# why wont this work



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2006)

Okay I have this idea.  I develop film and paper negatives now in a daylight tank.  Yes I made it myself.

So somebody tell me why this wont work.  

I build a closed up enlarger.  It it set up so that I project a light down through a negative, paper or film.  Then onto a film holder with paper in it.  Pull the dark slide open the top shutter for light. Close the shutter, return the dark slide.  

Put the paper from the negative holder into my dark box and load the daylight tank and develop it.  A sort of contact printer or even a day lab type thing.  I can't use a darkroom but I could pull this out and make small prints to my hearts content.  heck I could set it up for 5x7 or even 8x 10.

I just wonder what would be the inherant problems that I'm not seeing.


----------



## motcon (Jun 6, 2006)

given your knowledge of the art, i'll safely assume that all light issues (enlarger and transfer of exposed media) have been covered as well as measurements from light source to neg and construction.

there are only two things that come to mind at the moment.

1 - heat build up in the enlarger head (leading to a few issues)
2 - is it or is it not (going to be) a contact enlarger? if not, focus becomes an issue as does possible uneven lighting and accutance issues


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2006)

It will be a daylight enlarger... pin hole lens.  f 250 no focus to worry about.  

Pull the negative paper holder which will be the same as a film holder in a graflex type back... Take it to a dark box to load into a daylight tank.

NO light head on it.  The light souce is either daylight or a light bulb hanging over it..

does that help .... if it is light tight all the way to the film/ paper holder is there any reason I cant use daylight as a light source...


----------



## motcon (Jun 6, 2006)

you will, more than likely, need a method (convex lens) to gather the light, although i've loaded paper in a pinhole and exposed it. long exposures and without a way to gather the light, a typical pinhole lighting effect (uneven).


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2006)

I've been shooting a lot of penhole cameras lately.  Yes the exposure will be long very long in some cases.

I did much better with pin hole aperture behind a lens that is true.  I also made a pinhole lens for the front of a camera I rebuilt and found that it added one f stop more than the calculator called for.  I am expecting that to happen again.  eXposure is going to be hit or miss till I can get the calculations down.  I had that with pinhole cameras to.

Im not at all sure it will work as I expect it too.  There are several articles on pin hole enlargers but none with this configuration to use in the daylight.  I was really wondering if there was a basic reason you couldn't use the paper in a negative holder inside the light tight bottom chamber.  The pinhole has to be in a light tight chamber as well except for the light coming through the negative.  The exposure calulations should be a bear.


----------



## motcon (Jun 6, 2006)

i'm just concerned about the light gathering. light doesn't behave very well on its own.


dug through my bookmarks and found this on solar enlargers. not much help to you, but interesting. here is an excerpt:

*May we also ask your attention to our gaslight attachment for enlargers? This consists of a parabolic reflector, in from of which are fixed two incandescent gas burners of a special type. ... The attachment can be fitted to almost any enlarger on the market." (Cost, 10s 6d - 50p).*

link


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2006)

Well you are probably right.  I keep thinking of the early days when they used a skylight to make the prints, but im not sure they were enlargements.  They might have been contacts only.  This is like a mini darkroom I think.  It might be that it winds up having to be a contact type thing but I really am curious now.  

I think I'll build one a see what happens.  God know I have enough pin hole attachements laying around.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2006)

wonder what happened to my drawing


----------



## motcon (Jun 6, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> wonder what happened to my drawing




:???: 


i'm a sucker for drawings, too.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2006)

I posted a drawing of the daylight enlarger but it got gone.  Wonder why...


----------



## motcon (Jun 6, 2006)

well crud.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 7, 2006)

Well everything worked but it was out of focus. Even with the f350 pin hole. 

upside>> I could set the exposure
I could do a little cropping my moving the negative around on the top.
I bought a can of peanut brittle for the can to make the top chamber.
it didn't have any light leaks.

downside... I could not make a print that was in focus. As a matter of fact it just got worse as I tried to fix it...

my conclusion is that it was a good morning project but not really worth the effort. The light was predicatable and even though. I used a bit of frosted plastic as a defuser. I use it all the time so I knew it would work. The problem was i just couldn't the enlarger focused so close to the negative.

I may revisit this later... Anyway thought someone might want to know how it ended.


----------



## motcon (Jun 7, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> ... Anyway thought someone might want to know how it ended.



indeed. 

if at any point in time it's possible to take a photo of it so i can see it, i'd be interested.


----------



## terri (Jun 7, 2006)

motcon said:
			
		

> indeed.
> 
> if at any point in time it's possible to take a photo of it so i can see it, i'd be interested.


Will...you should check out some of Charlie's "remodeled" Polaroid cameras.....ugliest things you've ever seen (as he is quick to point out), but they all work!


----------



## motcon (Jun 7, 2006)

terri said:
			
		

> Will...you should check out some of Charlie's "remodeled" Polaroid cameras.....ugliest things you've ever seen (as he is quick to point out), but they all work!




if i knew someone named 'Charlie', i'd be all set.


----------



## terri (Jun 7, 2006)

motcon said:
			
		

> if i knew someone named 'Charlie', i'd be all set.


My apologies - that would be mysteryscribe, the very same who penned this thread.  I'm a lazycat about user names, especially if the real name is shorter.


----------



## Paul Ron (Jun 7, 2006)

Your idea is very good. It'll work just fine. In fact Minox once had a darkroom in an atache carry case back in the 70s. It was fitted with ornage front panels so you can actually see everything inside as you worked using long sleeve gloves inside the box, like those steril hoods you see in labs. The portable darkoom was complete with chemical trays inside as well. You could only make 4x5s but it was truely amazing given the year it hit the market. 

Good luck with yours.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 7, 2006)

actually this is the version I designed.  I made some small changes trying to get it sharp.  Finally scrapped it.  Im going to go with a daylight contact printer instead I think.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





By the way I gave the candy to my daughter.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 7, 2006)

My camera will shoot a good 3x4 negative, but the 4x5 version is a pain to work with. So what I think I will do is make a daylight contact printer to print 3x4 negs on 4x5 paper. Probably use a 4x5 mask with a cut out 3x4 oval to make retro portraits. If it is works okay and it should, I might go with 5x7 prints or even 8x10.. Can probably build a view camera. 

So anyway the enlarger will work I am convinced, if you can get the focal distances right From pinhole to negative holder and from pin hole to film holder. And yes Terri this the uglist thing I have build yet, but it does have a warped beauty.

I have no experience with trying to tone rc can it be done. If not I guess I'll have to print wash it with oils. Or go with a fiber based paper.


----------

