Scheimpflug principle enlarger

[Jac@stafford.net]

Sunday morning trivia.

Several enlargers offer some degree of perspective correction, but I don’t know of any that are as flexible as the Saltzman RP6, shown in the link below. Pictured is the model with a ~9” aerial roll-film transport. There are at least a couple people here that worked in photo recon divisions of the USAF and RAF, and possibly they used this enlarger.

See the catalog entry for the RP6 here. (http://www.digoliardi.net/rp6-enlarger-econ.jpg)

Just sharing.

[Mark Sawyer]

Wow... I want one! :)

[Jim C.]

I second what Mark said, nice piece of hardware, they must be pretty rare, I've never seen one for sale anywhere.

[Daniel Stone]

I wonder how many of these just went to the scrap heap after digitizing of aerial film became 'de rigueur' vs optical prints in a darkroom

Sad to think that this type of fine machinery would be relegated to such a disastrous fate, but honestly, how many home users could use such a beast, much less house one with room to maneuver around it?

[ic-racer]

Yes, if not involved with aerial photography, you could use that for pictorial purposes to reproduce the in-camera effects of front rise and shift. All the Durst enlargers I am familiar with only let you reproduce the in-camera effects of either front rise/fall or shift. And yes, the enlarger is using the Scheimpflug model for baseboard focus but it does NOT reproduce in-camera Scheimpflug effects in the prints as you all probably know.

This is an example from my Durst enlarger showing what looks like a lot of front rise in the camera, but the camera was pointed toward the sky with no front rise.
119693
119694

[Ari]

Definitely not from a German/Scandinavian school of minimalist industrial design, but definitely impressive-looking.

[evan clarke]

Jeez, This Scheimpflug stuff is extremely overthinking photography..What you see is what you get..

[Bob Salomon]

No, we used Durst and LogETronic and Kodak printers and enlargers.
The PIs (photo interpreters) required rectified prints from aerial images to get the least distorted measurements and best over all stereo views and the prints we made were done with a printer that was quite a bit different from this one. But then I was doing it in the early 60s and the Salzman probably pre dated what we used. We used both 5" and 9" aerial roll film and this enlarger seems to be equipped to run 5" roll. 810 did not need a roll carrier as pictured here. The 5" was used for shooting aerial obliques and the 9" for verticals. Most of the 9" I printed from were night shots with aerial bomb illumination (like big flares) fired in synch with the shutter from a Widowmaker aircraft. The negs were extremely thin, looking very under exposed, tricky to print, very flat and very detailed. I preferred working with the 5" which were printed to 10 x 10" in a modified Kodak package printer.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Thanks, Bob for the update. (Bob and I were stationed in RAF/USAF bases in England in overlapping Time.) I was not a photo recon guy.

One wonderful thing about Saltzman enlargers is that they used almost 100% American standard parts. When I rebuilt one I got all parts from a local farm supplier.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks, Bob for the update. (Bob and I were stationed in RAF/USAF bases in England in overlapping Time.) I was not a photo recon guy.

One wonderful thing about Saltzman enlargers is that they used almost 100% American standard parts. When I rebuilt one I got all parts from a local farm supplier.

Would have liked to have been sent there but I spent all my time stateside as my wife was too pregnant for them to send me off shore.
Closest I got to going outside the USA was the day of the Tonkin Gulf incident. I applied for discharge that morning and an alert was called and my squadron went to Vietnam. I was pulled off the flight during boarding since the discharge application had already been filed and was discharged two weeks later. Only was stationed in Texas, Colorado, South Carolina and Florida.

[geekofnature]

That is sweet. I have made minor adjustments making prints with a standard enlarger by propping up a corner of my easel. This would be a whole different game.

[Jac@stafford.net]

That is sweet. I have made minor adjustments making prints with a standard enlarger by propping up a corner of my easel. This would be a whole different game.

I hate to admit it, but digital is enormously superior to achieve such technical goals.

On the flip-side artists embrace limits in order to create focus to an idea and so-called analog has daunting limits I feel we should embrace with fervor and joy.

[Tin Can]

Elwood offered this with their 5x7 as seen in Camera Excentric here (http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/elwood_1.html). They offered a 'Distortion Lens Board' and a 'Swing Tilt Table' both of which I am actively seeking for my Elwood collection. Hint, hint.

As Jac wrote, some of us prefer the old time limitations and are not looking for the most modern contraption.

No way can I ever fit a Saltzman into my space, without seriously compromising it's height requirement, my ceiling is 11'-6"...

[Jac@stafford.net]

No way can I ever fit a Saltzman into my space, without seriously compromising it's height requirement, my ceiling is 11'-6"...

Randy, mine is so tall because its working stage, the printing platform, is high so the operator need not break his back bending down to the easel level.

Most of Saltzman's catalog images feature short center columns. Drop the base and you are good to go.

So when are you going to take mine. Ya gotta do it before what I have becomes an estate salvage thing.

Tired. Going to sleep now.

--
Jac

[Tin Can]

I'm looking at your catalog on that other site.

I just finished my nap...


Randy, mine is so tall because its working stage, the printing platform, is high so the operator need not break his back bending down to the easel level.

Most of Saltzman's catalog images feature short center columns. Drop the base and you are good to go.

So when are you going to take mine. Ya gotta do it before what I have becomes an estate salvage thing.

Tired. Going to sleep now.

--
Jac

[Jim Jones]

Both the lens stage and the entire head of my early post-war 4x5 DeJur Professional tilt.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I'm looking at your catalog on that other site.

I was not going to mention that.

.

[Drew Wiley]

One of my enlargers has a full Sinar P front standard carrying the lens itself, so it's got every hypothetical move. However, I only use these features for perfectly aligning everything, not for "unaligning" them like a view camera! But supporting the whole rail system at the other end is a massive machined bronze micrometer-driven WWII artillery sight mount. It probably cost five thousand dollars to make even way back then; but I got it free.