This guy has some good equipment in his darkroom

[wyofilm]

Massive prints might be the point. Professionally, it might be a way to differentiate oneself. I’ve never seen one of Clyde Butcher’s giant prints in real life, but I would like to.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Massive prints might be the point. Professionally, it might be a way to differentiate oneself. I’ve never seen one of Clyde Butcher’s giant prints in real life, but I would like to.

I may be wrong...but he's not shooting 20x24 either! I've dreamed about going 11x14 but only for contact prints. Maybe it's more likely that the enlarger is for all the 11x14 folks who want to make 20x30+ prints.

I know I'm probably in the minority here but IMHO Epsons do such a good job printing big I can't imagine trying to do it chemically again. However from memory I loved making 16x20 enlargements from 8x10, such a practical size and so easy to do, with no perceivable quality loss.

 

[warden]

the whole feel from that video and their others is of a small well-heeled enthusiast group having spent 100's of thousands (I understand that the 20x24 enlarger cost a EUR 6-figure sum) without any need for a business case for any part of it

The "whole feel" I'm getting is someone going out of his way to make a fun and educational video and share it for free. Somehow I managed to enjoy it without thinking about wealth or business or lifestyle influencers.

 

[removedacct1]

The "whole feel" I'm getting is someone going out of his way to make a fun and educational video and share it for free. Somehow I managed to enjoy it without thinking about wealth or business or lifestyle influencers.

Me too. Judging Anton's work based on his access to state of the art equipment seems petty to me.

 

[darkosaric]

Trying to guess the background music, possibly Jimmy Smith?

I tried to use Shazam, and got some crazy hits:
Clap I Love You from Jincheng Zhang and Gülüm from Karamsal Eda!
If you listen to these, they are not the answer .

 

[Sirius Glass]

exactly. This is why I enjoy film so much. Once you have a piece of functionality in your darkroom, you don’t really have to keep upgrading it. Of course you don’t really have to keep upgrading your digital body either, but if you don’t, the perception is that you’ve fallen behind. The reality though is that digital cameras from 10-15 years ago are still quite capable of making excellent images. Just don’t fall prey to GAS and know your equipment inside and out and you can make great images.

No paying monthly RENT for FauxTow$hop.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Kienzle very much is an affordable option - especially for the specification you wanted, but the whole feel from that video and their others is of a small well-heeled enthusiast group having spent 100's of thousands (I understand that the 20x24 enlarger cost a EUR 6-figure sum) without any need for a business case for any part of it - a nice situation to be in. Or maybe their business plan involves marketing themselves as darkroom printing lifestyle influencers - to that end there is a sense that they did a couple of courses (Heiland's and Moersch's) & bought all the kit and gadgets marketed to them and are consequently marketing themselves through a heavy social media presence as darkroom 'experts', when essentially what they're doing is pushing a button & Heiland's kit does the rest - which is absolutely fine, especially if they get enjoyment out of it, but people do need to be aware of what they are seeing.

Oh, and Deville trays are very much worth the money, especially the embossed surface ones which prevent you using too little solution in them.

And the envy still drips off you like smelly sweat.

 

[pentaxuser]

The small percentage of LF shooters that are using 20x24 and using a negative process AND using a lens that warrants enlargement boggles my mind. Who among this group is paying 6 figures for a 20x24 enlarger?!

The DINKS apparently

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Is it a 20x24 enlarger, or a 20x24 copy camera re-configured to be used as an enlarger?
If the latter, it makes much more sense.

 

[Roger Thoms]

It was built from the ground up as a 2024 enlarger.





Roger

 

[DREW WILEY]

Doesn't look all that fancy to me. Would you rather learn from somebody with well-maintained gear, or in a darkroom set up by the Beverly Hillbillies, with goats wandering around inside?

 

[pentaxuser]

Doesn't look all that fancy to me. Would you rather learn from somebody with well-maintained gear, or in a darkroom set up by the Beverly Hillbillies, with goats wandering around inside?

Well Jed would make an amusing video and there would be some lessons in it in being good-hearted but rooted in old-fashioned common sense. Remember when he took over Milton Drysdale's bank and broke all the rules on lending with the " hidden bank consumer" acting as a chicken farmer. Jed asked all the right questions, got the right answers and decided to lend him the money. When the "consumer" then said that he could offer no collateral, Jed said: "Well of course you can't If you had the collateral you wouldn't need to ask me for the loan.

This of course has now become the philosophy of all banks

PS What were the squeaking sounds that seem to be occasionally there after about minute 7, an audible timer?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Would you rather learn from somebody with well-maintained gear, or in a darkroom set up by the Beverly Hillbillies, with goats wandering around inside?

Well at least they would have the required beards .

 

[Roger Thoms]

Doesn't look all that fancy to me. Would you rather learn from somebody with well-maintained gear, or in a darkroom set up by the Beverly Hillbillies, with goats wandering around inside?

Well toning your prints in Texas Tea might be interesting or Black Gold for that matter.

Roger

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gopher stew might make an interesting developer option. But I have too many cats in the yard to even find a gopher.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sorry for sounding so cynical, but...

It gives off a whole vibe of 'buy tens of thousands of dollars/ euros/ pounds of kit and you too can produce technically 'correct' but emotionless prints to XXL scale and beyond!' On the other hand, if it keeps Heiland, Kienzle, Deville etc going...

It's also oddly un-lived-in compared to most professional darkrooms.

The message is that if we spend money on good equipment we are terminally stupid. Now I have to sell all my photographic equipment and buy box cameras so the the crazy Scot will not be angry with me. Woe is me.

 

[Paul Howell]

Of course having good gear doesn't make a great photographer, but there is not a negative correlation, I'm just jealous, not sure if I need a 20 X 24 enlarger, but the room, the 5X7 enlarger, temperature controlled sink, great set up. If I win the lottery.

 

[btaylor]

There was a long thread as they built the enlarger over at LFPF. At first the reaction was cynical- like where are you going to find a 2000mm lens for it, things like that. But it then became apparent that these guys were for real. I may be wrong, but I think the project may have been supported by an educational organization of some kind. The engineering that went into the enlarger was amazing-- current technology applied to a new Ultra ULF enlarger. I think some of the drive to do it was just to show it could be done. Like climbing Mt Everest, or making the largest pinhole camera in an airplane hangar. Some times "just because you can" is a good enough reason!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Off topic but I really don't understand 20x24 enlargers. First if you do a 2x enlargement you're talking about a massive 40x50 print...where is that thing going to hang?! I've been in and around photography since 2000 in Minneapolis, Illinois (Southern and Chicago), and NYC for 10 years, now Maine. The only 20x24 work I've ever seen was in Polaroid form. I saw exactly 1 Richard Learoyd photograph at ICP (which absolutely blew my mind and I adore his work). I saw many many very large prints from 8x10 to 35mm negatives or positives. One of the largest prints I've seen was a big 35mm enlargement that I believe was taken at a Concentration Camp (semi present day not war time) and was hanging in a private collection in Miami (Yes it was very grainy lol). So I've been around for 2 decades now in this industry/art and the only 20x24 shooters are those I've encountered online. The small percentage of LF shooters that are using 20x24 and using a negative process AND using a lens that warrants enlargement boggles my mind. Who among this group is paying 6 figures for a 20x24 enlarger?!

I think it's very much a case of deepness of pocket exceeding understanding of diffraction. And possibly wanting to ape Massimo Vitali's 12x20" & 20x24" colour neg work (though it is drum scanned & output on 72" Endura rolls). I do like the 20x24"/ 8x10" Polaroid process a lot, it's a pity that it only currently sort of still exists as two partial products, neither ideal.

I may be wrong...but he's not shooting 20x24 either! I've dreamed about going 11x14 but only for contact prints. Maybe it's more likely that the enlarger is for all the 11x14 folks who want to make 20x30+ prints.

I know I'm probably in the minority here but IMHO Epsons do such a good job printing big I can't imagine trying to do it chemically again. However from memory I loved making 16x20 enlargements from 8x10, such a practical size and so easy to do, with no perceivable quality loss.

I think the Russian folk do have a 20x24" camera - if they were using 11x14", there are Durst, De Vere, Kienzle (and others) horizontal machines that handle up to a 40x40cm neg - there are a few 11x14 capable vertical enlargers out there that will happily do a 2.5-3x off 11x14.

I used to feel the same about inkjet, until I bought my first Rodagon-G - it more than closed the gap, much to my surprise. I'd definitely rather have both technologies than an either/ or situation, but I've found that with the right enlarging lens, mural prints do have 'something' that inkjet doesn't quite have, even after spending many many hours trying all sorts of different approaches (and cursing at the 60" Epson printheads, but that's a different story). Maybe it's simply the 'good' imperfections of a relatively hand controlled process.

The message is that if we spend money on good equipment we are terminally stupid. Now I have to sell all my photographic equipment and buy box cameras so the the crazy Scot will not be angry with me. Woe is me.

Spend the money on where it'll make a difference - the enlarger and lenses, not on a whole bunch of boxes of electronics that purport to substitute for learning how to print. And print often enough that your darkroom looks like it actually gets used to make work and not merely existing as a sterile showroom for all your expensive kit.

The engineering that went into the enlarger was amazing-- current technology applied to a new Ultra ULF enlarger. I think some of the drive to do it was just to show it could be done. Like climbing Mt Everest, or making the largest pinhole camera in an airplane hangar. Some times "just because you can" is a good enough reason!

From a technical standpoint, what Heiland came up with was revolutionary - I hope it makes it into an 10x10 horizontal version at some point. The elimination of rails & auto alignment to the wall is something that will make an enormous difference - and the LED head eliminates the need for 3-phase power, yet with enough power to keep times short. I do wonder what a 10x10 on the same lines would cost.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

This is a collective darkroom in Sankt Petersburg, Russia. This is not a personal darkroom. They build 20x24 horizontal enlarger together with Heiland.

Exactly.

https://artoffoto.com/en/authors

I read his posts in Russian and he is putting it as "in our laboratory". I don't blame OP for misleading, He doesn't read in Russian .

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

There was a long thread as they built the enlarger over at LFPF. At first the reaction was cynical- like where are you going to find a 2000mm lens for it, things like that. But it then became apparent that these guys were for real. I may be wrong, but I think the project may have been supported by an educational organization of some kind. The engineering that went into the enlarger was amazing-- current technology applied to a new Ultra ULF enlarger. I think some of the drive to do it was just to show it could be done. Like climbing Mt Everest, or making the largest pinhole camera in an airplane hangar. Some times "just because you can" is a good enough reason!

Don't get me wrong, it's VERY cool. I just look at it like I look at Super Cars. Who is this for lol?

 

[pentaxuser]

Lachlan, Sirius is right about us being crazy Scots, unfortunately. We stop at Derby in late '45 then march North again??? It then took us over two hundred years before we were able to replace "Hey, Johnnie Cope" with Hey Alfie Ramsey What a night that was!

pentaxuser

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Sorry for sounding so cynical, but...

It gives off a whole vibe of 'buy tens of thousands of dollars/ euros/ pounds of kit and you too can produce technically 'correct' but emotionless prints to XXL scale and beyond!' On the other hand, if it keeps Heiland, Kienzle, Deville etc going...

It's also oddly un-lived-in compared to most professional darkrooms.

Good instructions and a big difference between work print and final print well done!

 

[chris77]

I think it's very much a case of deepness of pocket exceeding understanding of diffraction. And possibly wanting to ape Massimo Vitali's 12x20" & 20x24" colour neg work (though it is drum scanned & output on 72" Endura rolls). I do like the 20x24"/ 8x10" Polaroid process a lot, it's a pity that it only currently sort of still exists as two partial products, neither ideal.



I think the Russian folk do have a 20x24" camera - if they were using 11x14", there are Durst, De Vere, Kienzle (and others) horizontal machines that handle up to a 40x40cm neg - there are a few 11x14 capable vertical enlargers out there that will happily do a 2.5-3x off 11x14.

I used to feel the same about inkjet, until I bought my first Rodagon-G - it more than closed the gap, much to my surprise. I'd definitely rather have both technologies than an either/ or situation, but I've found that with the right enlarging lens, mural prints do have 'something' that inkjet doesn't quite have, even after spending many many hours trying all sorts of different approaches (and cursing at the 60" Epson printheads, but that's a different story). Maybe it's simply the 'good' imperfections of a relatively hand controlled process.



Spend the money on where it'll make a difference - the enlarger and lenses, not on a whole bunch of boxes of electronics that purport to substitute for learning how to print. And print often enough that your darkroom looks like it actually gets used to make work and not merely existing as a sterile showroom for all your expensive kit.



From a technical standpoint, what Heiland came up with was revolutionary - I hope it makes it into an 10x10 horizontal version at some point. The elimination of rails & auto alignment to the wall is something that will make an enormous difference - and the LED head eliminates the need for 3-phase power, yet with enough power to keep times short. I do wonder what a 10x10 on the same lines would cost.

I agree with you. Feels like a sterile darkroom lacking of an artistically inspired process. Technical overkill and control doesn't necessarily help good artwork, and after all that's what it could be all about?
On the other hand it maybe doesn't make an artist less productive to put him in an environment where everything works flawlessly.
I guess the real question is, if one is attracted to going through all this in order to produce a technically clean but somewhat boring print of a photograph that doesn't touch (at least) me.
This video proves that there are two major camps in this wide field , photography as a technique on the one and photography as art on the other hand. Sometimes, often, they come together and sometimes they just don't.
Guess it's just not for me, no offence intended.

 

[Luckless]

I agree with you. Feels like a sterile darkroom lacking of an artistically inspired process. Technical overkill and control doesn't necessarily help good artwork, and after all that's what it could be all about?
On the other hand it maybe doesn't make an artist less productive to put him in an environment where everything works flawlessly.
I guess the real question is, if one is attracted to going through all this in order to produce a technically clean but somewhat boring print of a photograph that doesn't touch (at least) me.
This video proves that there are two major camps in this wide field , photography as a technique on the one and photography as art on the other hand. Sometimes, often, they come together and sometimes they just don't.
Guess it's just not for me, no offence intended.

As someone coming to photography from a technical background and accustomed to clean, organized, and well thought out purpose built work spaces, I'm curious to hear what all the random clutter, junk, uncleaned stains, and useless crap collecting dust in a 'well lived in' darkroom is supposed to add to my artistic abilities...

I think a closer to truth viewpoint is that there are two major camps in the field: Those who embrace discussions on merits and are accepting of other approaches, and those who rather dismiss others with vague arguments about how things they dislike lack an undefined 'soul' so they don't actually have to defend their real viewpoint...