Heiland 8x10 enlarger

[Michael R]

Latest from Heiland…

https://heilandelectronic.de/vertical_8x10

[Sal Santamaura]

Now I only need the space for it, a spare 22,360 Euros to buy it, and air-dried glossy black and white fiber-base paper that's not excessively shiny so I'd want to use the first two things. :)

[djdister]

I added it to my cart...

[nolindan]

250 cm tall = 100 inches = 8 feet 4 inches.

I remember a post about a photographer who got his hands of a giant Saltzman enlarger. It wouldn't fit in the basement so he cut a hole in the basement ceiling. Built a box over the resulting hole in the living room floor. "Honey, come look at the new end-table I made for you."

[Drew Wiley]

It's a bit difficult to piece all the pricing options together or to get exact specifics on accessories like carriers. But it seems one could put together a versatile system with floor standing column, deluxe color light source, and the masking punch and register set for around $10,000, possibly including shipping, which seems quite reasonable for something new like this.

Whether or not the baseboard system is sufficiently strong to handle a heavy 40-plus inch bladed vac easel like I'm accustomed to is an open question. Of course, if I was in the market for a new enlarger, these are the questions I'd want to ask them directly, and would also want to see a working unit is person. It's great to see someone still has serious enlarger production in mind !

[Michael R]

Now I only need the space for it, a spare 22,360 Euros to buy it, and air-dried glossy black and white fiber-base paper that's not excessively shiny so I'd want to use the first two things. :)

If I were inclined to spend the equivalent of 23,000 euros on photography now, I’d much rather spend it on a computer, scanner, digital camera, a good inkjet printer and photoshop education :) with money left over.

[Drew Wiley]

.... Just like 50 million other people, mostly teenagers anyway, Michael? Why not throw in some silly video gaming too? Well, teenagers around here seem to be gravitating away from digital cameras and going back to film. Digital just isn't "cooool" anymore (even the term cool is on the rebound). And I already have plenty of Durst big boy toys. But it might be interesting to have a Heiland head for sake on my really tall custom 8x10 enlarger. Not at this point in my life, however. Too many irons in the fire already.

[Sal Santamaura]

If I were inclined to spend the equivalent of 23,000 euros on photography now, I’d much rather spend it on a computer, scanner, digital camera, a good inkjet printer and photoshop education :) with money left over.

Most people already have a computer that would work fine. Mine did. I spent a little over $100 on PhotoPlus X8, which does everything I need it to do, and still does. Add the Epson V850, Epson P600, Canon Pro-100 and Nikon D810 plus Sigma Art lens I bought new from 2017 through 2019 and it added up to around $5,000.

I still enjoy shooting film and darkroom printing. Both silver halide and digital imaging are worthwhile. Neither medium is categorically "better" than the other.

[Erik Larsen]

I’m impressed and happy to see they still see a market for this enlarger although I couldn’t afford one. I was pondering the future of my 8x10 enlarger yesterday as I was printing and all of a sudden my fan shuts off. Crap I thought, as I tried to diagnose by opening up the fan and oiling it and jumping 110 volts to it to see if it still worked- yep still works. So I open up the power supply to look for problems, all looks good and outlets on the power supply getting power-hmmm what’s wrong? I guess I should have checked the plug into the wall first as it was just a little loose making all my hours long diagnostics a waste of time! Phew, at least for today I don’t have to look for alternatives…

[ic-racer]

User "payral" posted that he just got one of these. He ordered the wall mount unit.

link is here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/heiland-8x10-new-enlarger.196576/#post-2858901

[Pieter]

.... Just like 50 million other people, mostly teenagers anyway, Michael? Why not throw in some silly video gaming too? Well, teenagers around here seem to be gravitating away from digital cameras and going back to film. Digital just isn't "cooool" anymore (even the term cool is on the rebound). And I already have plenty of Durst big boy toys. But it might be interesting to have a Heiland head for sake on my really tall custom 8x10 enlarger. Not at this point in my life, however. Too many irons in the fire already.

There's always this...https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/carloandreini/pixless-camera

[angusparker]

250 cm tall = 100 inches = 8 feet 4 inches.

I remember a post about a photographer who got his hands of a giant Saltzman enlarger. It wouldn't fit in the basement so he cut a hole in the basement ceiling. Built a box over the resulting hole in the living room floor. "Honey, come look at the new end-table I made for you."

I also cut a hole in the ceiling for my 8x10 but only between the floor braces - not the floor upstairs! Fortunately they ran the right direction for the orientation of my head.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[angusparker]

There's always this...https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/carloandreini/pixless-camera

Good god, this looks like the resolution of the original Kodak digital camera prototype. Why on earth would anyone buy one of these cameras?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Mick Fagan]

It's a bit difficult to piece all the pricing options together or to get exact specifics on accessories like carriers. But it seems one could put together a versatile system with floor standing column, deluxe color light source, and the masking punch and register set for around $10,000, possibly including shipping, which seems quite reasonable for something new like this.

Whether or not the baseboard system is sufficiently strong to handle a heavy 40-plus inch bladed vac easel like I'm accustomed to is an open question. Of course, if I was in the market for a new enlarger, these are the questions I'd want to ask them directly, and would also want to see a working unit is person. It's great to see someone still has serious enlarger production in mind !

I'm in full agreement with you with regard to pricing being reasonable.

In the 1980's the lab I worked in looked at purchasing either a vertical or horizontal 10"x10" enlarger. DeVere was what we went with and we went with a horizontal unit with a 2000W head composed of 8x250W lamps.

A vertical 8x10" enlarger, with 3 lenses was around $18,000 AUD, which at the time wasn't too different from the USD. Although I adore DeVere enlargers and have one myself, this Heiland appears to be in another league from virtually all industrial enlargers I have worked with.

And, interestingly, the first thing I wondered about was whether the baseboard could handle a big vacuum easel.

I like the ability to control f/stops via a density range of 4 f/stops; that is a great tool to have in your back pocket.

[esearing]

11x17 would be more useful but would likely double the costs.

[ic-racer]

My enlarger came with receipts from the importer; 1987 prices:

Durst L1840 Chassis: $12,900
CLS2000 Color Head: $9,600
8x10 Box: $990
4x5 Mixing Box: $990
6x9cm Mixing Box: $990
Negateil Negative Holder; $4,075
Rodagon 300mm: $1,200
Vapla Lensboard: $107
Tripla Turret: $235
Hotub Recessed: $295

Total: $31,382 in 1987
Today: $72,000 (2025)

[ic-racer]

There's always this...https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/carloandreini/pixless-camera

I don't get it. All digital photography is 'pixel art.'

[bmikiten]

I'm glad to see that there is someone producing these again!

[John Layton]

Ic-Racer...those are about the same figures for the original MSRP, versus todays equivalent - of my '87 Porsche 944.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, in terms of build quality and long term durability, nothing is likely to ever again equal the quality and sheer mass of classic Durst and Devere commercial enlargers. Nor do I expect the kind of die-cast and even outright machined quality of Durst precision negative carriers again. It would be just too expensive to make on a marketable scale. This is the era of anodized aluminum construction instead, and CNC fabrication, and perhaps some 3D printed components too. Those of us who have been around a lot of machinery know the difference.

My L184 Durst enlarger of 70's vintage, with the colorhead and accessories probably cost around $27,000 back then. Cost to me? Zero. After nearly half a century years of commercial lab usage, it took me only a few hundred dollars to refurbish it back to 100% functional condition and 95% cosmetic condition, which should make it perform reliably and precisely at least another half century. Nothing of "neo-construction", as I outlined above, is likely to hold up anywhere near that well. I don't care if it's a table saw or a professional enlarger.

But if someone wants to give me a Heiland 8x10 enlarger for free too, I'b be perfectly happy to take it. I'm glad they're being made. And most photographers don't need something as big as 8x10 capacity anyway, so would have an easier price level to reach if they want the Heiland head concept.

[John Layton]

Drew's comment above evokes the equation over the years of "outright machined quality" versus the ability to approach theoretical limits of precision through the use of computer aided design. I think of this as two curves...one (outright hand-machined quality) having reached its maximum at some point in the late 1960's, and the second (theoretical limits), still trending upwards but in the process of shallowing out.

Would be amazing to combine the two maximums...but as Drew points out - prohibitively expensive and simply not wise from a marketing standpoint.

[Mark Sampson]

8x10 enlargers have always been specialist, low-production items, and thus more expensive per pound(?) than smaller format machines. All of them were designed and built for hard professional use; that is to make money for the labs who purchased them. None were meant for the enthusiast at home or the working artist. So the cost was just a business expense, to be amortized over however many years of profitable use. Is this the business model for the Heiland, an admirable machine? It actually seems to be reasonably priced (see the 1980s bestseller "Quality is Free").
In my career I've used several different brands of 8x10 enlargers (although never a Durst). I'm sure that all of them could still be in use today, making any of them a bargain in the long term. I wish the folks at Heiland well, although I won't be buying one of their fine machines.

[Michael R]

Saltzman was probably the “ultimate” in combining accuracy with bomb proof/brick shit house construction.

I think the Heiland enlarger and Kienzle enlargers are probably at least as precise as Durst or DeVere.

None of them hold a candle to Drew’s home made tree trunk enlarger though. It has inertial/mass dampers and the head is cooled by lasers.

[Michael Kadillak]

Sometimes someone in the manufacturing arena feels the need to step out of the box and see what happens? What I know for sure is Jurgen's LED light head is an amazing piece of precision technology. Had to swallow hard on the purchase price, but damn glad I have it in the toolbox. I replaced a massive, heavy 2,000 watt blowtorch of a light head on my Durst 184 with his 5# square 5" tall cold light source and it brings a smile to my face every time I use it.

[interneg]

Saltzman was probably the “ultimate” in combining accuracy with bomb proof/brick shit house construction.

I think the Heiland enlarger and Kienzle enlargers are probably at least as precise as Durst or DeVere.



The Heiland/ Kienzle designs (to the best of my knowledge, Kienzle is the production metalwork subcontractor for Heiland - hence why the Heiland LED can be so readily integrated into something like a Kienzle C120 at manufacture) are largely fabricated spot-welded sheet steel - good for affordable and efficient very small scale production, and overall, at least as precise as Durst or LPL's die castings (even the big Durst enlargers were made in the same die-cast way - there's surprisingly few machined surfaces inside them - thus highly reliant on toolmaking and adequate casting quality, with commensurate demand levels being required for sustained production) - I do think that the Saltzmans were rather overbuilt in a somewhat early 20th century way - pure mass, rather than intelligent usage of materials where sensible (e.g. cast iron might make sense in a mapping rectifier, but machined aluminium castings are much more sane in even high end photographic enlargers - which De Vere clearly understood - and De Vere's biggest machines for aerial markets etc were considerably well on the way past Durst's 10x10's - on the other hand, the De Vere 5108 fitted a very neat gap in the market that Durst never managed (or cared) to fill). Some of the most OTT neg carriers I've seen were from HK enlargers - milled from solid aluminium billet, and even encompassed a complete range of stretching carriers from 135 to 8x10 (and a 4kw head to go with them). Either way, given the scale of production and the control systems integrated into it, the Heiland 8x10 does seem a very fair price - and will fit a lot of spaces that many traditional 8x10's won't.

[Drew Wiley]

Even that 2000W Durst head is tiny compared to my DIY additive one, which in turn is atop a chassis way stronger than a Durst L184 one, with a vac easel underneath weighing over 300 lbs.
I once owned a 2000W Durst colorhead. I got significantly better color repro using my own RGB design head, at least back in Cibachrome days. But with today's excellent Fuji RA4 papers, including Supergloss, the visible distinction between additive and conventional YMC subtractive results is quite minor. Nor do I need the same amount of lumen punch; chromogenic papers print way faster than Ciba did. It cost me around 15K in materials and components to build that dang 14 ft tall beast; and the level of fine tuning controls is tip top, overkill really.

It isn't exactly a tree trunk, Michael. It is supported by very dimensionally stable parallel strand phenolic/wood fiber column, which I further pickled with penetrating Marine epoxy, and over laminated with black formica, then added stainless trim. It took a 440 volt 22 inch diameter blade table saw to square off that big dense beam. The lower standard is from a Sinar P, but the upper yaw rail calibration cannibalized from a machined bronze Navy surplus big gun sight, complete with 4-way micrometer drives. Custom bellows made what I needed in between. ZBE helped me with the monitoring device for the feedback circuitry (the complexity of all that can sometimes go schizophrenic, and is the weak point to the whole system). The damned colorhead housing is 3/8 inch thick black Garolite phenolic, in a V-head design, and so heavy it has to be lifted with a block and tackle for servicing or even a bulb change - another less than ideal feature. But it cools way more efficiently than any Durst head due to the unique V design. And I have a pin registered 8x10 carrier which matches my Condit punch pattern in common with my other enlargers.

If I thought I had another 20 years of enlarging big color prints left, I wouldn't mind trying out the Heiland colorhead per se; It could easily be adapted. But for almost all practical purposes, I can simply use my "backup" comparatively little L184 color enlarger instead, which I am doing while my Beast enlarger is awaiting its overdue maintenance cycle. Going vertical with that thing saved a lot of floor space; but for that kind of application, horizontal floor enlargers on rails are much easier to make, and that's what I used before.

[Drew Wiley]

John - things like stepper motors and electronic autofocus control are light years ahead of what Durst once optionally offered, and could be setup by someone using surplus industrial parts at quite comfortable pricing these days. But I have zero interest in those particular amenities.

My big problem was integrating six different pulsing light circuits additively (three per each independently cooled side of the colorhead V). Anything over 3 lamps and you start getting a high risk of EMI (electromagnetic interference). But my control panel is YMC programmable, even though the lights themselves are narrow band RGB, which makes things quite simplified.

I did the best as I could with early 90's electronics, mostly in a cannibalistic sense, since I'm not an electrical engineer. Sine wave lighting controls were just on the horizon, which can handle multiple circuits at the same time, but were at that time starting to be used in theater productions and Rock concert light shows, and to this day are still dependent on proprietary computer stuff susceptible to both the hardware and software potentially going obsolete too soon. So even if I had that available when I began my project, I would have deemed it an unrealistic investment - 6K just for the controller device on the used market, meaning it would have already been 50% obsolete. Now that same kind of technology is being used in big high rise building to smart manage highly complex lighting circuits for optimal energy consumption.

LED technology offers all kinds of new opportunities, but hasn't endured the test of time yet. How long will specific components last in real world situations, and will those in fact still be directly replaceable when the time comes??? By comparison, a handful of common ELH halogen bulbs will tide over a Durst colorhead for decades of more use. I don't worry about the old controllers - I simply bypass all that and convert the system to direct line voltage (I have both 115 and 240 V outlets in the building).

[Michael R]

Drew, what maintenance do you need to do? Do you mean checking alignment or are there other things involved?

[Drew Wiley]

Nothing to do with alignment - the column itself is more dimensionally stable than structural steel, and the vac easel so strong that it can be stood upon without deflecting it. All the focus and parallelism controls are more precise that any commercially built enlarger I've ever seen. It's the electronics which need a diagnosis and some components probably replaced. I'm in no hurry since my 8x10 Durst enlarger is a suitable substitute now that I no longer need Ciba firepower.

I have thought about repurposing my taller unit with my high-output 12X12 cold light for sake of 30X40 inch black and white prints at its more convenient easel working height. But it's the sheer price increase of b&w FB paper itself which keeps me from that.