35mm enlarger

Messages
957
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
I’m looking to get and enlarger for 35mm. I have no idea what ones are out there or what sort of price they should go for. I want to start as I’m fed up with the crappy resolution that my Epson gives me for 35mm so thought I’d give it a go. Needs to be as compact as possible.
 
Just to clarify. do you want to use it for darkroom printing or to digitise your films?
 
@Ben johns

Where are you located?
I’ve got a Paterson black and white enlarger you can have.
 
The Patterson was brilliant, looked like it would be a cheap toy and perform even worse, it got good reviews so I thought I'd give it a go, but it was so much more than the sum of it's parts. I loved mine, had many a few hours of enjoyment in the darkroom. I put an expensive enlarger lens into mine (although the lens it came with was fine for 10x8) for 36" prints, projected onto the floor and counterbalanced the base board :) Much enjoyment.
 
There are usually a few Durst F30 enlargers on eBay. They’re well built and as small as most other 35mm enlargers. However, if I were you, I’d think about getting one that will support medium format. They’re not a whole lot bigger or more expensive and you’ll kick yourself if you start using MF and have to buy another enlarger.
 
There are usually a few Durst F30 enlargers on eBay. They’re well built and as small as most other 35mm enlargers. However, if I were you, I’d think about getting one that will support medium format. They’re not a whole lot bigger or more expensive and you’ll kick yourself if you start using MF and have to buy another enlarger.
I do actually use MF already but my scanner gives decent resolution for those so it wasn’t a huge concern. There is a f30 on eBay at the moment but I read their mainly for 6x4’s? Don’t know if that’s right or not
 
I’m looking to get and enlarger for 35mm. I have no idea what ones are out there or what sort of price they should go for. I want to start as I’m fed up with the crappy resolution that my Epson gives me for 35mm so thought I’d give it a go. Needs to be as compact as possible.

It could just be my technique, but I don't find my darkroom printed photographs to have any more resolution than prints from digital scans. In fact, I would say my optically printed photographs are not as sharp.

That all said, photography is about a whole lot more than resolution and an enlarger can facilitate exploration of that wider world.

I do actually use MF already but my scanner gives decent resolution for those so it wasn’t a huge concern. There is a f30 on eBay at the moment but I read their mainly for 6x4’s? Don’t know if that’s right or not

For what it's worth, it seems silly to buy a 135 format-specific enlarger if you own medium format equipment, but to each his own.
 
It could just be my technique, but I don't find my darkroom printed photographs to have any more resolution than prints from digital scans. In fact, I would say my optically printed photographs are not as sharp.

erm wouldn't that be the paper's fault as it would be the weakest link..............................
 
erm wouldn't that be the paper's fault as it would be the weakest link..............................

I did a side-by-side test of a 35mm colour negative a few years ago. It was Ektar 100 taken with my Olypus XA3. I scanned it with a Pakon which gave me a 3000 x 2000 pixel file, and printed it with an Epson inkjet at roughly 8x10". Then I printed the negative on Fuji Crystal Archive paper in the darkroom with a Durst 50mm lens. The results were practically identical to my eyes in terms of resolution and sharpness. But there was a big difference in what you may call 'tonality' and the colour rendition. I preferred the darkroom print as it looked smoother, was less saturated, and the overall effect seemed more natural. Though I'm sure many people would prefer the inkjet print.
 
I did a side-by-side test of a 35mm colour negative a few years ago. It was Ektar 100 taken with my Olypus XA3. I scanned it with a Pakon which gave me a 3000 x 2000 pixel file, and printed it with an Epson inkjet at roughly 8x10". Then I printed the negative on Fuji Crystal Archive paper in the darkroom with a Durst 50mm lens. The results were practically identical to my eyes in terms of resolution and sharpness. But there was a big difference in what you may call 'tonality' and the colour rendition. I preferred the darkroom print as it looked smoother, was less saturated, and the overall effect seemed more natural. Though I'm sure many people would prefer the inkjet print.
I’ve only got my v550 to go off but when I scan a 35mm frame at 2400 dpi it’s only really between 1mp-2mp. Anything over 2400 and the file sizes get massive. I don’t expect 20mp but something like 6-8mp would be fine. It has put me on the fence about continuing with 35mm tbh, I have a lot of photos that I like but anything about 6x4 is a bit meh
 
I’ve only got my v550 to go off but when I scan a 35mm frame at 2400 dpi it’s only really between 1mp-2mp. Anything over 2400 and the file sizes get massive. I don’t expect 20mp but something like 6-8mp would be fine. It has put me on the fence about continuing with 35mm tbh, I have a lot of photos that I like but anything about 6x4 is a bit meh

I think flatbed scanners are fine for medium format, but not really suited to 35mm. The Pakon dosen't have very high resolution, but it manages to pack a lot of information into its files which makes them look like they have a much higher resolution than a flatbed. As I've said before, I'll probably give up 35mm altogether when my Pakon dies. Definitely 35mm colour film.

I print 35mm and medium format negatives in the darkroom—and they are both fine—but I find medium format a lot easier to deal with in the enlarger. The bigger negatives are physically easier to manipulate and the resolution makes them easy to print. You have a lot of cropping options with something like a 6x6 negative compared to 35mm. You can 'zoom in' a lot and make a great print that doesn't have a ton of grain. Not that 35mm can't be enlarged well, but for me it depends on the film. Delta 100 for instance, is so damn high resolution that you can barely see the grain to focus it under the enlarger. I've been printing 6x6 negatives on 4x4" paper recently, and those are...let's say...'challenging' to focus! ;)
 
There are usually a few Durst F30 enlargers on eBay. They’re well built and as small as most other 35mm enlargers. However, if I were you, I’d think about getting one that will support medium format. They’re not a whole lot bigger or more expensive and you’ll kick yourself if you start using MF and have to buy another enlarger.
I'd second that; last year I bought a 4*5 larger which is more bulky and taller than an enlarger for smaller formats but it doesn't really take up any more bench space than a smaller enlarger (and it does medium format and 35mm too). It is however extremely heavy so you wouldn't want to be moving it in and out of a temporary darkroom. My previous enlarger was a Cromega C700 which handled 35mm and medium format up to 6*7cm and was easy to move when necessary.
 
If you have a multi format enlarger does it not require multiple condensers and multiple lenses? I am sure my 6*6 Durst did.
 
I’ve only got my v550 to go off but when I scan a 35mm frame at 2400 dpi it’s only really between 1mp-2mp. Anything over 2400 and the file sizes get massive. I don’t expect 20mp but something like 6-8mp would be fine. It has put me on the fence about continuing with 35mm tbh, I have a lot of photos that I like but anything about 6x4 is a bit meh
I usually scan my 35mm negs (using an Epson v600, basically the same as the V550) at 3200 dpi. I found this gives the best results... any larger and the sharpness goes (due to interpolation?) and any less and you can tell. File size is usually less than 3mb. This file of this photo (taken on Kodak Gold 200) is 2.34mb, click on the image to view full size.



This one (taken on Kodak Ektar 100, so a finer grained top-quality film) was scanned at high res by a lab using a Noritsu scanner, the original file size (using right click and 'properties') is 12.3mb. So you pays your money and takes your disk space! As people say about cars with big engines (high cubic capacity V8s, etc.) - "There ain't no replacement for displacement’! I hope this post is useful to you.

 
I’ve only got my v550 to go off but when I scan a 35mm frame at 2400 dpi it’s only really between 1mp-2mp. Anything over 2400 and the file sizes get massive. I don’t expect 20mp but something like 6-8mp would be fine. It has put me on the fence about continuing with 35mm tbh, I have a lot of photos that I like but anything about 6x4 is a bit meh

You should really try a dedicated 35mm scanner like the Plustek if you don't want the lab to do it for you. I've printed at 8x10 from 35mm film and it looks great (as long as the shot was exposed correctly in the first place).
 
You should really try a dedicated 35mm scanner like the Plustek if you don't want the lab to do it for you. I've printed at 8x10 from 35mm film and it looks great (as long as the shot was exposed correctly in the first place).
I did think about a plustek actually. I got a bit lost in the different models. I think some are same even though the numbers are different. That and I didn’t want to spend £200 and get not much improvement, would like to test one first. Would you say there’s a big difference?
 
I did think about a plustek actually. I got a bit lost in the different models. I think some are same even though the numbers are different. That and I didn’t want to spend £200 and get not much improvement, would like to test one first. Would you say there’s a big difference?

erm well like most things it's all about money....good salary and get what you like. But it you compared a Plustek to a S\H Epson flatbed 3200 or 4990 at a cheap\reasonable price... I would say it's a law of diminishing returns.
 

Attachments

  • 2017-09-06-0005web.jpg
    2017-09-06-0005web.jpg
    252.2 KB · Views: 6
I did think about a plustek actually. I got a bit lost in the different models. I think some are same even though the numbers are different. That and I didn’t want to spend £200 and get not much improvement, would like to test one first. Would you say there’s a big difference?

The models aren't all that complicated, as far as I can tell there are only two models, one that has scratch and dust removal and one that doesn't. The model numbers differentiate between newer releases and what software comes with them. The 8100i has no scratch and dust removal, the 8200i does.

I have never used a flatbed for 35mm, but as I said I can print 8x10 and am happy with the results. If you're struggling with 6x4 prints then I would say that is a large difference.

https://www.35mmc.com/08/04/2016/case-home-scanning-plustek-opticfilm-8200i/
 
I had the chance to buy an SP-3000 a couple of years ago for circa £1,000. I should have done it but at the time, it seemed a lot of money. Now they are going for a hell of a lot more. FFS. To answer your question, Ben, yes, top end scanners make a massive difference to flatbeds. Have you had any lab scans done using either a Fuji or Noritsu scanner? So much better than anything I can get from my V700, although I am first to admit that my scanning technique needs work.
 
I had the chance to buy an SP-3000 a couple of years ago for circa £1,000. I should have done it but at the time, it seemed a lot of money. Now they are going for a hell of a lot more. FFS. To answer your question, Ben, yes, top end scanners make a massive difference to flatbeds. Have you had any lab scans done using either a Fuji or Noritsu scanner? So much better than anything I can get from my V700, although I am first to admit that my scanning technique needs work.

Well I wouldn't argue against the Fuji or Noritsu as let's face it the true scan from a V750 is about 2400 dpi (going higher and it's a software fiddle) while the Fuji is about true 3500 dpi..h'mm going higher do Fuji use a software fiddle also o_O
Anyway it's also about Dmax (getting details from the shadows) as well and would assume Fuji and Noritsu are better...well they ought to be for what they cost new.
 
H'mm the guy was comparing the £360 Plustek to a Fuji Frontier costing thousands, if Fuji couldn't make an optical system better than the Plustek then it doesn't say much for Fuji design\engineering.

Also depends on the lab and who is operating said scanner.
 
Also depends on the lab and who is operating said scanner.

True..people used to complain and Asda and Tesco (they used Fuji Frontiers) but get a good one i.e. operator and they were very good.
Most of my shots posted here (well taken in the last 7 years) are scanned from Tesco and Asda so either viewers think the quality is crap or very good..anyway it doesn't matter to me as I think they are VG.
 
I did think about a plustek actually. I got a bit lost in the different models. I think some are same even though the numbers are different. That and I didn’t want to spend £200 and get not much improvement, would like to test one first. Would you say there’s a big difference?
The models aren't all that complicated, as far as I can tell there are only two models, one that has scratch and dust removal and one that doesn't. The model numbers differentiate between newer releases and what software comes with them. The 8100i has no scratch and dust removal, the 8200i does.

That's the 8100 and the 8200i ("i" standing for infra-red channel, which the 8100 doesn't have). This is usuall followed by a couple of letters such as SE or AI that refer to which version of Silverfast is included.

I have an older model, 7500i. I'm sure you can find these cheaper second hand, and mine is in pretty good nick. Beware though of two things, if you have a Mac: (a) the versions of Silverfast are the older V6 version, which will not run on any version of MacOS after 10.6 (rely on the old built-in emulation for the previous Mac processor), and (b) the library is 32-bit, which means it will not run with the 64-bit version of Vuescan, and will not run at all after MacOS 10.14 (when 32-bit software will be banned). I don't know at this stage whether I can run it on Win 10...

I sent a couple of complaints to Plustek, and they wrote back:

"Thank you for your enquiry. Driver to Mac OS X is automatically being installed by SilverFast and not available for separate installation. Therefore we don\'t release any driver download."

"SilverFast 6 which has been originally delivered with that scanner model is compatible up to Mac OS 10.6 only (final version 6.6.2r5). In order to continue using your scanner with Mac OS 10.7 up to 10.14 an upgrade to latest SilverFast 8 is required.

"Register your copy of SilverFast 6 at&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.silverfast.com/">www.silverfast.com</a>&nbsp;in order to receive discount on upgrade to SilverFast 8."

At this point it's not clear to me whether, if I pay the £80 or more for an upgrade to SF8, I will then be able to use Vuescan on a 64-bit system. I'm going to try installing a demo version of SF8 if they'll let me, but I did install it once before when it first came out.

IMHO having tried both, the images from the Plustek are superior to those from an Epson V500. Checkout the tests on Filmscanner.info ... https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html
 
That's the 8100 and the 8200i ("i" standing for infra-red channel, which the 8100 doesn't have). This is usuall followed by a couple of letters such as SE or AI that refer to which version of Silverfast is included.

I have an older model, 7500i. I'm sure you can find these cheaper second hand, and mine is in pretty good nick. Beware though of two things, if you have a Mac: (a) the versions of Silverfast are the older V6 version, which will not run on any version of MacOS after 10.6 (rely on the old built-in emulation for the previous Mac processor), and (b) the library is 32-bit, which means it will not run with the 64-bit version of Vuescan, and will not run at all after MacOS 10.14 (when 32-bit software will be banned). I don't know at this stage whether I can run it on Win 10...

I sent a couple of complaints to Plustek, and they wrote back:

"Thank you for your enquiry. Driver to Mac OS X is automatically being installed by SilverFast and not available for separate installation. Therefore we don\'t release any driver download."

"SilverFast 6 which has been originally delivered with that scanner model is compatible up to Mac OS 10.6 only (final version 6.6.2r5). In order to continue using your scanner with Mac OS 10.7 up to 10.14 an upgrade to latest SilverFast 8 is required.

"Register your copy of SilverFast 6 at&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.silverfast.com/">www.silverfast.com</a>&nbsp;in order to receive discount on upgrade to SilverFast 8."

At this point it's not clear to me whether, if I pay the £80 or more for an upgrade to SF8, I will then be able to use Vuescan on a 64-bit system. I'm going to try installing a demo version of SF8 if they'll let me, but I did install it once before when it first came out.

IMHO having tried both, the images from the Plustek are superior to those from an Epson V500. Checkout the tests on Filmscanner.info ... https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html
Do you think it’s superior enough to warrant buying the plustek? I’d keep the v550 for medium format.
 
Do you think it’s superior enough to warrant buying the plustek? I’d keep the v550 for medium format.

That isn't really a question anyone else can answer for you. Look at the comparisons online, there are plenty of them if you google it.
 
I bought the Plustek first, and used it to scan thousands of slides and negatives from my early days in photography, BC (*). Now I scan my home-devved 135 b&w, and also 135 E6 if I ever shoot any. I then bought an Epson V500 when I got a large wooden box from my sister containing thousands of my late father's 6*9 b&w negatives. I haven't done any of the b&w negatives yet, but I did scan most f the dozen or so envelopes of Dufaycolor 6*9 reversal frames (there's a thread on here somewhere). I've also scanned a couple of rolls of 120 of my own, and a roll or two of 135 when experimenting.

As the last two said, the decision to buy 2 different scanners is a very personal one. If you have an Epson, I'd carry on with it for 135, personally, unless you're really unhappy with the results. I always get my 135 colour negative scanned by Filmdev, and that's been good enough for me; if I really wanted a better scan for a big print (say), I could always get a lab or drum scanner to do it, I suppose.
 
Back
Top