11x14 Enlarger, anyone?

[Removed Account]

Actually 12x16.... Dead Link Removed


- I just looked at it this way a 35mm negative (24 x 36mm) enlarged to 5x7 print is roughly a 26X enlargement. Use this to enlarge an 11 x 14 negative to 55 X 70", ad that is still only about a 20X enlargement!!!! Even better, apparently they can custom build a 20 X 24 enlarger, but there is no info listed on the site except to call them. Now if I could just afford the camera, let alone the enlarger...

 

[Chazzy]

I'm mathematically challenged, but I'm surprised to read that a 5x7 is roughly a 26x enlargement from 35mm. I would have guessed that it was more like 6x or thereabouts. Or are you figuring this on the basis of area?

 

[Mick Fagan]

Probably a great enlarger, but no good for me as I don't have room for a stepladder in the darkroom!

Mick.

 

[papagene]

Holy cow!! I can fit my whole darkroom into the head of that enlarger!

gene

 

[Chazzy]

It's a pretty sure thing that a loving and understanding wife would agree to getting one of these things, isn't it?

 

[Sparky]

it makes me think... why could you not use a converted copy camera for a ULF enlarger?? All you have to do is build a light source on the bottom stage, where you put the negative. It's sort of an enlarger in reverse. Know what I mean??

 

[jovo]

I've written about this before, but it sticks in my mind to such an extent that it's worth a retelling.

A few years ago in Jacksonville Fl. (my wife is a native), there was a studio tour that included the Jennifer Johnson Gallery's darkroom. OMIGAWD!!! There were stainless steel sinks big enough to do an autopsy on Frankenstein and Godzilla at the same time with dedicated, stainless exhaust vents at the back of each sink. But the other monster in the room was the 11x14 enlarger. Whadda cool assembly that was! It was vertical, as in the one illustrated here, with an easel table that had large adjustment wheels and the capacity to make enormous prints. Susan had to drag me out of the room before my shirt became embarrassingly wet with drool. It was an experience not unlike my encounter with a Wilson Whamm speaker array many years ago (something on the order of $80,000.00 at that time). Both of those experiences have been instrumental to my propensity to perpetually purchase lottery tickets....gambling for those like me who are really bad at math!

 

[Sparky]

Ha! Funny - I KNOW the WHAMMs of which you speak! I used to have the watt/puppy.

 

[patrickjames]

With the price of everything else being what it is these days, that doesn't really look too expensive. But I guess you gotta have the space.

Patrick

 

[Curt]

That's just great, I was going to bid on it too, now everyone will know.

 

[richard ide]

It is on my watch list. But just out of curiosity. Honest!

If anyone is considering a beast such as this, I would be happy to share my construction experiences. I built 2 enlargers more or less from scratch (12 x 18 and 20 x 24) and re-engineered a 20 x 24 process camera into an enlarger which would take a 30 x 48 negative. My vacuum easel was 78" x 192". Floor track was 30'.

 

[Removed Account]

I'm mathematically challenged, but I'm surprised to read that a 5x7 is roughly a 26x enlargement from 35mm. I would have guessed that it was more like 6x or thereabouts. Or are you figuring this on the basis of area?

This is how I calculated that:

(the dimensions of 5x7 film may be off, like 35mm is not 35mm, but should be close)

25.4mm in an inch

5 x 25.4 = 127mm
7 x 25.4 = 177.8mm

127 x 177.8 = 22580.6mm^2 area for 5x7

35mm from is 24x36mm
24 x 36 = 864mm^2

22580.6 / 864 = 26.13495370370..........

Or 127 / 24 = 5.29

177.8 = 4.94

5.29 x 4.94 = 26.1326


I was surprised at first too... but there it is!

- Justin

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have a Deveere 11x14 enlarger in Mint Condition. great for 8x10negs and showing rebate.
My only problem is I do not have a 11x14 camera for making exposures.
This is on my wish list but still trying to pay off the equipment right now.
This enlarger was introduced in the mid 80's to a lab I worked at. I believe they paid well over 35k for this piece of art. It got very little use and was kept in very safe storage.
The lab phoned me up and asked me if I wanted it and of course I jumped at the chance. 11x14 deveere, 8x10 Durst 2000 horizontal and vertical, and 8x10 Condensor Deveere. Just pick them up by Fri and they were mine for free.
It pays to leave past employers with good feelings.

 

[Chazzy]

This is how I calculated that:

I was surprised at first too... but there it is!

- Justin

What I don't understand, Justin, is why you are calculating degree of enlargement from areas. An 8x10 from a 4x5 negative has four times the area, but is only considered a 2x enlargement, isn't it?

 

[Removed Account]

That's not my understanding, but I've been wrong before I'm just going with the idea that it would take 4 4x5" films to make up the area of 1 8x10. Sort of like needing 4 times as much carpet for the 8x10 room as the 4x5, I'd be walking on bare pine half the time!

11x14 deveere, 8x10 Durst 2000 horizontal and vertical, and 8x10 Condensor Deveere. Just pick them up by Fri and they were mine for free.

Bob, I know we haven't formally met, but have I told you you're my best friend? Now I just need to befriend someone with the apropriate cameras...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In photographic parlance enlargement and magnification factors are usually expressed in linear terms, not area, so an 8x10" enlargement from a 4x5" neg is usually referred to as "2x."

 

[Bob Carnie]

I was thinking I need to become best friends with someone with an 11x14 camera and trade enlargments for camera time.

That's not my understanding, but I've been wrong before I'm just going with the idea that it would take 4 4x5" films to make up the area of 1 8x10. Sort of like needing 4 times as much carpet for the 8x10 room as the 4x5, I'd be walking on bare pine half the time!



Bob, I know we haven't formally met, but have I told you you're my best friend? Now I just need to befriend someone with the apropriate cameras...

 

[Bob Carnie]

I agree with David on this

In photographic parlance enlargement and magnification factors are usually expressed in linear terms, not area, so an 8x10" enlargement from a 4x5" neg is usually referred to as "2x."

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Actually 12x16.... Dead Link Removed


- I just looked at it this way a 35mm negative (24 x 36mm) enlarged to 5x7 print is roughly a 26X enlargement. Use this to enlarge an 11 x 14 negative to 55 X 70", ad that is still only about a 20X enlargement!!!! Even better, apparently they can custom build a 20 X 24 enlarger, but there is no info listed on the site except to call them. Now if I could just afford the camera, let alone the enlarger...

I would love to see someone use this enlarger for Minox size Sub-Miniture negatives.

 

[Removed Account]

In photographic parlance enlargement and magnification factors are usually expressed in linear terms, not area, so an 8x10" enlargement from a 4x5" neg is usually referred to as "2x."

That does not compute....... **BSOD**



In a way that works in favour of absurdity... That would make a 5x7 from 35mm roughly a 4.93X enlargement, so an equivalent 11x14 print would be a hair over 69 inches on the long side. Viewing the print would progress in this fashion: :confused: :rolleyes:


Since Keith brought brought up Minox:

Neg 8mm x 11mm, 5x7 print 177.8 on long side....... 16.16X enlargemnt... 14" x 16 = 224, 11" x 16 = 176

How does a 224" X 176" Print sound (look)?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's just a convention. It's not as if people don't know that an 8x10" print is four times the area of a 4x5". They still call it "2x," because that's what most other photographers do.

 

[RoBBo]

It's just a convention. It's not as if people don't know that an 8x10" print is four times the area of a 4x5". They still call it "2x," because that's what most other photographers do.

Odd, I'd consider it a 4x, not on the basis of the area, but the basis of how you compensate for exposure in printing when going from one to the other.
I don't understand where anyone gets 2x...
I've started working with an 11x14 camera lately, and have been thumbing through my head the thoughts of enlarging the negatives...
Maybe someday, but as it is, 11x14 is a pretty good sized image already, and they're unbelievably sharp and grainless, who wants to lose that by making some ridiculously large print?

...

Well actually, I kinda do.

 

[Curt]

I might get it to make 8x10's

Probably some Dentist who has a lot of AZO paper will buy it and convert the head to high intensity.

 

[Curt]

I see 2x as being four times the area and twice the enlargment. A 4x5 is one quarter the area of an 8x10 print. A print from a 4x5 inch negative enlarged 4x would be 16x20.

 

[Removed Account]

I might get it to make 8x10's

Do they still call it enlarging if the "enlargement" is small than the negative?