Autopan vs colenta ra-4 machines

Hi.
I got two offers. One for a autopan and one for a colenta. Same width, 130cm, same age. Same state.

As i understand it, the autopan is a simpler product more aimed at smaller labs. Fewer special parts but not as refined. Or?

Does anyone have any experience with these 1990s machines and can generally compare them?

I also found a 200cm version of the autopan developer. Very cool! But is there any papers for such a wide beast?

Thanks.

Moderator Note: Typo corrected in the name "Autopan".

You're nutz to buy such a huge machine. Absolutely no reason to have such a thing. 50" width capacity? For RA4 I have a baby Durst will process up to 8 inch width. Even this requires tedious setup and clean up. You cannot leave these machines with chemistry in them even over night.

Do you really want to enlarge an 8x10 color negative to 50 inch wide paper?

Smaller prints (20x24" eg) can simply be placed in a dry tray, then drenched with a liter of 40°C developer for 1 minute, followed by blix for same. No need to get crazy. RA-4 is so easy.

Hi.
My mental well-being is not up for public discussion. but maybe you are right about the machine.

Anyway this is for a kind of community lab project. Not really for my personal enjoyment only. And since im a color photographer, I only do c41, the machine makes sense. It would then run in sessions. Perhaps 1-2 weeks from time to time and be cleaned in-between.

Of course I could also get a smaller one (I already have a 30 cm RT for tests). But I got the space and money and it would be fun to be able to have the capacity. There is also very few labs that can offer this nowadays. If I don't want lambda or Chromira it's the best way...

Hey, Yeah.

Fun is the best reason!!!

Sounds like a great crazy idea. Go for it!
One thing to consider: Colenta still exists and they might be able to give support....

I wrote a bit with Thomas Stäbler at https://www.autopan.de

He still repair and service the Autopan units in Europe.

ScandiPhoto said:

It would then run in sessions. Perhaps 1-2 weeks from time to time and be cleaned in-between.

Click to expand...

The main question that should be the determining factor is how much RA-4 it takes to start up one of the machines under consideration, and how much throughput you will need to make it cost effective.

A big part of why Durst Printos seem so sought after right now is that they only need 2.5L/ tank for a 12" width RT - and the vanishingly rare wider model was 5L tank for 20"/ 50.8cm.

Lachlan Young said:

cost effective

Click to expand...

This cannot be the criterion. If it is, he'd contract out the printing to any old digital print shop. Evidently, this is about something else, that requires the process of printing to be performed as part of the artistic process. He also indicated the size requirement which exceeds the alternatives you mention.

Lachlan Young said:

how much RA-4 it takes to start up one of the machines under consideration

Click to expand...

The machine can be drained into any suitable type of airtight containers so the chemistry can be stored during periods of non-use. The machine can be rinsed with a couple of changes of water. While this may not be ideal and not how these machines were originally intended to be used, it's an alternative that would make sense for today's reality.

Besides, there's no real alternative that still allows for a decent flow between iterations in the artistic process.

Lachlan Young said:

The main question that should be the determining factor is how much RA-4 it takes to start up one of the machines under consideration, and how much throughput you will need to make it cost effective.

A big part of why Durst Printos seem so sought after right now is that they only need 2.5L/ tank for a 12" width RT - and the vanishingly rare wider model was 5L tank for 20"/ 50.8cm.

Click to expand...

Cost efficiency is not the goal here. But it is absolutely something to consider. But getting back to the original question.Its hard to find any real information about the different versions from the different brands. Size of tanks, replenishing system and so on.

If anyone has info or experience, please share it

ScandiPhoto said:

I wrote a bit with Thomas Stäbler at https://www.autopan.de

He still repair and service the Autopan units in Europe.

Click to expand...

@ScandiPhoto ,
In my province, we have a publicly organized, government auto insurer (ICBC) whose product is known as "AutoPlan".
When I saw your thread title and first post, I was amazed to think that someone would use the exact same name for our auto insurer's product a darkroom colour paper processor!
Do I understand correctly that the thread should be referring to "Autopan" and not "Autoplan"?
And would you like us to make the necessary corrections?

Ofcourse. My phone keeps changing it all the time. Autopan. Nothing else.

ScandiPhoto said:

Ofcourse. My phone keeps changing it all the time. Autopan. Nothing else.

Click to expand...

@ScandiPhoto '
Done.
Who knew that your phone's auto-correct must have been set up by someone in British Columbia, Canada .

MattKing said:

@ScandiPhoto '


Done.
Who knew that your phone's auto-correct must have been set up by someone in British Columbia, Canada .

Click to expand...

I think it is a german hiway fleet planing system as well

I w

Lachlan Young said:

The main question that should be the determining factor is how much RA-4 it takes to start up one of the machines under consideration, and how much throughput you will need to make it cost effective.

Click to expand...

The smallest 130 cm autopan has 16 gallons (60L), the longer one 25 (94L) tanks. 100L of Fuji developer is 110 EUR in shop.
Depending on the machine I calculate a total cost of around 4-500 EUR to start the machine. It's not that expensive considering what a professional Lambda print cost nowdays.

Since I dont know the size of the machine I will buy, it's a theoretical. But I find the prices resonable.

Depends on how much paper volume one can keep up with. I turned down a free 50 inch roller transport processor still in great shape because I didn't want to deal with that much chemical volume at a time (I'm somewhat allergic to RA4 chem). Large drums work better for me personally, and I run them outdoors on a portable processing cart. But of course, drums are slower to work with, if the objective is to make a lot of large prints, rather than just a few. You need good ventilation either way.

I'm planning to mostly do 20X24 and 24X30 prints this upcoming season, but probably some 30X40 inch ones too. Anything larger than that is not practical for me in terms of darkroom elbow room, my mounting and matcutting setup, and the practicality of shipping in framed fashion. One of my 8X10 color enlargers is 14 ft tall, so could hypothetically handle 40 X 60 inch prints; but I'm not going there, especially now, during the downhill side of my 70's.

I wonder if Matt knows that Autopen signatures are a subject of legal debate in this country.

The RA-4 process, and those machines, are meant to be running at full volume all the time. I operated a 42" Kreonite RA-4 machine for many years, and it was only happy when working flat-out. Under-utilization will cause process-control problems, and you'll be spending a lot more time on maintenance than you'd like.
I'd suggest a smaller machine- 24" wide would let you offer 24x30 prints.
Please forgive the Imperial measurements, and best of luck!

DREW WILEY said:

Large drums work better for me personally, and I run them outdoors on a portable processing cart. But of course, drums are slower to work with, if the objective is to make a lot of large prints, rather than just a few. You need good ventilation either way.

Click to expand...

Do you do color prints? I figure the hardest bit, expect cumbersome handling is temperature control.

MarkS said:

The RA-4 process, and those machines, are meant to be running at full volume all the time. I operated a 42" Kreonite RA-4 machine for many years, and it was only happy when working flat-out. Under-utilization will cause process-control problems, and you'll be spending a lot more time on maintenance than you'd like.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. If one were to store the machine for short or longer periods. Should it be stored empty/dry, or filled with water?

Yes, I do color printing in drums up to 30X40 inch capacity. Temperature control is easy unless the surrounding ambient air temp is way out of whack. The whole point is controlling the temp INSIDE the drum. My bigger drums are made of an expensive thermoplastic which is especially well-insulating, called Noryl. The smaller drums are conventional ABS. A generous plain-water pre-rinse at the correct temp preconditions the inside of the drum, as well as the paper surface. Then a 2 min Dev step at 30C is just right, being short enough to prevent temp drift, and long enough to factor the fill and drain times without signifiant variation.

I do the chem steps one-shot (no replenishment or recycling); but the necessary volumes are remarkably low if one has efficient drums. The chem bottles are kept pre-heated in a simple Jobo tempering box. Although I also have a far more expensive and precise thermoregulator system, there's no need for that in RA4 work; the Jobo water jacket is quite adequate. No exterior water jacket is present on the roller device itself - no need. But I do have some special tweaks built into this machine which smaller Jobos machines do not; it's a much more substantial rig.

MarkS said:

The RA-4 process, and those machines, are meant to be running at full volume all the time. I operated a 42" Kreonite RA-4 machine for many years, and it was only happy when working flat-out. Under-utilization will cause process-control problems, and you'll be spending a lot more time on maintenance than you'd like.
I'd suggest a smaller machine- 24" wide would let you offer 24x30 prints.
Please forgive the Imperial measurements, and best of luck!

Click to expand...

This is essentially my view too, it's also the reason why people often want rid of the machines @ScandiPhoto is considering buying, and why smaller RA4 machines are quite expensive in comparison. Same reason why De Vere 5108s are pretty popular, they're more vibration resistant (and largely inherently more precise) & more ergonomic than most of the big Dursts & will fit under many domestic ceilings, where a Durst 184 with most of its heads won't.

The Eco RA4 line from Colenta requires much less chemistry (7.5L/ tank for the 55cm and 10L/ tank for the 80cm) and some can even be run on single phase 230v supplies (which is another issue that nobody seems to have brought up).

How I print 16x20 ra-4

16x20 uses 8 fl.oz of chemistry (you can get by with less)

Lachlan - I live six blocks from the infamous Hayward Fault, which has produced worse quakes in SF itself than even the fabled 1906 San Francisco earthquake due the parallel San Andreas fault. I have ZERO vibration on any of my Durst 138 or 184 columns. Simple - they're wall bolted and floor fixed just like they're supposed to be. Living in earthquake country just adds to that common-sense necessity. My really big custom color enlarger, 14 ft tall, is built like a tank. I can actually stand on the baseboard without flexing it. Some of its components actually are military surplus. Tall columns have their advantages, like working with longer than "normal" focal length lenses more often. I have my luxuries, having begun darkroom work in a spare bedroom and bathroom, and knowing exactly what I wanted next, and building it while I could.

And there's sure as heck nothing imprecise about any of my Durst enlargers. Like any other piece of fine equipment, one needs to tune them up and not merely install them. I have precision levels and squares to check other levels and squares, and had access to industrial lasers to check my personal lasers - sheer overkill with no real difference in even a large print; but I like working with fine equipment.

Another problem with low ceilings is being too close to hot colorheads. Fire hazard is one obvious risk; the other is just having too much ambient hot air surrounding the head. My ducting inlet is above the head, and the ceiling is covered with FRP (fire-resistant fiberglass panel). That helps if there's any insurance or business zoning issues, plus being common sense with high-wattage halogen light sources. Back when I had a hotter than hell 200W Durst colorhead, I used it in horizontal mode. But that took up too much floor space once I added several other enlargers.

Well, mshchem - that looks like a DIY copy of one of those Old Kodak external rim drum processors. I've always wondered how well one of those would work with large fiber-based black and white paper, which tends to collapse inside a drum. Not that I'm going to test the idea - just buying a box of 16X20 b&w paper has gotten awfully expensive these days; and my notion of using an external net drum would hypothetically apply to more like 30X40 inch b&w prints. Still - worth pondering.