good idea, but isn't this only for 135! (as the 50mm enlarger lens is for 35mm); would be good if it was adaptable to 120 and sheet films; essentially its just a "copier" of a neg. onto paper, a true enlarger would have focus and variable size projection, so you can use different size paper, and have the ability to crop, or do a "contact sheet". Don't get my comment wrong, a great "starter kit" for beginners, to be added to the "simplicity" kit from Ilford for kids, as one would surely out grow this fast.
I'm sold , I'm in ,... but yes need a 120 version too, have been hoping for something like this for a while .. great idea and execution ... product of the year👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Oh wow! I've never heard of that. Didn't know there was a product around like this before. And colour as well! In fact, I guess it would be simple enough to make it a colour version, wouldn't it? I confess, I've never tried colour printing... could it be done?
No, that's the one thing you lose with this. That and framing. It's whole neg or nothing. But if you don't have a darkroom at all, then I think these are pretty small concessions to get your started. I really enjoyed it actually, and it meant I could make prints without setting up my darkroom, which is an hour long process at least!
Back in the day, I used to drop my black and white film off at the local photo store (or drug store -- nearly all of them had a B&W photo lab in the back and sent out the color film until one-hour color came along in the 1970s), and I'd get back prints smaller than these (3 1/2 on the short dimension), but made almost the same way. The printing setup was a fixed focus enlarger with various combinations of height setting and lens, a mask for the easel (to accommodate square or 3:2 ratio full negative prints from 35 mm/126 and 120/620, as well as full frame and half frame formats for 127). Advance the paper into the easel, trigger the enlarger lamp for the exposure (calculated by metering the brightness of the light source through the negative, IIRC), advance the paper again and tear off the print, then into the developing process, which might well have been a processing machine that developed, stopped, fixed, and washed the print before it went onto a ferrotype dryer to produce the famous glossy finish. Some of this technology (fixed focus/magnification for a given format) transferred to the one-hour machines when they started to appear (optical prints only, but color machines had some level of automatic exposure compensation by frame and automatic color filtering by roll). The prints you'd get were usually the same exposure for the whole roll, so an underexposed frame would print dark and an overexpose one would print light; there was no dodging or burning, and they were printed on fixed-grade (usually No. 2 or 2 1/2) paper. At least this Berlinova allows for contrast filtration, since you can't even buy a full range of graded paper any more (2, 2 1/2, and 3 are the only grades commonly available). BTW, there's no reason the contrast filter tray couldn't be converted (or sold as a color version) to accommodate color correction gels mounted in compatible frames.
Very interesting, because setting up a darkroom needs space and in a little flat: it is impossible. Now it could be awesome to find a trick to burn the edges of the print, to be more like a darkroom
I suspect that if this system makes it to market, there could be any number of DIY add ons created for it. Actual dodging and burning by sight will always be impossible because it would need you to physically see the paper, thereby making the paper vulnerable to any light in the space where you are. Unless... you created some sort of viewing port with a scuba mask-style rubber curtain around it, giving a light seal by pressing your face into it... yikes. Getting complicated!
I think this is the answer for me, don’t have a darkroom, but want to get away from inkjet printing. I assume you have to cut the negatives into single frames? 35mm will be a great starter but I also would like it in 120. Heading over to kickstarter now😊
Let's add a folding segment with appropriate markings on it to adjust focusing distance and frames for various print sizes, make another device for developing negatives and we're good to go!
I agree that a choice of frame sizes would be appealing... but every time you add parts or complications, the cost goes up. I don't envy these product designers, it's a touch job they have, always balancing options against cost. Hopefully if this gets off the ground there will be changeable parts in the future which will expand the offering. Who knows!
I bought one of those daylight film development tanks recently. Seemed a great idea. I’ve used it once. I’m pretty sure that this would be just the same. I only shoot 120 and have a coolscan. I’m so happy to be rid of the darkroom part. The conversion of my photos into files allows me to clean up the images and then, if I did ever want a print, there are myriad online places to get such. This daylight printing system is a solution looking for a problem.
An interesting view point, for sure! I use my Paterson daylight film developing tanks about 20 times per week, and have done for ten years or so. Saves me a fortune in sending my films off to processed elsewhere. I also scan, otherwise I wouldn't be able to show you guys the images! But I also enjoy going into the darkroom and making prints. For me, the full analogue process has a magic to it that I don't find with the hybrid digital workflow, especially inkjet printing from scans. But, we all like different things!
@@the120ist ah. I use my Paterson changing bag and developing tanks all the time too. When I said daylight tanks I meant the Lab-Box (copy of the Rondinax). Sorry for the confusion. I meant a tank that could be loaded in daylight without using a changing bag. I used my lab-box once. But once wet you have to clean and dry it to be able to use it again. The only saving is loading.
Great Idea mate... setting up a darkroom to print stuff is a pain especially on location or extended holiday.... good luck to you and the developer (pun intended).... 🥳🥳🥳
My dad was a commercial photographer. He brought me to some of the trade shows in N.Y. back in the 50s and 60s. At that time they had compact darkroom set ups that would sit on a tabletop. I don't think they sold very well because I never saw one in use or on sale in any of the camera stores.
Interesting! A few commenters here have mentioned some similar products that were available in the 70s and 80s, but I had never heard of them, or seen anything on sale recently. I guess, as you say, they weren't that popular then, so have all been binned over the years. I wonder if the market now, albeit infinitely smaller, might actually be more receptive to this. The biggest reason people give for "returning to film" is to get away from the digital onslaught... so perhaps if people have the option to keep their entire workflow digital-free... ? Who knows.
For those of us who have been in the photo trade for long enough will recognise this as a Polaroid Daylab 300 MKII - which is not a bad thing. I would be concerned for the new design if there were any patents from the Daylab that can be legally enforced today. I doubt it as the original Polaroid brand is no more, but you never know, within the paperwork that still keeps the Polaroid name alive today. I like it, I know there is definitely a need for it. It will certainly help folks to access quicker and easier simple "real" prints, and that is a good thing. Perfect for education facilities to also allow learners to experience printing in a more accessible environment. Good luck to the creator.
I'm sure that someone owns Polaroid's patents, otherwise the new 600 pack film, and other stuff being made now under the Polaroid name would be easy enough to rip off. That said, isn't Fuji Instax basically an identical concept to the original Polaroid 600 sheets? And so either Fuji paid to use the design, or may Polaroid's patents lapsed when it went out of business the first time? Who knows. I don't think Wicher has intentionally copied anything, it feels like a fairly organically grown product. He's definitely figuring things out as he goes a long and doing a lot of troubleshooting himself.
Some guy in Austria owns the rights to Polaroid and has re-launched the company. I believe he also bought their last factory in Austria and is trying to keep alive the Polaroid innovations. There's a video on YT about it.
As someone with a beseler and omega in the closet but no room to set them up, this would be amazing for me. It would be amazing if it could be up sized to print 8x10 and a 120 film option, up to 6x6 at least.
Exactly, it's perfect for that. And as I mentioned at the end of the video there, even though I do technically have access to a darkroom, this is a much simpler solution for making quick prints. I too would love to see both an 8x10 option, and a 120 option, but I also totally get that the biggest market is the 35mm one. Especially for more novice darkroom people who will probably be the biggest buyers of this. But I've been badgering Wicher... is he gets this off the ground, I won't let too much time pass before he launches a 120 version!!
It is, and it really works, which is the best bit. Lots of fun. I've given those prints I made to my girls and they have both put them up on their walls!
Do you think? Wouldn't good ol' Ansel be approving of the option for newcomers to experience wet printing? Admittedly, not much of what he describes in "the negative" is relevant with this, but everyone's got to start somewhere right?
@@the120ist Nope, definitely not. He'd recommend a slab of chipboard across the bath, a basic enlarger and an extension lead - oh, and a copy of 'The Negative', of course. Hmm... or 'The Print', maybe.
My first thought was what if there are little drops of the developer left sitting on the paper still working while you get the stop ready, could that lead to spots. Very cool idea though, love the innovation.
Definitely a risk. But we'd be talking about a few seconds, hopefully not long enough to make a huge difference. It's not going to replace darkroom for art printing, for sure! But for the darkroom novice, who wants to make prints at home but can't turn any part of their home into a darkroom, it's a pretty solid concept!
Seems like a super bit of kit, not sure if I could take what seems like a backward step after using darkrooms. But strikes me as an excellent jumping off point for getting into wet printing.
Exactly my thoughts. Limitations, for sure, but if you don't have access to a darkroom, or want a simple solution to get your toe in the water, it works!
The idea isnt new, they made them a century ago. It works to a point I suppose, but to get properly exposed prints you need to take a test print or meter which this doesnt have the facility to do. Nor can you develop visually..If you get the exposure right and consistently you can process a batch. If you use different filters your exposure will change too. I have a similar item made in the 50s. Its ok but not perfect
I don't think the intention is perfection. You can test print, you can do test strips, and you can test by trial and error. Agreed, you can't develop by inspection, but you can standardise with a timer. No, it isn't perfect, but in absence of a darkroom, it's something!
I don't think I ever printed so small. If I shoot film again, it's 120 and up. nd dodging and burning required. As an alternative to commercial printing for hobbyists, I think this would be fine.
I think that's where it's aimed, at the hobbyist. I think the concept has a host of unavoidable limitations. But as a first step into printing, it's not bad!
Agree on the external lever. Especially for people like me who forget to check the aperture, and are then too lazy to open it up again...... hmmm... maybe inventors shouldn't make products for people like me.... I'm not sure on cyanotypes. I've always been told that the glass in the lens blocks a lot of UV coming from the light source, which is why you can't just project onto a sheet, you always have to do contact printing for cyanotypes. But I don't know enough about it.
Had to change mindset from “limitations” to “possibilities”, and yeah I think it’s an excellent idea. My initial thought was “hmmm developer slosh”, but following the instructions and using measured pourers would seem to mitigate that a lot Anyone reading this - it’s a short campaign, only a month to go and he’s only 1/8th there. If you like the concept but can’t afford €275 to buy one, consider the €5 tip for “eternal gratiutude” and share the campaign on your socials. I hope that a future 120 head will be interchangeable, even if limited to 6x7 and not 6x9 will be good.
Yeah I can definitely attest to the downsides of "developer slosh" as you put it!! Much better to limit the quantities! Great advice, and I second that - if people reading this don't want to fork out the full amount then putting a fiver into the pot would, I'm sure, be hugely appreciated by Wicher.
Totally agree! I don't often enlarge in the darkroom to anything smaller than 8x10. But I don't envy the product designers tough choices of balancing cost and options. I know he's desperately trying to keep the costs down, while also trying to respond to all the feedback he's already had. It's so tricky!
@@the120ist I think he should try to use less printing material maybe some of the product can be made out of wood or something idk. But yeah the bigger the thing gets I'm sure its a lot to 3D print that.
That's the most complicated way of making a "darkroom" print I've ever seen. And no doge and burn, can't see the print while developing and no test strips.
I think it has merit. It works, it's fun to use, and the prints are good. Appreciate there are limitations, but in the absence of a darkroom, it's better than digital printing, for me.
