa Horton" <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
>news:4217A09B.74E0E24A@lisahorton.net...
>>
>>
>> Skip M wrote:
>>>
>>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:cv5p2q$9tp$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>> > RichA wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> 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
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > -- 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You might be interested in this then
>> http://www.bestlab.com/sanmig15.html
>>
>> A lab offering digital B&W prints.
>>
>> 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.

Printing on fibre entails more work than resin. The wash process
being one aspect.
-Rich
!