De-Vere 504DS Enlarger

[troutmask]

has anybody had any experience of using this new enlarger which can output digital files on to true photographic paper.
I would be very interested to know from experienced darkroom workers how well it captures the limited range of tones availble from a digital image.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have a friend who ordered a print from a digital file made with this enlarger by San Miguel Photo Lab, and he was happy with it, but I haven't seen the print, and he's never done traditional darkroom work. If you wanted to order a print from them to see what it looks like, their website is www.bestlab.com.

I think the big limitation with this technology is enlargement potential, since the "virtual negative" has a fixed number of pixels.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Oops.... Looks like San Miguel has discontinued that service. They are now referring people to--

http://www.fiberbaseprints.com/

Maximum enlargement size: 20x24".

 

[troutmask]

Oops.... Looks like San Miguel has discontinued that service. They are now referring people to--

http://www.fiberbaseprints.com/

Maximum enlargement size: 20x24".

Any ne know of an UK based lab with one?

 

[wirehead]

Hrm.

Interesting.

We may have to do a comparison between Elevator's lambda digital FB and these people's De-Vere digital FB..

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I saw the new version of this enlarger at PMA in Las Vegas earlier this year. Resolution is significantly improved, and 20x24" prints on gelatin silver and Ilfochrome looked pretty good, with no obvious raster pattern.

One thing that was curious was that prints from digital originals still had a kind of "digital look," which I think was mainly characterized by having no grain and the long DOF of a very small format like APS-C. This obviously could work well for some things, but can also look a little plasticky.

Precision Photo in NYC (www.precisionphotos.com) has two of these enlargers mostly for headshot work. This seems like the perfect use for them, since headshots are usually printed in quantities of 100 or more and combine text and image.

 

[percepts]

assuming the pixel array is 5000 x 3200 then a 300dpi print would be 16.6 inches by 10.66 inches. As the print becomes smaller the resolution increases. As the print becomes bigger the resolution decreases. Hence the quoted average of 300dpi. But the claim that 20x24 is doable means only 208dpi max.

Whether that is good enough is debatable depending on your criteria of high quality. Also note that that because the pixels are rectangles, the machine moves the array during exposure to blur the pixel boundaries so you don't see any pixelation. Does that in result in the same resolution capability as film and especially medium and large format film. I don't think so.

The previous pixel array was clearly not up to it. This one looks to be much better, but is it good enough for larger prints?

When the pixel array is doubled again, then it may be worth looking at again. On the other hand, if you are only printing 8x10's then it may well suffice.

 

[Bob Carnie]

We would require a unflattend tiff . our printer runs a 400ppi and we would be willing to print up to 30x40 fibre base print. Of course both files would be exactly the same so we can do a apples to apples comparison.

Hrm.

Interesting.

We may have to do a comparison between Elevator's lambda digital FB and these people's De-Vere digital FB..

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There was no obvious pixel pattern on the prints I saw, but I didn't have a loupe with me. Another attraction of the DeVere system is that you can use it with any paper you like, just like a regular enlarger.

 

[percepts]

You won't (or at least shouldn't) see a pixel pattern for the reason I gave in previous post. The pixel array is auto shifted several times during the exposure so that pixels are blurred into each other. DeVere claim this does not affect apparent sharpness. Call me dumb (and I'm sure some will) but if you need to shift the array so you can't see the boundaries then it implies that resolution is not sufficently high that pixel merging needs to take place.
The fact that you could see pixel boundaries and now you can't means there is going to be some loss of resolution at those boundaries. i.e. it can never produce resolution as high as film.
The real question is whether the resolution it produces is good enough for you. I think at 20x24 it won't be. At 16x10 it will be borderline at best and smaller than that it may be acceptable.
All depends on your own standards of what is acceptable.

 

[jd callow]

I would think that the resolution doesn’t need to match film only match or exceed the paper. Without having the resolution of paper in my head (10 lppmm?) its hard for me to say what the theoretical max is for the head.

 

[Videbaek]

Who go this route, when a digital file can be laser-written to film (and quality is very good these days I've understood), developed normally, and printed normally in the darkroom with all the attendant quality and grain of the film in question? I guess it's an extra step and extra expense...

 

[Bob Carnie]

I was initially concerned about seeing pixels when making large prints on my lambda. From Tango or Imocan drum scans, 6x7 transparancey/colour negative to 30x40 lambda cibachrome or Lambda fibre, when I loupe the print with a rodenstock loupe all I can see is the original film grain.
This was enough for me to purchase the Lambda.
I have not seen a Deveere output, but we would certainley be interested in a purchase if the quality is as good as Lambda.

For what its worth, when I originally tried to wrap my mind around Lambda $$$$$$$ , space requirements, and technical up front devices over that of a Deverre enlarger, I was headed for a Deveere.

I contacted Odessye Sales and asked the question about quality of output.I wish I kept the emails.
Basically I was insulted for even thinking that the Deveere would match the quality of laser devices like the lambda.
I was told that if he could make a unit for 50K that would match the quality of a 200k lambda , he would not be talking to me, but on a yacht in the Caribean .
That was enough for me . We saved our pennies and put our life's on hold/ransom and went with the Lambda.

I have seen somewhere Ilford is hooking up with Devere and I suspect that over time you will see these enlargers prominent in custom shops worldwide. Maybe I will re investigate further in a couple of years, but then again I may be the one on the yacht.

 

[Mark Burley]

UK Digital DeVere system in Brighton

Hi all,

A friend of mine has told me that Monolab in Brighton have one. I have seen a print from it which looked pretty good.

I contacted them to see what kind of files they would work with and they were very happy to produce some very big prints. Could be worth talking to them...

Mark

 

[Daniel Balfour]

Who go this route, when a digital file can be laser-written to film (and quality is very good these days I've understood), developed normally, and printed normally in the darkroom with all the attendant quality and grain of the film in question? I guess it's an extra step and extra expense...

To my knowledge the only available option for this was the use of a film recorder. What's this bit about writing to film with lasers? Care to elaborate?

- Daniel

 

[houmekemgep]

De Vere 504DS Enlarger

Hi Im hoping someone can help me make my mind up about this.

Someones offered me a Durst 6x7 Enlarger for about 50. While Im primarily a 35mm BW photographer Ive heard people say that you can use a medium format enlarger to produce prints so long as you have the right lense which this one apparently does, and I could really do with an enlarger as Ive just got hold of some space thats begging to be turned into a darkroom.

Ive also heard talk that the bulbs used in Durst enlargers arent made anymore, does anyone know if thats the case?

I should say I dont know masses about darkroom equiptment, as it wasnt an issue to know more than how to use it at school and since then Ive been getting my prints through other sources. Ive never had to buy anything as large as an enlarger for photography, so I really could do with some help on making a decent choice.

Also if anyone can suggest any good tips for checking out an enlarger youre tempted to buy.

Thanks

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For making enlargements with a medium format or larger enlarger from 35mm negs, you'll do best with a 50mm lens, but if you are asking about strictly traditional printing on photographic paper from conventional negatives, you might ask in the enlarging forum on hybridphoto.com's sister forum, apug.org , the Analogue Photo Users Group, since this thread is properly about the DeVere Digital Enlarger.