darkroom size, is this enough?

[MattKing]

On the subject of "how many enlargers"...

There are a few reasons to use more than one.

1. Smaller enlargers can be better suited to smaller formats. That being said, I happily use my 4x5 enlarger for 135, although it works better with a 60mm lens than a 50mm lens.

2. If you are planning to do both colour and black and white, you might prefer a colour head for one and another light source for black and white. That being said, many people (including myself in the past) have used colour heads very successfully with variable contrast black and white printing.

3. A second light source in a darkroom can be very useful for flashing paper, and for a standardized contact proofing procedure. It can also be useful for more complex procedures, like combining multiple images in the same print.

Of course, a second enlarger makes it easy for two people to print at the same time.

I have my old 6x7 enlarger in storage still, because I hope to some day have the space to use it beside my current 4x5 enlarger, and because it has a colour head.

 

[trythis]

On the subject of "how many enlargers"...

There are a few reasons to use more than one.

clip....

This sounds like camera GAS all over again but they seem like fair enough reasons.

It sounds like two, a 35 and a 4x5, would be the most I would bother with but if a 6x9 in awesome condition it could take the 4x5 s place. I doubt I would want to process color, but 2 years ago a passed on a very nice Saunders 4x5 color unit with all the bits, I just didnt think I would ever get that interested in enlargers. ooops

 

[paul_c5x4]

Don't be too quick to dismiss a colour head - They are very useful when it comes to using variable contrast paper and you have the ability to "dial in" the grades. Sure, you can use the gel filters, but these can be easily damaged and also need replacing once in a while.

A second enlarger is also handy if you want do a montage. For example, a stunning view with a boring sky on one neg, on another, the perfect sky but little else - With a bit of careful masking, the two negatives can be combined in to one image. If you want to see just how far you can go with this technique, have a look at Jerry Uelsmann's work.

 

[Jim Jones]

I learned enlarging in a 4x6 foot darkroom. Two people could work in it if needed. My biggest darkroom was 8x12 feet with medium format and 5x7 enlargers and a desk, but no running water. I'd still be using it if it hadn't burned down decades ago. My present darkroom is about 60 square feet in area, but irregular in shape. It's big enough for a 4x5 and medium format enlarger and an 8 foot sink. In a small darkroom, trays can be stacked vertically. Bulky supplies can be stored away from the darkroom, but having some chemicals, tanks, trays, and water stored in the darkroom maintains them at a working temperature. Do provide more electrical outlets than seems necessary now. I've had over a dozen items plugged into my DR outlets.

 

[MartinP]

I just measured my darkroom area and it is 170x300 (approx. 6 1/2 feet by 9 1/2 feet), although not all of the space is used as there is a radiator and window taking most of one wall. There is no water and no drain, but I have two surplus office tables holding a wet and dry side. Washing is done via a holding tray which I then take to a shower-room with water etc. Processing is in trays for smaller prints and a Nova processor for up to 16x20". The dry-side table has a big De Vere and smaller Meopta which complement each other well. I'd say that your 8x8 feet space is a near perfect size.

 

[trythis]

In a small darkroom, trays can be stacked vertically. Bulky supplies can be stored away from the darkroom, but having some chemicals, tanks, trays, and water stored in the darkroom maintains them at a working temperature. Do provide more electrical outlets than seems necessary now. I've had over a dozen items plugged into my DR outlets.

I never mentioned this but there is a 2ft x 4 foot deep closet and a bathroom that currently has a door facing the darkroom's future location.

Should I move the bathroom door out of the darkroom and put it in the next room? Or would having a WC in the darkroom be a luxury?

 

[polyglot]

My darkroom is my laundry (it has a washing machine under the bench but no dryer), and it's 1800x2500 (about 6x8 feet) with a 650mm bench along the long edge. I can print up to 20x24" in there from 4x5" negs, though I don't have good wet/dry-side separation and it is a little cramped for handling large paper. 8x8 feet should be plenty for a single-user darkroom, especially if you can put benches along two opposing walls.

The trick is to get a Jobo (or any old simple rolling base with no bath if you only do B&W) and do all your paper processing in a tube/tank rather than trays. With trays, I suspect 8x10" would be the limit for my little room.

 

[trythis]

You can develop paper in tanks? Wow did not know that.

 

[MattKing]

You can develop paper in tanks? Wow did not know that.

Research printing tubes or tanks, and you will learn lots.

I prefer the Cibachrome/Ilfochrome tubes, but there are lots of choices.

 

[polyglot]

Jobo has a whole line of tanks designed for paper. For example, I use a 3063 to print to 16x20 and 20x24. It will also process 6 sheets of 8x10 in a single batch... A jobo also makes colour printing really easy; you expose the paper in the dark, stuff it in the tank and then turn the light on. You can do the processing while not blind, and you don't touch the chemicals which are notably nastier than for B&W.

While a CPP2 is kind of "big" - a bit over a metre long - you only need one of it. Doing FB properly requires 6 trays (dev, stop, fix, fix, rinse, HCA) and then a separate film washer, which is an insane bench/sink area compared to one Jobo doing all the steps in series. You also lose the opportunity to put nasty crinkles in the floppy wet paper while transferring it between trays.

A Jobo also uses much less chemistry, e.g. 50-60mL of developer for an 8x10" or 300mL for a 20x24", compared to 2L for an 8x10 tray and many many litres for a 20x24 tray.

The drawback is that a Jobo is Not Cheap. They will rapidly pay off though if you're sending colour film to labs for development ($10/roll here for C41 vs $1 of chemicals; worse for E6), or if you want to make big prints, or colour prints.

 

[Todd Foster]

I have 12 feet of a 20' steel shipping container for darkroom, so that makes it 8'X12'. That gives me the luxury of having a wet and dry side, with an 8' plywood sink draining into a molded laundry dump sink, and room to the left of that for a 20 X 24 vertical washer. I can say that 8' wide is just enough, actually is good with the 5 X 7 enlarger on the opposite wall. It's an easy pivot to get to the sink. I have open shelves alongside the enlarger, the one nearest it with a tall shelf bay lined with finished flake board to work as a stand up desk for paper and for printing notes. More storage alongside it for photo books and all my misc. supplies inc. camera gear.

I have made small bathrooms work in apartments, in one case with the enlarger literally over the toilet. Had to remove the cantilevered horizontal base from the wall mounted enlarger to use the toilet. Very inconvenient it was.

I suggest considering a means of double decking your sink, so trays can be on 2 levels when you need them, as with large print trays. I modified rigid wire shelving to hinge down in 3 sections over my current 8' sink for this purpose. It turned out to be very convenient and better than a 16' sink would be, with those long walks back and forth. I'd say a double decked 6 foot sink could work just fine. Then you'd have space for print washer on that wall in the remaining 2 feet. It could be over a lowered dump sink off the end of the 6' sink.

Using a lowered standard laundry sink like this is an idea from a long gone magazine called Darkroom. And two levels is sure to give you sufficient tray space even if much of that upper shelving is not used for small prints. An active horizontal wash tray on the sink end of my drop down shelves keeps the lower sink open for trays and works to wash small print runs all by itself.

I visited Ansel Adams' Carmel, California home darkroom with a workshop group the year before his death in 1984 and was amazed at how long his sink was. I'm sure it was over 20 feet. But then he always had at least one assistant, I think sometimes two. I'm used to the double deck system, and I prefer it highly. I added large window screen drying racks over the sink, behind the fold down wire shelves. They fold up against the wall above the sink when not in use.

It's packed in there but it all works very well for me. This is my 5th darkroom over the decades, so i've learned something! i worked for years in makeshift apartment darkrooms, and 2 full up ones in home garages. They all had to be ripped out when moving, taking many months to get working again. I decided that a steel container darkroom was going to be my last. It can be moved intact, if I ever move again which I hope not to do. I'm now in rural mountains where this is possible. Off grid, solar power, satellite Internet, tons of sweat equity.

Best, Todd F.

 

[Lopaka]

Sounds like a workable size. We manage to find a way to make it work in whatever space we have available.
Mine is sort of L-shaped, about 100 sq ft. It has a 4x5 enlarger, CPP2, and full sink. The film drying cabinet and print drying racks are in the next room.
It takes a bit of finagling, but I have printed as large as 20x24.
Truth is, it is never big enough. I'm sure that if I had a full size gymnasium at my disposal and the wherewithal, I would find stuff to do in it that would render it "small".

Bob

 

[Janelectro]

Wow, that is small, smaller than my darkroom in my bathroom . But as they say "when there is a will - there's a way". How big prints you could print there ?

The biggest print was 30x40 centimeters which was quite tricky, since I couldn't open the positioned easel without hitting the developer tray. So larger formats were like paper in easel - reposition easel - check twice if positioned correctly - expose - spill developer because you forgot about the whole issue while dodging...