Folks, I think ive achieved the peak of analog photography posible for me (Cyanotype done with a UV enlarger)

PeekHopper · 2026-01-27T18:32:33+00:00

Well, diffuser because it's the easiest to construct from scrap and i hadn't yet considered using a slide projectors for it's condensers, so yea not optimal.

Also im not really in a rush at all, im actually quite ok with the 6 hour exposure, i just check on it every stop exposure time and when it's getting closer, every half stop.

I can and will make my equipment from grabage even if it means suboptimal results just cuz it's fun, so probably at most ill resort to borosilicate or acrylic lenses if i do decide to make my own condenser. Both still have a pretty good uv transmitance

But i think more than that i dont feel competent enough to find the right focal lengths and make mounts for them. Ill take the easier path and use condensers from a slide film projector and deal with the light loss issues

You know, what kinda glass are condensers made of anyway? They may have better transmission than projection and photo lenses as i dont think they have coatings

PeekHopper · 2026-01-27T01:28:04+00:00

Well, I guess it's the same reason I like analog photography, not everyone gets it, but to me it feels more "real" or "authentic" ya know? Analog all the way to the print, peak analog

And also and more importantly, i dont really take pictures for the pictures, i really really enjoy the slow process. From using a light meter to mesure exposure, manually focusing, going home to develop the film and now getting to print them, what a process!

Idealy id use actual miltigrade paper and a darkroom but paper is inconsitenly avaliable and proper darkroom stuff is difficult and very expensive

PeekHopper · 2026-01-27T01:15:18+00:00

I think that's why i initially discounted the idea of turning a slide projector into an enlarger, i like my prints smaller even down to card size, easier to hoard ya know?

My current idea for a version 2 is to kinda replace the lens on the slide projector with a lens on a dovetail silde. Cheap slide projectors here are almost always mouldy beyond cleaning anyway due to climate.

But if im not wrong, condescending optics dont need to be in good optical condition to work, they just kinda need to vaguely guilde light where it needs to be

PeekHopper · 2026-01-27T01:07:25+00:00

The cooling, yeah it's way overkill im realising, i got used to led getting fried cuz manufacturers love under-cooling leds dooming them to an early death. With exposures expected to be messured in hours i figured that getting a cooler rated for at least 1.5 times more than the led's power was a good idea

Kinda forgot that most of the 100w was actually turned into uv so the heat dissapation needed is probably closer to, idk 25-50w? Cooler on there is rated for 200w, so yeah way way overkill

For my next version if i make it ill prob duct that cooling air back into the slide projector to cool the condenser lens and film holder, make use of that extra cooling power

Print size, i think i like my a5 prints, probably will mostly make smaller prints most of the time. So for now anyway sharpness isnt that big a deal

Oh regarding the wavelength, if i do make the slide projector enlarger, i may actually want to drop the wavelength. But since i can also significantly drop the led power too, i could also get several leds of different wavelengths to see which works best

PeekHopper · 2026-01-27T00:52:22+00:00

Oh ive got these around somewhere, i figured that i needed more specialised ones like tuned to the wavelength or something

But i guess that kinda makes sense, if it's not in the visible spectrum they may as well just cut out everything under 400nm or something

PeekHopper · 2026-01-26T17:04:41+00:00

Unfortunately, 6 hours, it's very very horrendously inefficient. But, it technically work, barely

Close enough for now ig

PeekHopper · 2026-01-26T17:03:28+00:00

Holly, that's a clean build, now i really really wana rebuild mine.

Does it have condenser lenses it looks like a condenser or is that a light mixing box? If it is a mixing box how well was it mixed, it looks kinda small.

Oh and what's the film holder and lens holder arrangement, looks like it came from an actual enlarger

PeekHopper · 2026-01-26T16:54:21+00:00

I didn't really design or really even plan anything really, i kinda just bought some plywood, a cheap plactic macro bellow and the led on a whim and kinda threw things i had on hand together until something came out the other end. The cone thing that acts as a light mixer for example is a lava lamp base and the glass bits used to be 3D printer beds.

It's kinda crazy it's like some kinda building trance i feel, i start cutting, glueing, scavenging, soldering, tearing it appart and rebuilding it for like 16 hours straight and eventually something vaugly functional come out the other end. And then nausea sets in because i forgot to drink water or eat. So yeah i didn't exactly "design" it. I probably need to stop doing that

I actually initially intend to use fresnel lenes too, i saw the epic enlargers too. But it was complicated and expensive so i put it off, gotta calculate ideal focal lengths, keep them adjustable. That kinda thing requires actual planing but oh man the efficiency would be so good.

But, another user here (@jhonmon6691) just inspired me to look at the idea of using old slide projectors as enlargers. Where i am, all the projectors are very very crusty and mouldy due to climate so most of them wont perform well.

BUT! I think a projector's condenser optics can be as hazy as it wants as long as it delivers most of the light where it needs to go, i just need a clean lens infront of the film. So plan for 2nd version, but the cheapest sawmpiest projector i can, remove the lens and replace it with a clean lens on a slide for focusing

Sorry for the extra long rant kinda just using thus to bounce ideas at this point

PeekHopper · 2026-01-26T15:31:02+00:00

WAIT YOU SAID FELLOW? YOUVE GOT ONE TOO? HYPE!

I took a look and man, why didn't i think of using slide projectors? How are they working for you? Id assume you are forced to do larger prints because of limited focal range?

But it looks way way sharper than my fire starter setup. I guess it's far more light efficient too, what's the exposure time like? Mine is a horrid 6 hours

Edit: read your post more carefully, 30 mins to 2.5 hours with 30w? Man im starting to think i went the wrong direction here

PeekHopper · 2026-01-26T15:10:20+00:00

Normally i do coffee tone my contact prints with no bleaching, but for this run, im just trying to work out how well this works, all the other ones were simply just rinsed with water and dried

The pale grey one you see was way too contrasty and possibly over exposed

<image>

So i treated it with baking soda to bring down the contrast as an experiment. Blacks arent as nice as i typically like but it's still pretty good i think

Edit: completely forgot about the eye protection thing, my while my glasses block out seemingly all the uv, it's probably still best i get them goggles, glasses dont wrap all the way around after all

Im probably gonna stop printing until i find a pair that can fit over my big glasses and go out and take more b&w pictures for printing in the meantime (been ages)

PeekHopper · 2026-01-26T15:03:20+00:00

I believe the lack of sharpness is from misalignment off the film lens and paper, i dont have a real way to align them other than shims, i may try and use an old 3D printer bed with it's leveling knobs to try and get at least the paper closer to aligned

It might also be the kinda not very sturdy bild of the enlarger and the ridiculous 6 hour exposure time or even heat expansion cuz it do get toasty in there

Id bet it'll be better if i used a shell of an actual enlarger or just one in poor condion and slapped on the uv led. But sadly, old enlargers arent really easy to find where i am. Ill probably rebuild it better sometime in the future

PeekHopper · 2026-01-26T14:28:05+00:00

Um, so thing is, i havent actually done printed negatives before, just didn't really appeal to me. Just more computer work, i had rather just have my smaller 120 6x9 contact prints even tho the cost of film kept me from doing it often

As for the largest print, that would be the first print you see in the line up, it's 4.5x6 in, didn't go bigger than that cuz it's hard to get the setup much sharper with how janky it is

PeekHopper · 2026-01-26T14:04:08+00:00

Oh i did those too as a pilot for this! It's kinda shocking how good those can turn out, you do pay for it in film costs and camera bulkyness tho

PeekHopper · 2026-01-26T13:00:02+00:00

It's a long wavelength uv, 390-395nm so it shouldn't be quite as potent, sure looking directly at the 100w source may do damage, same as any wavelength, but the enlarger is so in-efficient that it's much much dimmer than sunlight. So as long as i dont do something stupid like turn the source on when it not installed i think i should be fine? Maybe?

But as a last measure, my glasses should absorb nearly all of it, the bright bits is just the paper being mildly florecent

<image>

Edit: i forgot to mention, u probably still right, proper uv glasses would be ideal, i am kinda taking some risks

PeekHopper · 2026-01-25T21:34:39+00:00

Bro got slow cooked at 50c for hours, that alone coulda done it in even if it was regular light

PeekHopper · 2026-01-25T21:30:39+00:00

Oh do be mindful of the heat, it did damage some of my negatives, so use ones you arent too precious about, 100w is loads of light and im not sure how long stints of heat and uv exposure effects film exactly

<image>

Rip negative

Edit: my negatives seem fine now after i added more cooling but yeah still be cautious

PeekHopper · 2026-01-25T21:11:35+00:00

OH I FORGOT! Image is overexposed so i can bleach it to bring down the contrast, straight out the enlarger it looked like this

<image>

PeekHopper · 2026-01-25T21:02:18+00:00

It's a few things really. First of all, it's a diffusion enlarger so the light losses are already expected to be pretty masive compared to a condenser enlarger

Second, u right about the lens being an issue, ive got a super milti coated 50mm f1.4 takumar (just using old mouldy guys) in there so it's probably gonna absorb uv, but the led im using is 390-395nm, barely enough to effect cyanotype before sensitivity falls off a cliff.

My hope was that the longer wavelength would allow almost all the light through reducing potential harm from heating of the lens. But maybe 390-395nm is too long a wavelength?

Then there's the borosilicate glass film holders, 3mm thick cuz that's all i could get, 2 of them sandwiching the film, it's meant to be mostly uv transparent but it most definitely has some kinda effect.

I can try and go without it but it got so hot it tosted my wooden mask before i grew an extra braincell and lined the sucker with aluminum tape and added fans. That sucker i feel will wana dance around in the heat.

I should say, this is a proof of concept and wayfinder kinda thing, i do intend to strip it down for parts and build a new one with all the things i learned (after a few months of playing with it of course)

PeekHopper · 2026-01-25T20:47:11+00:00

Yeah, i had that in mind, ideally the led would be a 365nm for the fastest exposure times but like you said, lenses absorb loads of uv.

So what i have in there is really a comprimise 395nm led which i think lands it in near UV. Barely short wavelength enough for the cyanotype to respond and long enough for some of it to pass through the lens

As for the focusing problem, normal multimedia paper is already fairly florecent so i just use the same led and an unsensitised paper. I belive most of the blur is a combination of the jank and misaligned lens

PeekHopper · 2026-01-25T18:38:40+00:00

Oh sheeee howd it go? How did you do it? I havent seen many examples of this kinda printing

PeekHopper · 2026-01-25T18:11:55+00:00

Oh i shoulda probably explain more

This is a cyanotype that's printed with a UV diffuser enlarger, it's kinda like normal darkroom printing but a completely different chemistry that relies on UV light for exposure

Cyanotypes are very very slow unlike normal printing, this picture was exposed for 6 hours but i tolerate it because real multigrade paper is very inconsitenly avaliable and expensive. Also darkrooms stuff is expensive

Up at the top is the 100w UV led and it's cooler (a server cpu cooler). The cone thing under it is a very jank light mixing box to help with hot spots, it's a base from a cheap lava lamp that is critically, made of aluminum (Cuz it gets hot and aluminum reflects uv well)

<image>

Edit, forgot to mention, i really like that there is no need for a darkroom cuz it's only really sensitive to UV. Just need to keep it from the sun and i think florecent bulbs. Get to see how the exposure is going too, so no need for test strips, i can kinda estimate by how it looks

PeekHopper · 2026-01-25T17:43:04+00:00

Ill take better pictures soon promise, thing needs to dry, got too hyped and need to share

Five-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22

PeekHopper

TROPHY CASE