Durst Pictochrom & the Ultimate Enlarger

November 8, 2005, from Lloyd Erlick,


On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:59:10 GMT, "seog"
wrote:

Which is why I have 2 spares in the drawer.

Yes, don't we all! But to be able to continue
working after changing a lamp, no
recalibrating the work... just put it in and
continue. That is a luxury.


Thanks for the info Lloyd. I think I need to get with the (Durst) program
and let go of my old printing habits. So when I see 10 on the display that
basically means it's 10 units of light instead of 10 sec, right?


Yes.

So if I
make a print with 10 units today, in 6 months I just punch in 10 and that
will give me the same exposure even if the actual time is different because
of bulb aging?

Yes.


I just wish I could figure out how to store exposures.

Use a notebook and a hand-holdable writing
device. I suggest an Alpa or Leica pencil,
they make a black line when drawn across the
paper, and they are very expensive.

I think Multigraph units newer than mine
(mine was the first installed in Canada!)
have several channels for this sort of thing.


Another crazy "feature": It has A (as in 1, one, uno, un, ein) built in burn
function after which it reverts to the original exposure! How many times do
you have only one burn in area??? Most prints have 3 or more, all with
different times. Technology, gotta love it.


Yes, you're absolutely right. My Multigraph
will store three dodge/burn exposures in
addition to the base exposure. So they must
have heard you! But really, three is not
enough either, although it usually suffices.

The Multigraph easel probe is a pleasure to
use, too. Durst specs it as insensitive to
safelight, and it is, too, I've tested it a
number of times. My safelights have never
influenced the exposure reading to any degree
I could detect.

It's a funny thing. I actually like
enlargers. The Pictochrom, L1200, Multigraph,
all look nice to me. The whole action of
working with them in the dark pleases me.
Nothing about computer printers pleases me,
especially the part about preparing the
files.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote

I suggest an Alpa or Leica pencil,

Cognescetti use a "Blackwing". Even more ridiculously
priced.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
- with unlimited burns and dodges -

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:29:53 GMT, "Nicholas
O. Lindan" wrote:

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote

I suggest an Alpa or Leica pencil,

Cognescetti use a "Blackwing". Even more ridiculously
priced.


I found a 9B Staedtler pencil on the sidewalk
last summer. (Living in a city just throws
stuff at a photographer's eyes ...). It's
great for doing crosswords.

--le

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote in message
...
November 8, 2005, from Lloyd Erlick,

It's a funny thing. I actually like
enlargers. The Pictochrom, L1200, Multigraph,
all look nice to me. The whole action of
working with them in the dark pleases me.
Nothing about computer printers pleases me,
especially the part about preparing the
files.


I used to hate the tedium of the darkroom. Uneven exposure, blurry edges,
calculating different exposure times for different filters, shunting filters
in & out. Magically when I got a REAL enlarger most of those frustrations
disappeared.

Certainly digital is much neater and more efficient (esp. for color) but
efficiency isn't why we do this is it. I'm more in touch with my inner
creative side with the wet sloppy stuff. To me digital is just ... sterile.
It's about as exciting as microfilm.


Natural Light Black and White Photography
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/
-George-
--
It is not our patriotic duty to send children to be butchered & slaughtered
& to butcher & slaughter others every time a general or a politician gets a
hardon for a war. Rather, it is our patriotic duty to demand the highest
burden of proof to justify war.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:26:12 GMT, "seog"
wrote:

I used to hate the tedium of the darkroom. Uneven exposure, blurry edges,
calculating different exposure times for different filters, shunting filters
in & out. Magically when I got a REAL enlarger most of those frustrations
disappeared.


November 11, 2005, from Lloyd Erlick,

I agree. I think it's a shame for a new
darkroom fan to get a low end enlarger. When
I first started out as a teenager, I found
the whole issue of handling paper a
frustration, my lens was sleazy, everything
about adjusting the enlarger a pain
(alignment? hah!), everything. The teenage me
was often tempted to give it all up and do
something easy.

Eventually I got a decent lens (and what an
huge and immediate difference that made!). A
cold light to sit on top of the enlarger made
a noticeable difference too.

Resin coated paper at least helped me get
prints that didn't curl up into toilet paper
tubes. That was a bad addiction, since broken
by FB.

But the hassles of correct exposure and
consistent, repeatable results ... a proper
exposure metering system sure helps there.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--