Breaking News! You don't need a darkroom!! Introducing the Jaggle Berlinova daylight darkroom

[@the120ist]

How about that? Let me know what you think of the Berlinova!

[@andyvan5692]

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.

[@ulyssesnathanialowen3831]

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👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@the120ist]

I think the 120 version won't be far behind, once the 35mm gets off the ground! Lots of people asking for it!

[@therealJaggle]

Thank you for your excitement! As Nick already supposed 120 is definitely in the works! A lot of the parts will be compatible with the 120 version

[@Daniel.Walker]

As someone that doesn’t have a darkroom; this is really tempting!

[@the120ist]

Go back the Kickstarter! Who knows what will happen if it doesn't reach its target. Would be a great shame.

[@lelandfitz1762]

That's so cool. Really makes the analog printing process accesible

[@the120ist]

It definitely does! It was actually pretty enjoyable printing in my kitchen for once, especially when it’s cold outside!

[@lelandfitz1762]

@@the120ist Hope the Kickstarter is successful (sadly the time left is very short). But I could see him going into a partnership with Valoi or Filmomat to get it done, in case it won't work out this time.

[@alfiecameras9480]

Pretty cool, great way to get into making prints. Guessing no dodging /burning which is something that appeals to me about the print making process

[@the120ist]

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!

[@SilntObsvr]

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.

[@the120ist]

@@SilntObsvr How times have changed hey? I think I was shooting film a little later, every drug store had one of those big Fuji colour print machines. I still see a few around today, but not often. You're right though, I think it wouldn't take too much to get this working for colour, right? I don't print colour myself, maybe I should! But the system is fully modular, so swap out the light maybe, and you would think colour would be possible. Here's hoping that's in the near future!

[@SilntObsvr]

@@the120ist For color, you'd need to be able to install a color filter pack, and then be able to correct the pack. Kodak viewing filters are still to be found on eBay (I've got a set), they'll let you determined quickly how much filter adjustment you need from a "nearly right" print. Color filters come in gels, and if the filter slot in that would accommodate a drawer that would hold multiple sheets of gel, you're in. Alternately, a light source with built-in filtering, like a controllable LED panel or (preferably) a halogen lamp with adjustable dichroic filters as in a color enlarger head...

[@londonbackpacker]

Although smaller it's similar to a product I had back in the 80s called the daylab 300. It had a colour head and did up to A4 size prints.

[@the120ist]

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?

[@londonbackpacker]

@@the120ist I imagine it could be done only the head on the new unit would be quite small. I did a lot of cibachrome back then.

[@terryroth2855]

I had a Daylab also and it was enjoyable to use. Wish I still had it. This appears to have a lot of potential though.

[@chriscard6544]

Looks very interesting

[@therealJaggle]

Colour printing is also something we are working towards, with a dedicated light source and colour adjustments.

[@danienelphoto]

That is an innovative product! Really impressed.

[@the120ist]

It is isn’t it? A great idea, and well executed! I’m just sad I don’t get to keep it! How big has my head got??

[@therealJaggle]

Thank you!

[@clintwoosley9512]

I’d seen this but after your video I just backed it. Someday I’ll get a full darkroom but this is a nice extension of my home developing for now.

[@the120ist]

Great stuff. It's a genuinely good product, I think you'll be thrilled when yours arrives.

[@liveinaweorg]

RTFI - yeah! How many times have I heard that :) Great product for basic darkroom printing for those who don't have an accessible darkroom.

[@alexvarascameras]

Thanks for the review, looking forward the 120 version as well.

[@the120ist]

Fingers crossed. Worth backing it now, I would assume the 120 will just be a head upgrade, so you'll have all the other parts already.

[@AndrewSanderson-UK]

That's a great idea. It would be really useful for teaching in schools.

[@the120ist]

Definitely! Especially if they can't set up a darkroom. I think back now and I didn't realise how lucky I was to have a darkroom at school! I don't think many have them now.

[@therealJaggle]

We are talking with people in education in several countries as we speak, it is going to take some work to get the system there, but so far people are really excited!

[@the120ist]

@@therealJaggle That's awesome. Such a shame so few schools have darkrooms these days. We didn't know how lucky we were back in the 80s!

[@jamessalomon9343]

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.

[@the120ist]

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.

[@bernardkelly235]

Enjoyed the demonstration. Interesting and, I agree, perfectly viable option. (Please don't sniff the fixer, though. We need you around.)

[@the120ist]

Mmmmm FIIIIIXXXXXXEEEEERRRRRRR 🤒

[@bernardkelly235]

@@the120ist For some hypo is an after-shave.

[@Shcreamingreen]

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!

[@the120ist]

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!

[@therealJaggle]

There are a lot of parts and upgrades we are thinking about, a more flexible focus system is definitely in there!

[@Distinctly.Average]

Why do you need a device for developing negatives? That is a simple tank that we have been using for many decades. You simply load the film onto a spiral drum inside the same bag used in the video for loading the paper. Inside the bag you put the film into a special tank. The rest is done in daylight. Just google film developing tank.

[@monkeysausageclub]

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.

[@the120ist]

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!

[@DirtyPlumbus]

I love the idea, but I dont do much 35mm either, and to be perfectly honest, I can get an enlarger that does more for less. That said, I hope he does well and expands on the idea. Maybe it will be of interest to me in the future.

[@the120ist]

You can definitely get an enlarger for cheaper, I agree. But that still doesn’t solve the darkroom issue, and where to do you printing. It’s not for everyone, for sure. But I definitely like the concept.

[@DirtyPlumbus]

@the120ist You're definitely right. I like the idea, and it would be nice not to have to work in my bathroom. Lol Just needs a little tweaking.

[@fjonesjones2]

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).... 🥳🥳🥳

[@the120ist]

I'm sure Wicher will be reading this and will appreciate your kind words. Here's hoping it reaches its goal, and shop shelves!

[@therealJaggle]

Thank you =)

[@theangrymonkey]

Pretty cool idea. Suppose one for Large prints would be impractical, but cool none the less

[@the120ist]

Well… would it be impractical? I don’t know that it would. 8x10 would definitely be achievable. What size were you thinking?

[@theangrymonkey]

@ 8x10 would be nice as I do a fair number at this size. Feels worth the effort. But I imagine the height would need to be significant for that. 16x12 is my fave size for wall printing. Maybe it would work though.

[@stigofthedump4058]

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.

[@the120ist]

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!

[@ethelred2648]

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.

[@the120ist]

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!

[@ethelred2648]

@@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.

[@the120ist]

@@ethelred2648 Ahh ok the lab box. I don't have one of them. There are definitely a few pieces of kit out there which are just a tiny bit gimmicky... a bit more than is required perhaps and make a job only 10% quicker but with 50% added complication! But I think this Berlinova has potential. I actually solves a common issue, and I would say it's no more complicated to get good results than working in a darkroom. Plus you can watch TV or have a conversation with a non-photographer while you print!

[@ethelred2648]

@@the120ist I bought the lab-box because of the frequent messes I got myself into while loading 120 into a Paterson spiral in the changing bag. And for one roll of 120 it’s very easy to load in daylight (and clever). However the issue is that, once the tanks wet, you can’t do another roll until it’s been disassembled and dried. And I also noted streaks on the negs which stopped me using it completely. The spiral is held sideways in the liquid and you either use copious quantities of chemicals or you constantly rotate. It’s a solution looking for a problem! As for the product here, I’m sure it’s a great idea. I just don’t do paper enlargement the traditional way, Coolscan 8000 and Lightroom AI gets me the cleanest spot removal and negative enhancements.

[@wullieg7269]

transfer to deeper dish and use more paper to print faster by having two mags

[@the120ist]

That's what Wicher (designer) recommends, more 'casettes" as he calls them. But of course he would say that!! Once I stopped sloshing the chems around, it was actually a pretty quick turnaround to get a second print going.

[@brendonwilson1318]

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.

[@the120ist]

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!!

[@therealJaggle]

8x10 has been a popular request that we do have in the works, the only thing stopping us from putting it in the kickstarter is that the moulding costs of all the parts would be prohibitive...

[@the120ist]

@@therealJaggle I don't envy your current position Wicher! So many options, and it doesn't make financial sense to introduce them all. But then everyone wants something different! So much work for you when (!) this is successfully funded!

[@chriscard6544]

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

[@the120ist]

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!

[@chriscard6544]

@@the120ist yes

[@filmmakerevolution]

Pretty cool little device hey

[@the120ist]

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!

[@oneeyedphotographer]

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.

[@the120ist]

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!

[@bernardkealey6449]

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.

[@the120ist]

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.

[@DerGeileEisbaer]

This thing in 120 and I'm totally in

[@the120ist]

I know right? But I really enjoyed printing from 35mm actually. So much so that I've been out and shot more 35mm film! Sshhh, don't tell anyone.

[@staryjanek]

Wow !!!!, Bobflappybum needs this as he no longer has a proper darkroom !!!!

[@the120ist]

I know right? We live in CRAZY times!

[@the120ist]

BOBFLAPPYBUM!! Your prayers have been answered.

[@staryjanek]

@@the120ist Hallelujah :) tee hee

[@the120ist]

@@staryjanek Where is he? BOB! Are you there??

[@staryjanek]

@@the120ist aye, I am here :) We are one and the same person :) Are you there ? is anybody there ? knock once for Yes and twice for No @_

[@ericholmquist8966]

The other down side; getting your wife's permission to get in the kitchen....

[@the120ist]

Ha ha! TRUE! Although it means she can nag the hell out of me while I'm printing, which she can't do if I'm in my garage dark room... so....

[@nickcosh5947]

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😊

[@the120ist]

No you don't have to cut the 35mm negs down, the negative carrier is open ended, so the strip can poke out the ends.

[@therealJaggle]

Thank you for your support!

[@rosemaryhawkinsphotos]

Just wondering could this be used to make large format contact prints?

[@the120ist]

Hmmmm.... I don't see why not. You'd have to be able to get the paper and the negative under the runners in the paper holder, but I think they'll fit. Film is much thinner than paper. You may even be able to get two pieces of paper, if you're doing paper negatives. I reckon it would work.

[@rosemaryhawkinsphotos]

@@the120ist Thanks that would definitely raise my interest!

[@thenutter2003]

that is a really cool item maybe for 6x6 they can just mod the top part.

[@therealJaggle]

We are definitely working on a 645 / 66 version, which might even be possible with the current lens, testing is in progress on that. Larger 120 formats are a dream for the future as well

[@PhotoTEQ]

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.

[@the120ist]

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.

[@van-gabondramblinrose6398]

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.

[@therealJaggle]

Thank you for your concern! From our understanding of the Daylab we believe the system to be sufficiently different to avoid any IP.

[@compwiz101]

@@the120ist The story is so much more complicated than you'd imagine - the operating principles are actually different (polaroid exposes from the front, Instax from the rear), but how it got there is kinda nuts. The Fuji film is based originally on the instant film developed by Kodak to compete with polaroid, resulting in a multi-year lawsuit that Polaroid eventually won. The wrangling between Fuji and Polaroid to avoid another lawsuit is a whole other ball of wax I believe

[@rosemaryhawkinsphotos]

Hello will this print to 5x7 paper? The kickstarter isn't very clear about that. Thanks

[@the120ist]

So the 5x7 isn't currently available on the kickstarter, Wicher is going to add it as a stretch goal - in other words, if they reach a certain target the 5x7 will be released. Essentially it's a separate tray and lower cone. Same lens and top section.

[@rosemaryhawkinsphotos]

@@the120ist Thanks for the information!

[@TheEnzedone]

Very cool

[@the120ist]

It is isn't it? Could be great for people living in small apartments who want to print!

[@svetlovska]

A 120 version and I’m interested.

[@the120ist]

I too will be eagerly awaiting the release of the 120 version. But bear in mind that if the 35mm version doesn't get off the ground then we'll all be waiting for a very long time! Consider backing the existing kickstarter and then upgrading to the 120 top section maybe? I might ask Wicher if he has any thoughts of adding a 120 top section to the existing project.

[@therealJaggle]

A 120 version is definitely in the works, but we had to limit ourselves to this version to keep the kickstarter ask as "low" as it is....

[@jamestdoe1]

I don't see anything about price, is there any estimated cost for this thing? I mean, if it's going to cost < $250 it would be interesting . . . but if it's more than that I'm not so sure.

[@the120ist]

Hey, head over to the Kickstarter page to see about reward levels and the prices. The link is at the top of the description

[@Mike_Wazowski_z]

It would be really cool to see an 8x10 version

[@the120ist]

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!

[@Mike_Wazowski_z]

@@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.

[@therealJaggle]

@@Mike_Wazowski_z Hi there, we have been working on many different materials and manufacturing methods to achieve the best price/quality balance. We aim to make this using predominantly injection moulding, which is the main reason why we are asking for so much money in the Kickstarter. And the lens of course, that is also a drain on the budget ;)

[@the120ist]

@@Mike_Wazowski_z That would be nice of course. I don't think anyone in the world sees 3D printed material and thinks high quality! The version I had is a prototype of course, so the real thing will be much slicker, but making stuff from wood is costly right? And hard to scale? I actually have no idea...

[@delboy1727]

Whilst I do shoot 35mm I also shoot 120 so one of these that could do both (different heads?) would be ideal for me.

[@the120ist]

I know Wicher is working on a 120 top section. But if the Kickstarter doesn't get off the ground, then it's all a dreeeeeeeam.

[@russellsprout2223]

Yikes! Ansel Adams will be spinning in his grave. Brilliant video though, and superbly 'delivered' as always.

[@the120ist]

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?

[@russellsprout2223]

​​@@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.

[@the120ist]

@@russellsprout2223 Ahhhh but Ansel didn't live in the time of 3D printing...! I think, given the current state of film photography, he would make some allowances.... maybe!

[@casakuo]

Haven’t worked in a darkroom for decades, but remember using large drum roller dryers. How did you dry your prints?

[@the120ist]

You don’t wanna know… I don’t have any equipment to dry prints properly, so I hang them by a tiny bulldog clip. It marks the print, but I’ve got good at it and can keep it to just a few mm on the edge. One day I will have a print dryer!

[@the120ist]

Oh! No actually, I did this in my kitchen didn’t I? Even worse then… I used the plate rack next to the sink. 😳

[@CarlosCarreter]

The 5x7 versión is interesting, better a 8x10 versión. 4x6 is too little.

[@the120ist]

I have to say, I agree. And my preference is definitely the 5x7 of these two. But the 4x6 is also easier to handle. And I actually found the 4x6 prints ok. My kids love them!

[@Jim-BobWalton]

Could this be used for cyanotype? That’d be handy Also, an ability to adjust the aperture using an external lever could be handy

[@the120ist]

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.

[@therealJaggle]

We are really excited to see what people come up with and their results! I do have to second Nick however that this lens is not optimised for UV and the light source has an extremily limited amount of UV to start with...

[@LillySchwartz]

Cyanotype needs a lot of light in comparison, which is why you can pull it off in daylight without ruining your paper right away. That long barrel and the stopped down aperture to get the print sharp corner to corner cuts down on light significantly, so I've never seen anyone manage a UV exposure through an enlarger - there wouldn't be much UV coming from that lamp and even with a UV light source exposure times would probably be very long, like more than an hour most likely? The way I enlarge onto Cyanotype is via contact printing a digital negative with a UV exposure box. 15 minute exposure with the UV LEDs about 10-15 cm from the paper. Needs a printer for the digital negatives, but works quite alright even with a Laser printer if you're not too concerned with resolution. For a proper digital negative it'll have to be a photo inkjet printer to make the negs.

[@philipbirch9183]

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

[@the120ist]

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!

[@therealJaggle]

We have a metering system already planned!

[@Timer5Tim]

You had me till I found out it was just for BnW

[@the120ist]

Hmmm... other than changing to a tri-color head to control the colours, I don't see how it would be wildly different? I confess I don't print colour, so I don't know anything about it! But the unit is light tight, so surely you're over the first barrier? It's a starting point!

[@Timer5Tim]

@@the120ist true, tbh I may still back it since with how super modular it looks I wouldn't be surprised if someone creates a mod for it to do color later on.

[@therealJaggle]

@@Timer5Tim We are already working on a colour head, but unfortunately good things take time and money ;)

[@Timer5Tim]

@@therealJaggle that's all I needed to hear for me to back this project!

[@robot7759]

Just a pocket sized dark room.

[@the120ist]

Exactly that, a pocket darkroom, which can be used in full daylight. What's more to want??

[@robot7759]

@@the120ist Well, these have been build since the dark ages of photography. A dedicated full sized darkroom can still be a luxury.

[@the120ist]

@@robot7759 even a non-dedicated, non-full-size darkroom can be a luxury! If I didn't have my garage available I don't think I would be able to do it. I mostly print in the evenings when the kids are in bed, so the upstairs bathrooms are out, too noisy. I've tried light proofing my kitchen before, almost impossible. So I think this could be a great solution for many people.

[@jaunman71]

Backed

[@the120ist]

Great stuff, me too! Here’s hoping he makes it!

[@frstesiste7670]

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.

[@the120ist]

Is it? The most complicated? How would you achieve a wet print without a darkroom? I’m curious. And no test strips? Did you actually watch the video?

[@stevesmith76]

Very limited usefulness, more of a gimmicky toy than anything worth fooling with

[@the120ist]

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.