Any former processing lab people out there?

[MattKing]

That's very interesting to me - what kind of machines did you use in a professional custom photo lab? Regular (high end) enlargers or some minilab/paper processor type?

Both.
I used a Durst MiniPrinter to make proofs and machine enlargements. That meant, IIRC, switching lens assemblies when I switched formats.
The custom enlargements were mostly done by the owner, whose LF enlarger was, IIRC, a large Durst LF enlarger, for which there were several lenses.
It was all colour work.

 

[simplejoy]

Both.
I used a Durst MiniPrinter to make proofs and machine enlargements. That meant, IIRC, switching lens assemblies when I switched formats.
The custom enlargements were mostly done by the owner, whose LF enlarger was, IIRC, a large Durst LF enlarger, for which there were several lenses.
It was all colour work.

Thank you for the information! I'm not familiar with the Durst MiniPrinter but from the images I found online it looks like a very interesting device. Is it similar to a classic enlarger in its functions and which kind of lenses did you use in there? Regular enlarging lenses on lensboards - probably some of the Durst labeled ones?

I would assume it was a varifocal lens because we never changed lenses when switching from 35mm to medium format. As to what the lens was, exactly, I have no idea. I don't remember ever actually seeing the lens.

In case you're curious this is how the E90C lenses look like:

Because multiple sellers of such lenses have told me they were used in Agfa minilabs, I've always assumed the MSC might have been the one to incorporate these in addition to the varifocal ones. Some of them were labeled COPAL, others only E90C and JAPAN. They are fixed aperture lenses and have a common LTM/M39 mount.

 

[MattKing]

Thank you for the information! I'm not familiar with the Durst MiniPrinter but from the images I found online it looks like a very interesting device. Is it similar to a classic enlarger in its functions and which kind of lenses did you use in there? Regular enlarging lenses on lensboards - probably some of the Durst labeled ones?

If you had taken a picture of me operating this in or about 1978, it would have looked like this:

You can't tell this from the photo, but the lower half of the back of the machine is inset into the wall. On the other side of the wall are the machine's doors into the darkroom.
One got down on to the floor and loaded the lens mechanism suited for the task at hand from down below, through those doors. That could be done in subdued room light. Everything else was done in darkness.
Those doors also gave access to the roll paper which fed from the roll that came from the supplier and was loaded on the feed side of the transport mechanism.
After proceeding through the paper holder in the exposure position, the paper continued to the take-up roll spool on the other side. The machine advanced the paper automatically after each exposure. After all the prints were made, the roll would be cut on the exposed print side and the take-up roll spool was transferred to the roll feeder at the darkroom end of on our Kreonite paper processor. After the leading edge came out of the dryer on the Kreonite - in room light outside the darkroom - we attached it to a roll take-up spool.
The continuous roll of processed prints was then cut manually and paired with the film.
For the proofing, the uncut strips fed from one side to the other through the head mechanism. Each frame was positioned manually. In proof test mode, the auto-exposure system read each negative individually and then exposed an angled central strip of the image on to the paper. That proof test mode was actually set at the beginning at the same time as the lens mechanism was set, from that side of the machine.
The proof test strips were developed, cut, and then matched up with the films. I would then evaluate each strip and write the necessary density and colour corrections on the strips.
When it came time to do the final prints - either proofs or re-prints - the proof test mode was reset to full print mode. The films/negatives then were fed and positioned manually again, and the evaluated density and colour corrections would be set for each negative, the machine would again read the auto-exposure system results, but would add the manual corrections and expose the final result.
Everything thereafter was similar to the workflow with the test strips, except with much more paper used .
I could probably do all this still - with the possible exception of getting up and down to and from the floor that much!

 

[simplejoy]

If you had taken a picture of me operating this in or about 1978, it would have looked like this:
View attachment 333275
You can't tell this from the photo, but the lower half of the back of the machine is inset into the wall. On the other side of the wall are the machine's doors into the darkroom.
One got down on to the floor and loaded the lens mechanism suited for the task at hand from down below, through those doors. That could be done in subdued room light. Everything else was done in darkness.
Those doors also gave access to the roll paper which fed from the roll that came from the supplier and was loaded on the feed side of the transport mechanism.
After proceeding through the paper holder in the exposure position, the paper continued to the take-up roll spool on the other side. The machine advanced the paper automatically after each exposure. After all the prints were made, the roll would be cut on the exposed print side and the take-up roll spool was transferred to the roll feeder at the darkroom end of on our Kreonite paper processor. After the leading edge came out of the dryer on the Kreonite - in room light outside the darkroom - we attached it to a roll take-up spool.
The continuous roll of processed prints was then cut manually and paired with the film.
For the proofing, the uncut strips fed from one side to the other through the head mechanism. Each frame was positioned manually. In proof test mode, the auto-exposure system read each negative individually and then exposed an angled central strip of the image on to the paper. That proof test mode was actually set at the beginning at the same time as the lens mechanism was set, from that side of the machine.
The proof test strips were developed, cut, and then matched up with the films. I would then evaluate each strip and write the necessary density and colour corrections on the strips.
When it came time to do the final prints - either proofs or re-prints - the proof test mode was reset to full print mode. The films/negatives then were fed and positioned manually again, and the evaluated density and colour corrections would be set for each negative, the machine would again read the auto-exposure system results, but would add the manual corrections and expose the final result.
Everything thereafter was similar to the workflow with the test strips, except with much more paper used .
I could probably do all this still - with the possible exception of getting up and down to and from the floor that much!

Wow - thank you for the detailed description, that's quite fascinating and sounds like a lot of work went into it, compared to later overwhelmingly automated systems.

 

[MattKing]

Wow - thank you for the detailed description, that's quite fascinating and sounds like a lot of work went into it, compared to later overwhelmingly automated systems.

Yes, but the results, being fairly "custom", were quite high in quality.
The bigger volume labs would do the proof "testing" on very, very expensive, carefully calibrated electronic screens.

 

[markjwyatt]

In the late 70s I worked for a rental photo lab. They darkroom was set-up for for B&W, color negative printing and Cibachrome. For film developing D-76, Kodak Stop and fix was stocked. For any color processing the customer needed to provide their own chemicals. Mainly I helped the customers, but also did a little custom printing for customers. In the 1980s I worked for a couple of 60 minute photo labs (mainly one). Both were strictly C-41, one a Copal shop (the main one) the other a Noritsu shop.

 

[simplejoy]

In the late 70s I worked for a rental photo lab. They darkroom was set-up for for B&W, color negative printing and Cibachrome. For film developing D-76, Kodak Stop and fix was stocked. For any color processing the customer needed to provide their own chemicals. Mainly I helped the customers, but also did a little custom printing for customers. In the 1980s I worked for a couple of 60 minute photo labs (mainly one). Both were strictly C-41, one a Copal shop (the main one) the other a Noritsu shop.

Thanks for sharing - I'm very interested in both Copal and Noritsu. Have you ever used (or seen) any of these lenses?

I know that the second one (varifocal lenses) were used in a range of Noritsu QSS machines, but I'm not quite sure about the rest, so any hint would be highly appreciated.

 

[markjwyatt]

Thanks for sharing - I'm very interested in both Copal and Noritsu. Have you ever used (or seen) any of these lenses?

View attachment 333339

View attachment 333340

View attachment 333341
View attachment 333342
View attachment 333343

I know that the second one (varifocal lenses) were used in a range of Noritsu QSS machines, but I'm not quite sure about the rest, so any hint would be highly appreciated.

Sorry, but I really do not remember the lenses at all. We processed 35mm, 126, and 110, and I think we used one lens for all (on both the Copal machine and the Noritsu). We might have changed lenses for 110, I kind of recall, but I do not recall the exact lenses we used.

 

[Europan]

First time I smelled lab odours was in 1977 when I followed a photo course at school. Borrowed my father’s Canon F-1, exposed Ilford FP 4, developed, and enlarged onto some RC paper. Couple years later I began to shoot on 8 mm film, from 1984 on I had a 16 mm Paillard-Bolex H camera. In 1987 I got hired at Cinégram, the then biggest motion-picture film lab in Switzerland, as machine developer and for QC. Later I worked with Egli Film and Video lab (Cinegrell today) as editor and projectionist and after that I opened my own movie film lab in Basel, specialised on black and white. The image of my avatar is from 2007 after I had moved the whole cluster a second time, couple Steenbeck, a 35 step printer, a 16 step printer, processing equipment, containers, hoses, pumps, water filtration set, two hundred little things. Had to move the lab another time, to Schiller street in March 2008. What an address! Collapse of the business same summer



Here’s Frau Kopp, the picture was made in Basel in 2002 I think, investigating a nitrate print from 1928. Not long ago I donated it to the National Library of Norway, the title is FINMARK. An internegative that I had made is still around somewhere.

 

[pbromaghin]

I'm sorry for digging up such an old thread,

Dont ever apologize for that. The APUG cast of characters is ever changing. Old threads are just as valid as they ever were and bringing them back allows new members to see them and give their own, new, perspective.

 

[MattKing]

Dont ever apologize for that. The APUG cast of characters is ever changing. Old threads are just as valid as they ever were and bringing them back allows new members to see them and give their own, new, perspective.

Agreed, although it is important that you read through the thread, and realize that any initial question raised might now be somewhat dated.
Otherwise, new perspectives can be really useful to all.

 

[Chrismat]

I used to work in a couple of custom labs in the Portland Maine area in the late 80/early 90s. Cibachrome, and specialized C41 printing. I was the B&W printer, but did help out on he color side.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I worked in a one hour lab at a Meijer store when I was in college. Meijer is a chain of big-box 'supercenter' stores in the midwestern USA.

 

[simplejoy]

First time I smelled lab odours was in 1977 when I followed a photo course at school. Borrowed my father’s Canon F-1, exposed Ilford FP 4, developed, and enlarged onto some RC paper. Couple years later I began to shoot on 8 mm film, from 1984 on I had a 16 mm Paillard-Bolex H camera. In 1987 I got hired at Cinégram, the then biggest motion-picture film lab in Switzerland, as machine developer and for QC. Later I worked with Egli Film and Video lab (Cinegrell today) as editor and projectionist and after that I opened my own movie film lab in Basel, specialised on black and white. The image of my avatar is from 2007 after I had moved the whole cluster a second time, couple Steenbeck, a 35 step printer, a 16 step printer, processing equipment, containers, hoses, pumps, water filtration set, two hundred little things. Had to move the lab another time, to Schiller street in March 2008. What an address! Collapse of the business same summer

View attachment 333353

Here’s Frau Kopp, the picture was made in Basel in 2002 I think, investigating a nitrate print from 1928. Not long ago I donated it to the National Library of Norway, the title is FINMARK. An internegative that I had made is still around somewhere.

Wow - that's an impressive story with lots of interesting and quite different tasks you had to manage over the years! I'm not too familiar with the whole motion-picture film processing stuff. What kind of machines were you using back then? Any 'Printing-Nikkors', 'Printing-Ektars' or Zeiss 'S-Sonnars' in those perhaps? And because you were based in Switzerland, did you have any contact with Gretag equipment? It's quite hard to find anything about most of this stuff online unfortunately...

Dont ever apologize for that. The APUG cast of characters is ever changing. Old threads are just as valid as they ever were and bringing them back allows new members to see them and give their own, new, perspective.

I'm glad you see it that way. Because it's such a 'of its time' topic there's a big chance almost all of this will be forgotten... if it isn't already! As you can see in this thread, even a lot of people who operated these machines don't know or remember some significant details. And while many might think 'who cares?', some of the best lenses I ever had the chance to put in front of my camera were used in those machines. And when it all fell apart a lot of them were dumped or fell victim to dust and time, which is a real pity in my opinion. That's the reason why I'm trying to assemble some information and write a couple of articles on the matter.

I've already started with Agfa:
https://deltalenses.com/index.php/2022/03/21/agfa-enlarger-lenses/
(even though the minilab-part is still mostly missing)

 

[madsox]

Wow. Lots of detail y'all remember!

I worked for a year or two, part time, in a Ritz Camera store (chain in the northeast, the name is still around although they've gone bust and been bought/recreated at least twice), where I did lots of one-hour totally automated C41 processing and printing. I don't remember *any* of the specific equipment we used, that was 30-35 years ago in my "working three parttime jobs in a recession" phase. Lots of details are just not there in the old brain cells...

 

[MattKing]

Wow. Lots of detail y'all remember!

I worked for a year or two, part time, in a Ritz Camera store (chain in the northeast, the name is still around although they've gone bust and been bought/recreated at least twice), where I did lots of one-hour totally automated C41 processing and printing. I don't remember *any* of the specific equipment we used, that was 30-35 years ago in my "working three parttime jobs in a recession" phase. Lots of details are just not there in the old brain cells...

Ritz expanded to the Northwest of the USA as well.
They actually merged or bought out or got bought into by Kits Camera, a Canadian chain that started in the Kitsilano neighbourhood of Vancouver, BC. Kits was owned by a neighbour when I was in elementary school.

 

[madsox]

Ritz expanded to the Northwest of the USA as well.
They actually merged or bought out or got bought into by Kits Camera, a Canadian chain that started in the Kitsilano neighbourhood of Vancouver, BC. Kits was owned by a neighbour when I was in elementary school.

Yes, that makes sense. I don't remember if it was actually Ritz or someone else who owned them, but they did expand quite a bit over the years. Didn't they own Wolf Camera (in so many shopping malls) and one or two other brands too? They had a huge regional HQ in Maryland near where I went to grad school, they were in the news quite a bit and rather a surprise when they announced it was closing.

 

[Mr Bill]

That's very interesting to me - what kind of machines did you use in a professional custom photo lab? Regular (high end) enlargers or some minilab/paper processor type? I've been told many of my favorite lenses have been used in labs like that, but when I show how they look no one seems to recognize them. That's why I wonder if they were hidden inside of some big machines and rarely changed or only by technicians rather than the operators.

I'm a former lab guy myself, and you are correct in that the lenses are mostly hidden inside of the machines. High-production machines were typically designed to be used in normal room lighting. And since the lens can put light directly onto the photo paper it stands to reason that the lens assembly should be tucked out of the way of the normal room light. Meaning that printer operators are not generally gonna know exactly what the innards are.

The people who are most likely to know, I think, would be former service techs. And I think these are typically NOT the sort of enthusiasts found on forums like this. Even at that, these people may have not paid that much attention to the exact make/model of the lens(es) in use.

The tech's main job would be to clean, then check/set focus, perhaps fine-tune the focal length and alignment, etc. So they would know exactly how to do this with whatever lens is installed, but possibly they don't pay specific attention to the exact model of the lens.

Something that is not well-appreciated by regular photo people is how accurate the focal length must be in a machine printer. Typically both the paper guides and the negative stage are rigidly located. It's always possible to set focus in this situation, but... the exact amount of magnification is gonna depend largely on the exact focal length of the lens. Someone using an enlarger can adjust print size by tweaking enlarger height (and refocus) but with a machine printer this option doesn't exist. So the lens focal length has to be right on the money for whatever exact "size" you need. In post #32 you showed some images including what looks like some -3.5 diopter "corrective" lenses. This is about the only way to adjust a fixed fl lens. So if you wanted to make slight adjustments in magnification you can see how useful an adjustable lens would be.

 

[simplejoy]

I'm a former lab guy myself, and you are correct in that the lenses are mostly hidden inside of the machines. High-production machines were typically designed to be used in normal room lighting. And since the lens can put light directly onto the photo paper it stands to reason that the lens assembly should be tucked out of the way of the normal room light. Meaning that printer operators are not generally gonna know exactly what the innards are.

The people who are most likely to know, I think, would be former service techs. And I think these are typically NOT the sort of enthusiasts found on forums like this. Even at that, these people may have not paid that much attention to the exact make/model of the lens(es) in use.

The tech's main job would be to clean, then check/set focus, perhaps fine-tune the focal length and alignment, etc. So they would know exactly how to do this with whatever lens is installed, but possibly they don't pay specific attention to the exact model of the lens.

Something that is not well-appreciated by regular photo people is how accurate the focal length must be in a machine printer. Typically both the paper guides and the negative stage are rigidly located. It's always possible to set focus in this situation, but... the exact amount of magnification is gonna depend largely on the exact focal length of the lens. Someone using an enlarger can adjust print size by tweaking enlarger height (and refocus) but with a machine printer this option doesn't exist. So the lens focal length has to be right on the money for whatever exact "size" you need. In post #32 you showed some images including what looks like some -3.5 diopter "corrective" lenses. This is about the only way to adjust a fixed fl lens. So if you wanted to make slight adjustments in magnification you can see how useful an adjustable lens would be.

Thanks for your valuable input on the matter - that sounds very plausible. For a while I was convinced that it was quite common to switch lenses in those minilabs and that this was the reason for sticking the lenses on a kind of lens board in the first place. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all. And if a bigger change was made, it was probably technicians - just as you stated - who were responsible for the swapping of lenses and fine adjustments.

You're spot on about the "accurate focal length" those lenses need. It's not common for regular taking or enlarging lenses to use 49.9 mm, 64.5 mm or 94.1 mm focal lengths...

It's also true that diopters seem common on those lenses. Another thing that quite a number of them come with are aperture disks, limiting the max. aperture to a certain f-stop (probably the ideal one for the application). A lot of the time these can be removed though. And in a vast majority of cases the aperture range is limited in general (often to 3 stops) compared to regular enlarging lenses.

While it is true that many of the tech-people maintaining these types of machines might not be drawn to message boards like this one, I think time is also a factor... The whole scene was already diminished when the internet really started to become a thing.

 

[MattKing]

For a while I was convinced that it was quite common to switch lenses in those minilabs and that this was the reason for sticking the lenses on a kind of lens board in the first place.

On that Durst machine, I did swap lens assemblies when I switched formats. But I'm sure that those assemblies were kept calibrated by the technicians!
With the labs that Mr. Bill worked with, I'm guessing that there was probably a machine dedicated to each format used!

 

[Mr Bill]

For a while I was convinced that it was quite common to switch lenses in those minilabs and that this was the reason for sticking the lenses on a kind of lens board in the first place. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

There is/was a class of printers that DO have automatically changing lens boards - they're typically referred to as "package printers." These wouldn't have been used in 1-hour labs, though; they're too complicated and specialized, etc. The name comes from the ability to print the once common "packages" where a single negative could simultaneously expose a pair of 5x7" images onto a nominal 8x10" sheet of paper, or perhaps a sheet of wallet-size images, or various combinations of things.

The way this was done was that the machine was equipped with a set of "lens decks," where each deck had a set of lenses specifically configured for the desired image layout. And when I say "configured," I mean by the manufacturer; each deck had lenses hand-matched for focal length and "density," as well as precise positioning on the deck. In operation the machine would know what specific decks to use for each image, then slide the proper deck into position as necessary. The exact details are considerably more complicated, but that is the general gist of things.

With the labs that Mr. Bill worked with, I'm guessing that there was probably a machine dedicated to each format used!

Yep, Matt is exactly right. Over the years the company used either 70mm (unperforated) long-roll film, in either a "full" or smaller "split-70" (image rotated sideways on the film), or 35mm perforated film. So specific printers were used for each film format, equipped with whatever lens deck configurations being used for a particular product. (The company ran a mass-market portrait operation, with company-owned studios and equipment, so much of this could be predetermined.)

Fwiw the printers we used were almost exclusively Nord package printers, equipped with Lucht Engineering lamp houses. These were once well-known industry workhorses, but seem nearly forgotten in the collective memory of the internet. The parent company, Photo-Control, had their own glass shop, making most of their own lenses for the decks (our units had Rodenstock production lenses for the single "standard" sizes, like 8x10" images. (We ran mostly 10" wide long-roll paper.) Fwiw one of these printers could expose something on the order of 800 to 1,000 8x10" print "units" per hour.

If a customer wanted something larger, say 16×20," there were a couple of other machines (I don't know how to spell the name) with multiple single-lens decks and using wider paper. I believe (not certain) that the negative stage had interchangeable pieces allowing different film formats.

 

[foc]

I remember when I worked in a small wholesale photofinishing lab back in the late 1970s/early 1980s we had durst printers (801 IIRC) and the machine was like a bigger version of what MattKing posted #28. There was a manual lens turret, with 4 positions that you turned and locked into place.

I remember there were 3 lenses and one blank hole in the turret for printing 35mm, 126, 120 (6x6) and the blank hole was for fitting 110 or disc carrier. These carriers had the lens built into the carrier, hence the blank hole. The printer had no dark shutter to save stray light from entering the printer when fitting the 110 or disc carrier, so we lost just one print to light fogging.

The lenses on the turret had a locking ring with grub screws to hold focus.

Later when I had my own minilab, the large Fuji SFA278 optical printer has an electronically operated zoom lens that changed according to film format and print output. I also had a custom Fuji printer SFA238 and you could change the lens board only when changing form 35/126/APS to 120 6x4.5. The light diffuser box also had to be changed. This printer had a dark shutter so lens changing didn't fog the paper.

Of course, The Digital lab (Frontiers, etc) changed all that.

 

[markjwyatt]

The film processor at the Copal shop was very similar to this one (minus any disc processor when I worked there). We had to fish out the film-end, tape two across to plastic leader, then feed it into the machine. Copal machines worked with friction rollers, while Noritsu used gears and perforated leaders. With the film processor I recall we could do two across, while I think Noritsu may have done one at a time. For the paper processor (3.5 x 5), the Copal had a distributor mechanism and could send 4 across into the chemistry, while Noritsu again was single file and seemed slower. This was early 1980s.


Noritsu disc processor and Pako (Copal) 35mm processor (grey) by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

 

[simplejoy]

There is/was a class of printers that DO have automatically changing lens boards - they're typically referred to as "package printers." These wouldn't have been used in 1-hour labs, though; they're too complicated and specialized, etc. The name comes from the ability to print the once common "packages" where a single negative could simultaneously expose a pair of 5x7" images onto a nominal 8x10" sheet of paper, or perhaps a sheet of wallet-size images, or various combinations of things.

The way this was done was that the machine was equipped with a set of "lens decks," where each deck had a set of lenses specifically configured for the desired image layout. And when I say "configured," I mean by the manufacturer; each deck had lenses hand-matched for focal length and "density," as well as precise positioning on the deck. In operation the machine would know what specific decks to use for each image, then slide the proper deck into position as necessary. The exact details are considerably more complicated, but that is the general gist of things.


Yep, Matt is exactly right. Over the years the company used either 70mm (unperforated) long-roll film, in either a "full" or smaller "split-70" (image rotated sideways on the film), or 35mm perforated film. So specific printers were used for each film format, equipped with whatever lens deck configurations being used for a particular product. (The company ran a mass-market portrait operation, with company-owned studios and equipment, so much of this could be predetermined.)

Fwiw the printers we used were almost exclusively Nord package printers, equipped with Lucht Engineering lamp houses. These were once well-known industry workhorses, but seem nearly forgotten in the collective memory of the internet. The parent company, Photo-Control, had their own glass shop, making most of their own lenses for the decks (our units had Rodenstock production lenses for the single "standard" sizes, like 8x10" images. (We ran mostly 10" wide long-roll paper.) Fwiw one of these printers could expose something on the order of 800 to 1,000 8x10" print "units" per hour.

If a customer wanted something larger, say 16×20," there were a couple of other machines (I don't know how to spell the name) with multiple single-lens decks and using wider paper. I believe (not certain) that the negative stage had interchangeable pieces allowing different film formats.

Thanks a lot! Didn't know a lot of that. Those "package printer" must have been quite expensive, given the lens prices I found... if you need multiple of those "lens decks" than that really adds up!

Given the precise focal length needed for something like this to work out well, I get it now that Noritsu and others started to go down the road of using varifocal lenses. At least the need for a 94.1 mm focal length lens then wouldn't mean that you have to develop an additional one, when you already have 93 mm one. (I know of some cases where lenses are really THAT close)

This is actually the first time I hear of "Nord package", "Lucht Engineering" or "Photo-Control" at all... (and believe me, even though it's just my personal interest in the matter that drives me in writing my little, I've wasted quite a bit of my free time to research on the topic.) But it looks like some minilab/printer companies - not named Noritsu or Fuji - mostly stayed within their origin country for the most part, which makes it even harder to find any hint.

Given that Photo-Control made their own lenses: How would you rate their quality, compared to the Rodenstocks? So much of that stuff seems to have been made in Japan, it's really interesting hearing about an US made lens.

I remember when I worked in a small wholesale photofinishing lab back in the late 1970s/early 1980s we had durst printers (801 IIRC) and the machine was like a bigger version of what MattKing posted #28. There was a manual lens turret, with 4 positions that you turned and locked into place.

I remember there were 3 lenses and one blank hole in the turret for printing 35mm, 126, 120 (6x6) and the blank hole was for fitting 110 or disc carrier. These carriers had the lens built into the carrier, hence the blank hole. The printer had no dark shutter to save stray light from entering the printer when fitting the 110 or disc carrier, so we lost just one print to light fogging.

The lenses on the turret had a locking ring with grub screws to hold focus.

Later when I had my own minilab, the large Fuji SFA278 optical printer has an electronically operated zoom lens that changed according to film format and print output. I also had a custom Fuji printer SFA238 and you could change the lens board only when changing form 35/126/APS to 120 6x4.5. The light diffuser box also had to be changed. This printer had a dark shutter so lens changing didn't fog the paper.

Of course, The Digital lab (Frontiers, etc) changed all that.

Really impressive that you remember quite a lot of specifics - thanks for letting us know.

I'm not familiar with the Fuji SFA series, but I have to admit I've not done any extensive research into Fuji minilabs yet. Because I'm mainly interested in the lenses I only know about the Fujinon-EV series (fixed-aperture varifocal lenses) and the Fujinon-EFC series (fixed focal length lenses in a variety of different forms, some with variable aperture) and the SP2000/SP3000 lenses (which are scanner-lenses, as far as I know). I always assumed that all of these might have been used in the Frontier series of labs, so it looks like I'm missing quite a lot still...

I've seen some lens-board arrangements for sale, which make me believe that Fuji also used their regular high-grade enlarging lens series Fujinon-EX in some of their labs. Would be interesting to know how similar they actually are to the designated printing lenses.

The film processor at the Copal shop was very similar to this one (minus any disc processor when I worked there). We had to fish out the film-end, tape two across to plastic leader, then feed it into the machine. Copal machines worked with friction rollers, while Noritsu used gears and perforated leaders. With the film processor I recall we could do two across, while I think Noritsu may have done one at a time. For the paper processor (3.5 x 5), the Copal had a distributor mechanism and could send 4 across into the chemistry, while Noritsu again was single file and seemed slower. This was early 1980s.


Noritsu disc processor and Pako (Copal) 35mm processor (grey) by Photo Utopia, on Flickr

Thank you as well! I've stumbled upon this image a while ago, but the additional information is very interesting and valuable.

It's fascinating that Copal (as far as I know never a 'big name' in this sector) seems to have had quite some impact. They were heavily involved into the production of some Agfa labs and if they were responsible for manufacturing some of the Copal-labeled lenses I've seen, they seem to have been very skilled in this aspect as well.

 

[Mr Bill]

Thanks a lot! Didn't know a lot of that. Those "package printer" must have been quite expensive, given the lens prices I found... if you need multiple of those "lens decks" than that really adds up!​

You're welcome. My understanding is that a Nord printer, new, cost as much as a smallish house, more or less. Or a lens deck, alone, a couple thousand US (1980s)$, more or less.

Given that Photo-Control made their own lenses: How would you rate their quality, compared to the Rodenstocks?

It's not a comparison we ever bothered to look at. I'd see it more as a case of "plenty good enough" in the application. In addition there were probably no readily available commercial substitutes.

In our situation the Photo-Control lenses were used for smallish images (such as wallet-size up to 5x7", from 35mm film). The distance from film to paper plane is sizeable; I would estimate about 22.5" (actually calculated based on some approximations). As a consequence of this longish distance the wallet-size lens needs to have a considerably long focal length, about 112 mm, and be positioned roughly 1/4 of the way from negative to paper to achieve focus. (Nothing else will give the correct image size.)

Someone slightly familiar with optical design (like me) might note that this uses a fairly small "field of view." This, combined with the fixed magnification and moderate aperture, suggests to me that a lens designer could optimize a fairly simple design for very high image quality. At any rate the quality was plenty good for our purposes.

As a general note a about this type of equipment... yes, they were expensive, but there was little risk to the buyer. A lab would buy these because they ALREADY HAD THE BUSINESS, but wanted to be able to print faster and cheaper. So it was just a matter of how long it would take to pay for itself. Of course, those days are long gone now.