11x14 enlarger/scanner

[bherg]

Hello....

This is my first post on Apug.

im currently using a 4x5 camera and seeking to upgrade to a larger format.

At the moment im not seeking to contact print i want to enlarge and scan.

So, im looking for a enlarger that can handle 11x14 negatives and a scanner. I want to be able to do really large prints if i want to, to have the ability. I have a bit tight with space, so i was thinking converting another camera with a cold light.

Tried to get some answers on another forum, but didnt see that i got any replies that made me happy.

Are 11x14 the wrong format for me? should i upgrade to 8x10? But i keep thinking bigger film will make bigger prints with high detail, ofcourse i wont make meter sized prints at my home, but i want to know that i can if i want to.

Cheers Johannes from sweden.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you are looking to enlarge, either 5x7 or 8x10 would be your best bets. Larger than 8x10 and you will find the size of equipment needed will go up exponentially, as will the cost. The logistical hassles in enlarging from an 11x14 negative will also increase. That will basically require a glass negative carrier, and that much more attention to dust removal, since you will have that many more square inches to attract it.

The same problems will occur with scanners. There are very few scanners out there which can handle bigger than 8x10 negatives, and they are ridiculously expensive.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

11x14" enlargers exist if you have the space (they are usually horizontal enlargers), and they can be constructed out of old process cameras and such, but 8x10" gives you a lot more options in terms of camera equipment, lenses, enlargers, film choices, filmholders, etc. I shoot 11x14" and I contact print that size.

 

[Ole]

There's a lab in Stockholm (Forstöringsateljéen) which has enlarger capable of taking 20x24" negatives. I would leave the enlarging to them, and provide my very best contact print as a "model" of what I want for the final result.

I have a 5x7" enlarger myself, but have no plans to ever aquire a larger one. 5x7" can be contact printed or enlarged and gives great prints both ways. 8x10" enlargers are just too big; anything bigger even more so.

I've recently got hold of a 24x30cm plate camera, and have decided to drop 11x14" and bigger (30x40cm). The 24x30cm is close enough to 8x10" to be easily portable, and just enough bigger to make a great difference in contact prints!

 

[jd callow]

If you wish to do very large enlargements from large negs you will need a great deal of room -- eventhough the negs are bigger the glass is longer so the distance between film and paper is greater.

As others have stated 8x10 is probably a better way to go than 11x14. A 10x10 (for 8x10) enlarger is far more common then an enlarger for 11x14. If you wish to do big (really really big) prints you'll want a horizontal enlarger. A 10x10 vertical Durst needs about 10' and will give you a 30x40. A 10x10 horizontal durst will give you as big a print as you have tracks and wall space. A couple years ago I sold (not my enlarger simply the ebayer) a closed loop, fully automatic 10x10 Durst HL (Horizonal enlarger) with track, computer controller, lenses etc.. for about 3 or 4,000 USD. The enlarger new was about 150-175,000.00 and was in great shape.

As for scanners the same is true. You can buy a very good 8x10 scanner with transparency adapter for about 2,000.00 or a decent one for about 800.00. A comparable XL scanner (Cero eversmart) will run about 6,000 used (15,000 to 30,000 new if they are still made) at the very good end or 2,000.00 new at the decent end.

 

[df cardwell]

Besides being far less expensive, 8x10 wil prove more efficient than 11x14 to shoot, to enlarge, and to scan. To achieve a negative that is 1.4 times the size of 8x10, you will probably encounter 4x the (already considerable) expense.

Finally, the cost to scan at greater detail than can be achieved by 4x5 will be exceedingly expensive.

best of luck.

 

[Mike A]

Johannes, I've been shooting 11x14 for 2 years or so now. I contact print only, this is realistically your only option, which is fine for me. I look at my old enlargements and as allot of contact printers will tell you there is something intrinsically different in a contact print.

On the flip side, I was interested in seeing what an optical enlargement from 11x14 looked like so I looked high and low for a lab that could create optical enlargements from 11x14 and found none. I would say go with 5x7 or 8x10 if you wish to make sizable enlargements.

Mike

 

[resummerfield]

As almost everyone else has advised, if you want to enlarge, stay with 8x10. I enlarge 8x10, and the prints (up to around 3x) are gorgeous! And doing your own enlarging is much more affordable than having a commercial lab do it. But if you do want prints larger than 24x30 or so, then Ole has the best suggestion….send them to that lab in Stockholm (Forstöringsateljéen).

 

[Curt]

Hi Johannes,

If you have the time, the space, and the money, then the desire is all that's left. There are people who buy big 4x4's with huge engines and only drive them to work on city streets. If it makes you happy and you can handle all that goes along with it then go for it.

I think what most of us here would say is that the largest negative we would want to enlarge is in the 8x10 inch range. But if you need billboard size then that's a good reason. I myself don't have the money to buy the equipment or the space needed. Anyone shooting 11x14 already has the taking equipment and a larger lens can certainly be had, but the enlarger would surely have to be a horizontal and then there is the space needed for projection. A lot to consider. It sounds ambitious, let us know what turns out.

Best Luck,

Curt

 

[df cardwell]

The first portrait I shot in 11x14 was lovely.

The family ordered lots of extra prints.... wallets.

d

 

[ZorkiKat]

The first portrait I shot in 11x14 was lovely.

The family ordered lots of extra prints.... wallets.

d

<LOL>!

My first 4x5 was a portrait too. My "test" subject also wanted nothing but wallet prints..

 

[Brook]

<LOL>!

My first 4x5 was a portrait too. My "test" subject also wanted nothing but wallet prints..

What we need is clients with 11x14 wallets.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Johannes, I've been shooting 11x14 for 2 years or so now. I contact print only, this is realistically your only option, which is fine for me. I look at my old enlargements and as allot of contact printers will tell you there is something intrinsically different in a contact print.

On the flip side, I was interested in seeing what an optical enlargement from 11x14 looked like so I looked high and low for a lab that could create optical enlargements from 11x14 and found none. I would say go with 5x7 or 8x10 if you wish to make sizable enlargements.

Mike

Mike
I have a 11x14 Deveere Enlarger set up in my darkroom that I use for 8x10 but also could do 11x14 negatives. In fact my wishlist includes a 11x14 camera to take full advantage of this enlarger.
Not many around as you say, mine is in *new condition* one of the best gifts given to me by a larger sister lab when they went fully digital.

 

[bherg]

Sounds like i have to think this over, but leaving the printing to "förstorningsatteljen" sounds like a good idea and leave them a good contact print as "model".

But the scanning bit sounds dull, anyway. Going to think about this.

I was veiwing a Webpage by a german artist that had portraits printed on cloth that sized 20x60 feet, but that big make the viewing distance is far far away from the actual enlargment. ( www.helnwein.com ) click on photography.

My only concerns so far is wheight of camera, i would like a wooden one, so thats kinda heavy. And the scanning part.


Cheers Johannes from sweden.

 

[Jim Jones]

Johannes -- I hate to mention this in an analog forum, but scanning the negative, not an enlargement, may be the most practical. A film scanner that permits quite large prints from 4x5 is less expensive than most large format film equipment, and requires little space. Consider the Epson Perfection V700 Photo or Epson Perfection V750-M PRO.

 

[tomf24]

I actually built an 11x14 enlarger (from a horizontle camera) for a friend. So, I've gotten to enlarge and print from both 8x10 and 11x14 negs. My impression..... there is no advantage to enlarging from anything larger than 8x10. I don't know if this is due to film flatness or the quality of the taking lenses. I love the 11x14 for alt contact prints, but I will use 4x5 and 8x10 for enlargements.

 

[SusanK]

Johannes -- I hate to mention this in an analog forum, but scanning the negative, not an enlargement, may be the most practical. A film scanner that permits quite large prints from 4x5 is less expensive than most large format film equipment, and requires little space. Consider the Epson Perfection V700 Photo or Epson Perfection V750-M PRO.

I am considering the purchase of one of these two scanners. I will be scanning 120 and 4x5 film. Can someone tell me what the difference is between the two.... Dmax, dual lenses, resolution appear to be equal between the two. Is the only difference the Pro's ability to do "wet" scans??? I'm not keen on the idea of wetting down a neg. for scanning... some of my negs are "singles", made back in the day when I was too stupid to make two exposures, or when the second frame was exposed incorrectly.

Susan

 

[PHOTOTONE]

One could actually scan an 11x14 negative in sections and stitch it together in photoshop, just like a panoramic multi-part scan. I have scanned 16x20 prints of images I could not find the negative for. If the flatbed scanner has a transparency lid (light in lid) then it can be done. One could also put the larger than 8x10 negative on a light box (masking around it) and then scan it with a scanning back on a 4x5 camera. These scanning backs are not cheap though.

 

[Donald Miller]

Durst Pro has a couple of large enlargers on Ebay now. One of them is a 12X16 vertical. It will make the camera and lenses look cheap in comparison.

 

[SusanK]

scratches & pits in glass....

Just received my V750-M from Calumet. Set everything up and am playing with negative scanning today (just posted "Driftwood - 3" for your comments). Scanner glass looked perfect until the transparency light came on... then I noticed an inch long scratch and a couple of pits in the glass of the non-lid part. Is this normal (I think not)....? For $750 I'd like the glass to be perfect.

Call calumet and exchange it for another scanner....????

susan

 

[Takermaker@aol]

I am happy to see talk about 11x14 inch negatives. I will now add to this site what I have been doing the last two years in my spare time. First I got into emulsion making 10 years ago as a hobby and because I am 76 now and on social security I am not rich .
, But I love photography..did it in high school and navy photolabs. Then got out and went to Hollywood. More photolabs. Then retired to corpus Christi , Tex and at Nixon blue print company. While there I got into a huge vacumm frame with carbon arcs. Still I had to mix chemicals but used no camera equipment. Since I like working with wood I made a 11x14 inch glassplate camera to satisfy my curiosity. I have will submit the photo of that creation later. .it is a reflex camera all out of wood that sits stop a adjustable 3 legged table .I can stand on that small table. Stop that table I put my camera it's 30 inches tall on the table I have to stand on a chair and look at my viewing screen with has a thin gelatin coating with few drops of green food color ..that allows the roofs in your eyes to vie low light better.example night vision scopes. No bellows has 300 mm lf/ 4.5 Russian lomo lens .internal front surface mirror from large discarded big TV that had big mirror inside those old TV,s also had a large frenzel lens .he internal mirror was front surface coated most are 25x36 inches I side .I/inch thick and must be an expert to cut that thing to proper size to reflect the image up ..built the camera from mounted stationary mirror up. .first wooden cameras I built then the mirror didn't work out s you need the mirror the lens and the screen In position first held in place the you add your case /body..my enlarger is unique in itself besides building the wood frame the standard that holds the prepared material you will print on that is limited only to holding prepared canvas the 11x24 inch negative drops into pace at the rear standard that move to and fro and right and left.when negative is in place behind that is another carrier 6 inches deep that has 336 high output white LEDs mounted that attaches to rear of rear standard...this is just a taste of what I have been doing. I live in the desert outside El Paso Texas not rich and build everything out of discarded junk people throw out here in the desert. I submit this to the viewers so the can now you don't need to buy nothing if you can build it.this site is excellent for people who search for alternative ways to do things .my hat is off to those members who present I formation on this subject..11x14 inch is not difficult..will submit pic for your enjoyment soon will travel out west .have to find a cheap place with no wind blown sand in a small town to open a school for all I do

 

[pentaxuser]

Takermaker@aol. If you have posted to tell us of your experience of 11x14 that's great. On the other hand if it is in response to the thread's originator and largely for that person's benefit then in case you didn't see how old the thread is and what the gap has been since the post prior to yours I'd like to point out that the thread is over 13 years old and the originator has not been seen since 2007

If you spotted all of the above then my apologies. It is just that I have been caught out myself in this respect in the past.

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

... and many of the people who replied here, have not been seen in years.

 

[Juan farrias]

... and many of the people who replied here, have not been seen in years.

I didn't realize how old those posts were. I have located a goof size building in Juarez Mexico .I'm in El Paso at this moment taking apert my projection enlarger.it is a floor mounted enlarger holding frame that is 44 x 56 inches inside can hold large prepared stretched canvas..it is of canvas poliester inprenated material that is water proof coated with akykloid white enamal.that gets my emulsion .chloride was very sliw so had to make bromide iodide emulsion frame that holds canvas slides from 70 inches to 45 inches from a stationary 300mm lomo lens reversed that focuses on my 11x14 inch negative that is in a light tight box .the negative is very bright as behide the negative are 240 five mm dia super bright white LEDs on a 14 x 16. 1/ 2 thick foam board with 240 five mm holes . The foam board was marked off with 5/8 inch squares .and a . 5 mm holes drilled where the lines crossed the LEDs took 3 volts each so four wired in series took 12 volts. Instaed the 5 mm LEDs into the holes with one drop of super. Glue that I perchused from Dollar tree. This project involves using a soldering gun to connect all the LEDs and the best way to solder all the sets of four LEDs to 12 volts .number 24 wire or 22 wired to each led.one us the anode the other legs is the cathode when all LEDs wired this foam board is supplied with a plus terminal on one side and a negative terminal on the opposite. From these two terminals wire of number18 is attached and this is run to a twelve volt motorcycle battery this foam board back is located four inches behind the negative which is four inches from this light source. Two 11 by 14 inch glass plates which are from the Dollar tree store very thin sold as 11by 14 picture frames are my source for negatives.but two of these are required to diffuse the light from the 240 bright LEDs. In the four inch space between the light source the the negative one is placed 1/ 2 from the negative the other is placed 1/2 from the light source. But first go on utub to learn how to grind a frosted glass. When this is accomplished you will have an 11x14 enlarger better than a horizonal unit..the 300 mm lens sits an a standard and can focus from 7 to 25 inches from the negative