How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?How to proceed after having developed the negatives?What is a sheet of multiple photos called?How to preserve detail when downscaling scanned photos?(How) should I start with film photography?Scratches on negatives - me or them?Can you reprint photos off a roll of film?What can be done about sloppy cut negatives?Shooting black and white on a color filmHow was the cyan cast of C-41 negatives originally removed?How do I color correct a scan of a transparency with false colors?Big white circle on scanned negativeFilm Scanning and Correction

Help with my training data

Combinatorics problem, right solution?

Suing a Police Officer Instead of the Police Department

Double-nominative constructions and “von”

Where was the County of Thurn und Taxis located?

Is Diceware more secure than a long passphrase?

Drawing a german abacus as in the books of Adam Ries

Philosophical question on logistic regression: why isn't the optimal threshold value trained?

What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?

How much of a wave function must reside inside event horizon for it to be consumed by the black hole?

"My boss was furious with me and I have been fired" vs. "My boss was furious with me and I was fired"

Why is the underscore command _ useful?

How to have a sharp product image?

Multiple options vs single option UI

Which big number is bigger?

Will I lose my paid in full property

Crossed out red box fitting tightly around image

How exactly does Hawking radiation decrease the mass of black holes?

What is the unit of time_lock_delta in LND?

std::unique_ptr of base class holding reference of derived class does not show warning in gcc compiler while naked pointer shows it. Why?

Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle?

What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?

Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)

"Whatever a Russian does, they end up making the Kalashnikov gun"? Are there any similar proverbs in English?



How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?


How to proceed after having developed the negatives?What is a sheet of multiple photos called?How to preserve detail when downscaling scanned photos?(How) should I start with film photography?Scratches on negatives - me or them?Can you reprint photos off a roll of film?What can be done about sloppy cut negatives?Shooting black and white on a color filmHow was the cyan cast of C-41 negatives originally removed?How do I color correct a scan of a transparency with false colors?Big white circle on scanned negativeFilm Scanning and Correction






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








18















How did people after taking a picture with film and doing the chemical processes, get that small film image to become a big picture that could be framed and hung before the invention of a digital scanner to blow up the image and print the image?










share|improve this question



















  • 39





    Reading this question, it's the first time that I feel old.

    – flolilo
    Apr 18 at 14:21






  • 8





    I can't believe we've never had this question before now!

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 17:23











  • @MichaelC never forget the "little white squares" and the "thing you place them in" to look at them

    – Hueco
    Apr 18 at 17:33

















18















How did people after taking a picture with film and doing the chemical processes, get that small film image to become a big picture that could be framed and hung before the invention of a digital scanner to blow up the image and print the image?










share|improve this question



















  • 39





    Reading this question, it's the first time that I feel old.

    – flolilo
    Apr 18 at 14:21






  • 8





    I can't believe we've never had this question before now!

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 17:23











  • @MichaelC never forget the "little white squares" and the "thing you place them in" to look at them

    – Hueco
    Apr 18 at 17:33













18












18








18


1






How did people after taking a picture with film and doing the chemical processes, get that small film image to become a big picture that could be framed and hung before the invention of a digital scanner to blow up the image and print the image?










share|improve this question
















How did people after taking a picture with film and doing the chemical processes, get that small film image to become a big picture that could be framed and hung before the invention of a digital scanner to blow up the image and print the image?







lens post-processing film photo-editing






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 19 at 22:34









mattdm

124k40360659




124k40360659










asked Apr 18 at 14:15









person personsonperson personson

9317




9317







  • 39





    Reading this question, it's the first time that I feel old.

    – flolilo
    Apr 18 at 14:21






  • 8





    I can't believe we've never had this question before now!

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 17:23











  • @MichaelC never forget the "little white squares" and the "thing you place them in" to look at them

    – Hueco
    Apr 18 at 17:33












  • 39





    Reading this question, it's the first time that I feel old.

    – flolilo
    Apr 18 at 14:21






  • 8





    I can't believe we've never had this question before now!

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 17:23











  • @MichaelC never forget the "little white squares" and the "thing you place them in" to look at them

    – Hueco
    Apr 18 at 17:33







39




39





Reading this question, it's the first time that I feel old.

– flolilo
Apr 18 at 14:21





Reading this question, it's the first time that I feel old.

– flolilo
Apr 18 at 14:21




8




8





I can't believe we've never had this question before now!

– Michael C
Apr 18 at 17:23





I can't believe we've never had this question before now!

– Michael C
Apr 18 at 17:23













@MichaelC never forget the "little white squares" and the "thing you place them in" to look at them

– Hueco
Apr 18 at 17:33





@MichaelC never forget the "little white squares" and the "thing you place them in" to look at them

– Hueco
Apr 18 at 17:33










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















43














Going from negative film to a printed image is a two-step process.



First, the negative is developed — the latent image on the film brought out and then fixed in place. Now you have a piece of translucent film with a negative image on it.



Second, to go to a the final print on paper, you then essentially repeat the process, shining light through the negative to form a focused image on photographic paper — paper treated with light-sensitive chemicals. Then, this paper is itself developed and fixed. That reverses the reversed negative image again, resulting in a positive print.



If your negative is large — as in large-format photography — you may make contact prints, where the negative sits directly on the paper. This results in an image exactly the same size as the original. (See also "contact sheet".)



If your negative is smaller than the desired print (like 35mm film), you use an enlarger: a projector which shines light through the negative and uses a lens to focus the projection on your paper in the darkroom.



This is just the high-level view. The Wikipedia article for "enlarger" provides more detail, including this image:



Darkroom enlarger.svg: きたし (CC BY-SA 2.5)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)]



You can see why, with a setup like this, the work must be in a darkroom. Otherwise the ambient light would also affect the photo paper, resulting in a fogged image.



There's a bit more at How to proceed after having developed the negatives?, and there are many books and articles on the topic which are easily found now that you know what you're looking for.



The level of detail available in a high-quality photograph taken on film is amazing, but generally — just as with digital — the more you enlarge, the worse your results. Going from a 35mm negative to an 8×10" print is an enlargement of about 8½× in each dimension — or 72 times the area. If you have a chance to see an exhibit of 8×10 large-format contact prints, you should take some time to look closely and appreciate. It took a very long time for photographers working in the 35mm format to be taken seriously — this is one of the reasons the internet fascination with "full frame" is kind of funny.






share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    I can't upvote yet but I can offer you this +1 in the comments :)

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 15:21






  • 11





    @personpersonson You've now earned enough reputation from your question to let you vote on answers. (Honestly, I've never understood why new users can't vote on answers to their own questions...)

    – David Richerby
    Apr 18 at 16:31






  • 2





    Enlargement ratios are generally expressed in linear, rather than areal, terms. 135 ("35mm" or "FF") to 8x10 is more or less accepted as having an enlargement ratio of 8.5X (based on the diagonal of a 135 frame cropped to 4:5 aspect ratio before enlarging. Strictly speaking, it would be 8.46667X, but the the extreme edges were also cropped to avoid the rough edges created by the felt edges of the mask in the camera.

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 17:40







  • 2





    There also exist positive-positive processes, like Ilfochrome / Cibachrome, although this was discontinued in 2012.

    – Dietrich Epp
    Apr 18 at 18:35






  • 6





    ah... the memories! "Let's go to the darkroom and see what develops..." /high school humor

    – FreeMan
    Apr 18 at 18:36


















17














I thought an illustration would be helpful. It's the same principle as an overhead projector, another mostly obsolete piece of technology:



enter image description here



Where instead of textbook text on a transparency, the source image is a film negative, which is also transparency.



The screen in the image would in turn be another paper film, which is developed in the regular process. Two negatives make a positive, so this gives you your positive, enlarged print image.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Lol i remember we had those in middle school for awhile, until smartboards took over

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 18:45






  • 5





    Does anyone remember episcopes and epidiascopes (opaque projectors)?

    – Mick
    Apr 18 at 20:14






  • 3





    I never heard them called anything except opaque projectors. They were prized rarities in the elementary and middle schools I attended. Every classroom had an overhead projector, but the few (maybe even only?) opaque projector had to be reserved by the teacher in advance from the library.

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 20:54






  • 1





    I just googled epidiascopes, and that's definitely the first time I have ever seen one of those before. They look like old-timey cameras.

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 20:59






  • 3





    Okay. It's not the question that made me feel old (as in flolilo's comment to the original question), it's the opaque projector. I completely forgot about those until just now. I'm with @MichaelC on that — it was a rare device in my school that was treated almost like a religious relic.

    – scottbb
    Apr 19 at 0:43


















5














Normal enlarging processes are kind of a reversal of taking a photo.



In a camera you gather light from a 'large area' in front of the camera, and focus it down onto a small area of film or digital sensor to collect the light. And in regular film photography that will capture an inverse image.



Film is made with a clear or at least very transparent base so that light can shine through it, and the parts that react will darken to reduce how much light gets through.



This is easiest to understand in black and white, where bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film, and dark areas will appear clear. The masking in colour film is more involved.



An enlarger is effectively a camera with a light source in the back behind the film, that allows you to project the image on the small film back through a lens and onto a larger surface, where you will place photographic paper to expose in nearly the same way as you did the film when taking the initial image.



There are various adaptations made to make these easier to use and better suited to the task than a normal camera, but you will recognize most of the focus methods and adjustment methods, and the biggest difference is that the equivalent of a shutter control is focused on longer duration periods due to the slow speed of photographic paper. [Which also enables one to interfere with the light during exposure, blocking parts so they get less exposure and don't get as dark.]



The stereotypical setup is to contain the film and light inside a box, and project the image onto a wall or table surface in a dark room, but some commercial lab equipment was designed to have all this contained in a larger box so that the techs could work with the lights on in the room.



It should also be noted that there are a LOT of details and specifics for the different systems that were used over the years, with some of the more recent systems actually being a 'scan and print' process, rather than purely optical/chemical system, and more closely resembles prints/enlargements from digital images. We even have systems that scan the film, and then 'print' onto photographic paper with a computer controlled light/laser system. [Which enables the image to be adjusted by computer, but still results in a 'photographic print'.]



The subject gets really deep with things like printing from reversal/slide film, and is well worth further reading or questions.






share|improve this answer























  • "bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film"... this is only the case for negative film, not for reversal film, which you give a cursory mention to at the end, but it's not insignificant. Also, of the film, you say that "the parts that react will darken"... it's important to realise that the film in the camera doesn't darken. The film contains only a latent image. What determines whether you end up with a negative or a positive image is the development process that the film goes through after being removed from the camera.

    – osullic
    Apr 18 at 16:00







  • 2





    @osullic well if we're going to pick nits, we should also feel that it is important to recognize that some photosensitive materials DO darken with exposure to light, and only require fixing without a development step... [*Some details may have been glossed over in the original answer to avoid writing an entire textbook series for a 'complete' answer covering all possibilities...]

    – TheLuckless
    Apr 18 at 19:32











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106667%2fhow-were-pictures-turned-from-film-to-a-big-picture-in-a-picture-frame-before-di%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









43














Going from negative film to a printed image is a two-step process.



First, the negative is developed — the latent image on the film brought out and then fixed in place. Now you have a piece of translucent film with a negative image on it.



Second, to go to a the final print on paper, you then essentially repeat the process, shining light through the negative to form a focused image on photographic paper — paper treated with light-sensitive chemicals. Then, this paper is itself developed and fixed. That reverses the reversed negative image again, resulting in a positive print.



If your negative is large — as in large-format photography — you may make contact prints, where the negative sits directly on the paper. This results in an image exactly the same size as the original. (See also "contact sheet".)



If your negative is smaller than the desired print (like 35mm film), you use an enlarger: a projector which shines light through the negative and uses a lens to focus the projection on your paper in the darkroom.



This is just the high-level view. The Wikipedia article for "enlarger" provides more detail, including this image:



Darkroom enlarger.svg: きたし (CC BY-SA 2.5)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)]



You can see why, with a setup like this, the work must be in a darkroom. Otherwise the ambient light would also affect the photo paper, resulting in a fogged image.



There's a bit more at How to proceed after having developed the negatives?, and there are many books and articles on the topic which are easily found now that you know what you're looking for.



The level of detail available in a high-quality photograph taken on film is amazing, but generally — just as with digital — the more you enlarge, the worse your results. Going from a 35mm negative to an 8×10" print is an enlargement of about 8½× in each dimension — or 72 times the area. If you have a chance to see an exhibit of 8×10 large-format contact prints, you should take some time to look closely and appreciate. It took a very long time for photographers working in the 35mm format to be taken seriously — this is one of the reasons the internet fascination with "full frame" is kind of funny.






share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    I can't upvote yet but I can offer you this +1 in the comments :)

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 15:21






  • 11





    @personpersonson You've now earned enough reputation from your question to let you vote on answers. (Honestly, I've never understood why new users can't vote on answers to their own questions...)

    – David Richerby
    Apr 18 at 16:31






  • 2





    Enlargement ratios are generally expressed in linear, rather than areal, terms. 135 ("35mm" or "FF") to 8x10 is more or less accepted as having an enlargement ratio of 8.5X (based on the diagonal of a 135 frame cropped to 4:5 aspect ratio before enlarging. Strictly speaking, it would be 8.46667X, but the the extreme edges were also cropped to avoid the rough edges created by the felt edges of the mask in the camera.

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 17:40







  • 2





    There also exist positive-positive processes, like Ilfochrome / Cibachrome, although this was discontinued in 2012.

    – Dietrich Epp
    Apr 18 at 18:35






  • 6





    ah... the memories! "Let's go to the darkroom and see what develops..." /high school humor

    – FreeMan
    Apr 18 at 18:36















43














Going from negative film to a printed image is a two-step process.



First, the negative is developed — the latent image on the film brought out and then fixed in place. Now you have a piece of translucent film with a negative image on it.



Second, to go to a the final print on paper, you then essentially repeat the process, shining light through the negative to form a focused image on photographic paper — paper treated with light-sensitive chemicals. Then, this paper is itself developed and fixed. That reverses the reversed negative image again, resulting in a positive print.



If your negative is large — as in large-format photography — you may make contact prints, where the negative sits directly on the paper. This results in an image exactly the same size as the original. (See also "contact sheet".)



If your negative is smaller than the desired print (like 35mm film), you use an enlarger: a projector which shines light through the negative and uses a lens to focus the projection on your paper in the darkroom.



This is just the high-level view. The Wikipedia article for "enlarger" provides more detail, including this image:



Darkroom enlarger.svg: きたし (CC BY-SA 2.5)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)]



You can see why, with a setup like this, the work must be in a darkroom. Otherwise the ambient light would also affect the photo paper, resulting in a fogged image.



There's a bit more at How to proceed after having developed the negatives?, and there are many books and articles on the topic which are easily found now that you know what you're looking for.



The level of detail available in a high-quality photograph taken on film is amazing, but generally — just as with digital — the more you enlarge, the worse your results. Going from a 35mm negative to an 8×10" print is an enlargement of about 8½× in each dimension — or 72 times the area. If you have a chance to see an exhibit of 8×10 large-format contact prints, you should take some time to look closely and appreciate. It took a very long time for photographers working in the 35mm format to be taken seriously — this is one of the reasons the internet fascination with "full frame" is kind of funny.






share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    I can't upvote yet but I can offer you this +1 in the comments :)

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 15:21






  • 11





    @personpersonson You've now earned enough reputation from your question to let you vote on answers. (Honestly, I've never understood why new users can't vote on answers to their own questions...)

    – David Richerby
    Apr 18 at 16:31






  • 2





    Enlargement ratios are generally expressed in linear, rather than areal, terms. 135 ("35mm" or "FF") to 8x10 is more or less accepted as having an enlargement ratio of 8.5X (based on the diagonal of a 135 frame cropped to 4:5 aspect ratio before enlarging. Strictly speaking, it would be 8.46667X, but the the extreme edges were also cropped to avoid the rough edges created by the felt edges of the mask in the camera.

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 17:40







  • 2





    There also exist positive-positive processes, like Ilfochrome / Cibachrome, although this was discontinued in 2012.

    – Dietrich Epp
    Apr 18 at 18:35






  • 6





    ah... the memories! "Let's go to the darkroom and see what develops..." /high school humor

    – FreeMan
    Apr 18 at 18:36













43












43








43







Going from negative film to a printed image is a two-step process.



First, the negative is developed — the latent image on the film brought out and then fixed in place. Now you have a piece of translucent film with a negative image on it.



Second, to go to a the final print on paper, you then essentially repeat the process, shining light through the negative to form a focused image on photographic paper — paper treated with light-sensitive chemicals. Then, this paper is itself developed and fixed. That reverses the reversed negative image again, resulting in a positive print.



If your negative is large — as in large-format photography — you may make contact prints, where the negative sits directly on the paper. This results in an image exactly the same size as the original. (See also "contact sheet".)



If your negative is smaller than the desired print (like 35mm film), you use an enlarger: a projector which shines light through the negative and uses a lens to focus the projection on your paper in the darkroom.



This is just the high-level view. The Wikipedia article for "enlarger" provides more detail, including this image:



Darkroom enlarger.svg: きたし (CC BY-SA 2.5)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)]



You can see why, with a setup like this, the work must be in a darkroom. Otherwise the ambient light would also affect the photo paper, resulting in a fogged image.



There's a bit more at How to proceed after having developed the negatives?, and there are many books and articles on the topic which are easily found now that you know what you're looking for.



The level of detail available in a high-quality photograph taken on film is amazing, but generally — just as with digital — the more you enlarge, the worse your results. Going from a 35mm negative to an 8×10" print is an enlargement of about 8½× in each dimension — or 72 times the area. If you have a chance to see an exhibit of 8×10 large-format contact prints, you should take some time to look closely and appreciate. It took a very long time for photographers working in the 35mm format to be taken seriously — this is one of the reasons the internet fascination with "full frame" is kind of funny.






share|improve this answer















Going from negative film to a printed image is a two-step process.



First, the negative is developed — the latent image on the film brought out and then fixed in place. Now you have a piece of translucent film with a negative image on it.



Second, to go to a the final print on paper, you then essentially repeat the process, shining light through the negative to form a focused image on photographic paper — paper treated with light-sensitive chemicals. Then, this paper is itself developed and fixed. That reverses the reversed negative image again, resulting in a positive print.



If your negative is large — as in large-format photography — you may make contact prints, where the negative sits directly on the paper. This results in an image exactly the same size as the original. (See also "contact sheet".)



If your negative is smaller than the desired print (like 35mm film), you use an enlarger: a projector which shines light through the negative and uses a lens to focus the projection on your paper in the darkroom.



This is just the high-level view. The Wikipedia article for "enlarger" provides more detail, including this image:



Darkroom enlarger.svg: きたし (CC BY-SA 2.5)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)]



You can see why, with a setup like this, the work must be in a darkroom. Otherwise the ambient light would also affect the photo paper, resulting in a fogged image.



There's a bit more at How to proceed after having developed the negatives?, and there are many books and articles on the topic which are easily found now that you know what you're looking for.



The level of detail available in a high-quality photograph taken on film is amazing, but generally — just as with digital — the more you enlarge, the worse your results. Going from a 35mm negative to an 8×10" print is an enlargement of about 8½× in each dimension — or 72 times the area. If you have a chance to see an exhibit of 8×10 large-format contact prints, you should take some time to look closely and appreciate. It took a very long time for photographers working in the 35mm format to be taken seriously — this is one of the reasons the internet fascination with "full frame" is kind of funny.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 19 at 22:35

























answered Apr 18 at 15:12









mattdmmattdm

124k40360659




124k40360659







  • 2





    I can't upvote yet but I can offer you this +1 in the comments :)

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 15:21






  • 11





    @personpersonson You've now earned enough reputation from your question to let you vote on answers. (Honestly, I've never understood why new users can't vote on answers to their own questions...)

    – David Richerby
    Apr 18 at 16:31






  • 2





    Enlargement ratios are generally expressed in linear, rather than areal, terms. 135 ("35mm" or "FF") to 8x10 is more or less accepted as having an enlargement ratio of 8.5X (based on the diagonal of a 135 frame cropped to 4:5 aspect ratio before enlarging. Strictly speaking, it would be 8.46667X, but the the extreme edges were also cropped to avoid the rough edges created by the felt edges of the mask in the camera.

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 17:40







  • 2





    There also exist positive-positive processes, like Ilfochrome / Cibachrome, although this was discontinued in 2012.

    – Dietrich Epp
    Apr 18 at 18:35






  • 6





    ah... the memories! "Let's go to the darkroom and see what develops..." /high school humor

    – FreeMan
    Apr 18 at 18:36












  • 2





    I can't upvote yet but I can offer you this +1 in the comments :)

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 15:21






  • 11





    @personpersonson You've now earned enough reputation from your question to let you vote on answers. (Honestly, I've never understood why new users can't vote on answers to their own questions...)

    – David Richerby
    Apr 18 at 16:31






  • 2





    Enlargement ratios are generally expressed in linear, rather than areal, terms. 135 ("35mm" or "FF") to 8x10 is more or less accepted as having an enlargement ratio of 8.5X (based on the diagonal of a 135 frame cropped to 4:5 aspect ratio before enlarging. Strictly speaking, it would be 8.46667X, but the the extreme edges were also cropped to avoid the rough edges created by the felt edges of the mask in the camera.

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 17:40







  • 2





    There also exist positive-positive processes, like Ilfochrome / Cibachrome, although this was discontinued in 2012.

    – Dietrich Epp
    Apr 18 at 18:35






  • 6





    ah... the memories! "Let's go to the darkroom and see what develops..." /high school humor

    – FreeMan
    Apr 18 at 18:36







2




2





I can't upvote yet but I can offer you this +1 in the comments :)

– person personson
Apr 18 at 15:21





I can't upvote yet but I can offer you this +1 in the comments :)

– person personson
Apr 18 at 15:21




11




11





@personpersonson You've now earned enough reputation from your question to let you vote on answers. (Honestly, I've never understood why new users can't vote on answers to their own questions...)

– David Richerby
Apr 18 at 16:31





@personpersonson You've now earned enough reputation from your question to let you vote on answers. (Honestly, I've never understood why new users can't vote on answers to their own questions...)

– David Richerby
Apr 18 at 16:31




2




2





Enlargement ratios are generally expressed in linear, rather than areal, terms. 135 ("35mm" or "FF") to 8x10 is more or less accepted as having an enlargement ratio of 8.5X (based on the diagonal of a 135 frame cropped to 4:5 aspect ratio before enlarging. Strictly speaking, it would be 8.46667X, but the the extreme edges were also cropped to avoid the rough edges created by the felt edges of the mask in the camera.

– Michael C
Apr 18 at 17:40






Enlargement ratios are generally expressed in linear, rather than areal, terms. 135 ("35mm" or "FF") to 8x10 is more or less accepted as having an enlargement ratio of 8.5X (based on the diagonal of a 135 frame cropped to 4:5 aspect ratio before enlarging. Strictly speaking, it would be 8.46667X, but the the extreme edges were also cropped to avoid the rough edges created by the felt edges of the mask in the camera.

– Michael C
Apr 18 at 17:40





2




2





There also exist positive-positive processes, like Ilfochrome / Cibachrome, although this was discontinued in 2012.

– Dietrich Epp
Apr 18 at 18:35





There also exist positive-positive processes, like Ilfochrome / Cibachrome, although this was discontinued in 2012.

– Dietrich Epp
Apr 18 at 18:35




6




6





ah... the memories! "Let's go to the darkroom and see what develops..." /high school humor

– FreeMan
Apr 18 at 18:36





ah... the memories! "Let's go to the darkroom and see what develops..." /high school humor

– FreeMan
Apr 18 at 18:36













17














I thought an illustration would be helpful. It's the same principle as an overhead projector, another mostly obsolete piece of technology:



enter image description here



Where instead of textbook text on a transparency, the source image is a film negative, which is also transparency.



The screen in the image would in turn be another paper film, which is developed in the regular process. Two negatives make a positive, so this gives you your positive, enlarged print image.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Lol i remember we had those in middle school for awhile, until smartboards took over

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 18:45






  • 5





    Does anyone remember episcopes and epidiascopes (opaque projectors)?

    – Mick
    Apr 18 at 20:14






  • 3





    I never heard them called anything except opaque projectors. They were prized rarities in the elementary and middle schools I attended. Every classroom had an overhead projector, but the few (maybe even only?) opaque projector had to be reserved by the teacher in advance from the library.

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 20:54






  • 1





    I just googled epidiascopes, and that's definitely the first time I have ever seen one of those before. They look like old-timey cameras.

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 20:59






  • 3





    Okay. It's not the question that made me feel old (as in flolilo's comment to the original question), it's the opaque projector. I completely forgot about those until just now. I'm with @MichaelC on that — it was a rare device in my school that was treated almost like a religious relic.

    – scottbb
    Apr 19 at 0:43















17














I thought an illustration would be helpful. It's the same principle as an overhead projector, another mostly obsolete piece of technology:



enter image description here



Where instead of textbook text on a transparency, the source image is a film negative, which is also transparency.



The screen in the image would in turn be another paper film, which is developed in the regular process. Two negatives make a positive, so this gives you your positive, enlarged print image.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Lol i remember we had those in middle school for awhile, until smartboards took over

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 18:45






  • 5





    Does anyone remember episcopes and epidiascopes (opaque projectors)?

    – Mick
    Apr 18 at 20:14






  • 3





    I never heard them called anything except opaque projectors. They were prized rarities in the elementary and middle schools I attended. Every classroom had an overhead projector, but the few (maybe even only?) opaque projector had to be reserved by the teacher in advance from the library.

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 20:54






  • 1





    I just googled epidiascopes, and that's definitely the first time I have ever seen one of those before. They look like old-timey cameras.

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 20:59






  • 3





    Okay. It's not the question that made me feel old (as in flolilo's comment to the original question), it's the opaque projector. I completely forgot about those until just now. I'm with @MichaelC on that — it was a rare device in my school that was treated almost like a religious relic.

    – scottbb
    Apr 19 at 0:43













17












17








17







I thought an illustration would be helpful. It's the same principle as an overhead projector, another mostly obsolete piece of technology:



enter image description here



Where instead of textbook text on a transparency, the source image is a film negative, which is also transparency.



The screen in the image would in turn be another paper film, which is developed in the regular process. Two negatives make a positive, so this gives you your positive, enlarged print image.






share|improve this answer















I thought an illustration would be helpful. It's the same principle as an overhead projector, another mostly obsolete piece of technology:



enter image description here



Where instead of textbook text on a transparency, the source image is a film negative, which is also transparency.



The screen in the image would in turn be another paper film, which is developed in the regular process. Two negatives make a positive, so this gives you your positive, enlarged print image.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 18 at 18:57

























answered Apr 18 at 18:37









user151841user151841

596313




596313







  • 1





    Lol i remember we had those in middle school for awhile, until smartboards took over

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 18:45






  • 5





    Does anyone remember episcopes and epidiascopes (opaque projectors)?

    – Mick
    Apr 18 at 20:14






  • 3





    I never heard them called anything except opaque projectors. They were prized rarities in the elementary and middle schools I attended. Every classroom had an overhead projector, but the few (maybe even only?) opaque projector had to be reserved by the teacher in advance from the library.

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 20:54






  • 1





    I just googled epidiascopes, and that's definitely the first time I have ever seen one of those before. They look like old-timey cameras.

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 20:59






  • 3





    Okay. It's not the question that made me feel old (as in flolilo's comment to the original question), it's the opaque projector. I completely forgot about those until just now. I'm with @MichaelC on that — it was a rare device in my school that was treated almost like a religious relic.

    – scottbb
    Apr 19 at 0:43












  • 1





    Lol i remember we had those in middle school for awhile, until smartboards took over

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 18:45






  • 5





    Does anyone remember episcopes and epidiascopes (opaque projectors)?

    – Mick
    Apr 18 at 20:14






  • 3





    I never heard them called anything except opaque projectors. They were prized rarities in the elementary and middle schools I attended. Every classroom had an overhead projector, but the few (maybe even only?) opaque projector had to be reserved by the teacher in advance from the library.

    – Michael C
    Apr 18 at 20:54






  • 1





    I just googled epidiascopes, and that's definitely the first time I have ever seen one of those before. They look like old-timey cameras.

    – person personson
    Apr 18 at 20:59






  • 3





    Okay. It's not the question that made me feel old (as in flolilo's comment to the original question), it's the opaque projector. I completely forgot about those until just now. I'm with @MichaelC on that — it was a rare device in my school that was treated almost like a religious relic.

    – scottbb
    Apr 19 at 0:43







1




1





Lol i remember we had those in middle school for awhile, until smartboards took over

– person personson
Apr 18 at 18:45





Lol i remember we had those in middle school for awhile, until smartboards took over

– person personson
Apr 18 at 18:45




5




5





Does anyone remember episcopes and epidiascopes (opaque projectors)?

– Mick
Apr 18 at 20:14





Does anyone remember episcopes and epidiascopes (opaque projectors)?

– Mick
Apr 18 at 20:14




3




3





I never heard them called anything except opaque projectors. They were prized rarities in the elementary and middle schools I attended. Every classroom had an overhead projector, but the few (maybe even only?) opaque projector had to be reserved by the teacher in advance from the library.

– Michael C
Apr 18 at 20:54





I never heard them called anything except opaque projectors. They were prized rarities in the elementary and middle schools I attended. Every classroom had an overhead projector, but the few (maybe even only?) opaque projector had to be reserved by the teacher in advance from the library.

– Michael C
Apr 18 at 20:54




1




1





I just googled epidiascopes, and that's definitely the first time I have ever seen one of those before. They look like old-timey cameras.

– person personson
Apr 18 at 20:59





I just googled epidiascopes, and that's definitely the first time I have ever seen one of those before. They look like old-timey cameras.

– person personson
Apr 18 at 20:59




3




3





Okay. It's not the question that made me feel old (as in flolilo's comment to the original question), it's the opaque projector. I completely forgot about those until just now. I'm with @MichaelC on that — it was a rare device in my school that was treated almost like a religious relic.

– scottbb
Apr 19 at 0:43





Okay. It's not the question that made me feel old (as in flolilo's comment to the original question), it's the opaque projector. I completely forgot about those until just now. I'm with @MichaelC on that — it was a rare device in my school that was treated almost like a religious relic.

– scottbb
Apr 19 at 0:43











5














Normal enlarging processes are kind of a reversal of taking a photo.



In a camera you gather light from a 'large area' in front of the camera, and focus it down onto a small area of film or digital sensor to collect the light. And in regular film photography that will capture an inverse image.



Film is made with a clear or at least very transparent base so that light can shine through it, and the parts that react will darken to reduce how much light gets through.



This is easiest to understand in black and white, where bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film, and dark areas will appear clear. The masking in colour film is more involved.



An enlarger is effectively a camera with a light source in the back behind the film, that allows you to project the image on the small film back through a lens and onto a larger surface, where you will place photographic paper to expose in nearly the same way as you did the film when taking the initial image.



There are various adaptations made to make these easier to use and better suited to the task than a normal camera, but you will recognize most of the focus methods and adjustment methods, and the biggest difference is that the equivalent of a shutter control is focused on longer duration periods due to the slow speed of photographic paper. [Which also enables one to interfere with the light during exposure, blocking parts so they get less exposure and don't get as dark.]



The stereotypical setup is to contain the film and light inside a box, and project the image onto a wall or table surface in a dark room, but some commercial lab equipment was designed to have all this contained in a larger box so that the techs could work with the lights on in the room.



It should also be noted that there are a LOT of details and specifics for the different systems that were used over the years, with some of the more recent systems actually being a 'scan and print' process, rather than purely optical/chemical system, and more closely resembles prints/enlargements from digital images. We even have systems that scan the film, and then 'print' onto photographic paper with a computer controlled light/laser system. [Which enables the image to be adjusted by computer, but still results in a 'photographic print'.]



The subject gets really deep with things like printing from reversal/slide film, and is well worth further reading or questions.






share|improve this answer























  • "bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film"... this is only the case for negative film, not for reversal film, which you give a cursory mention to at the end, but it's not insignificant. Also, of the film, you say that "the parts that react will darken"... it's important to realise that the film in the camera doesn't darken. The film contains only a latent image. What determines whether you end up with a negative or a positive image is the development process that the film goes through after being removed from the camera.

    – osullic
    Apr 18 at 16:00







  • 2





    @osullic well if we're going to pick nits, we should also feel that it is important to recognize that some photosensitive materials DO darken with exposure to light, and only require fixing without a development step... [*Some details may have been glossed over in the original answer to avoid writing an entire textbook series for a 'complete' answer covering all possibilities...]

    – TheLuckless
    Apr 18 at 19:32















5














Normal enlarging processes are kind of a reversal of taking a photo.



In a camera you gather light from a 'large area' in front of the camera, and focus it down onto a small area of film or digital sensor to collect the light. And in regular film photography that will capture an inverse image.



Film is made with a clear or at least very transparent base so that light can shine through it, and the parts that react will darken to reduce how much light gets through.



This is easiest to understand in black and white, where bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film, and dark areas will appear clear. The masking in colour film is more involved.



An enlarger is effectively a camera with a light source in the back behind the film, that allows you to project the image on the small film back through a lens and onto a larger surface, where you will place photographic paper to expose in nearly the same way as you did the film when taking the initial image.



There are various adaptations made to make these easier to use and better suited to the task than a normal camera, but you will recognize most of the focus methods and adjustment methods, and the biggest difference is that the equivalent of a shutter control is focused on longer duration periods due to the slow speed of photographic paper. [Which also enables one to interfere with the light during exposure, blocking parts so they get less exposure and don't get as dark.]



The stereotypical setup is to contain the film and light inside a box, and project the image onto a wall or table surface in a dark room, but some commercial lab equipment was designed to have all this contained in a larger box so that the techs could work with the lights on in the room.



It should also be noted that there are a LOT of details and specifics for the different systems that were used over the years, with some of the more recent systems actually being a 'scan and print' process, rather than purely optical/chemical system, and more closely resembles prints/enlargements from digital images. We even have systems that scan the film, and then 'print' onto photographic paper with a computer controlled light/laser system. [Which enables the image to be adjusted by computer, but still results in a 'photographic print'.]



The subject gets really deep with things like printing from reversal/slide film, and is well worth further reading or questions.






share|improve this answer























  • "bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film"... this is only the case for negative film, not for reversal film, which you give a cursory mention to at the end, but it's not insignificant. Also, of the film, you say that "the parts that react will darken"... it's important to realise that the film in the camera doesn't darken. The film contains only a latent image. What determines whether you end up with a negative or a positive image is the development process that the film goes through after being removed from the camera.

    – osullic
    Apr 18 at 16:00







  • 2





    @osullic well if we're going to pick nits, we should also feel that it is important to recognize that some photosensitive materials DO darken with exposure to light, and only require fixing without a development step... [*Some details may have been glossed over in the original answer to avoid writing an entire textbook series for a 'complete' answer covering all possibilities...]

    – TheLuckless
    Apr 18 at 19:32













5












5








5







Normal enlarging processes are kind of a reversal of taking a photo.



In a camera you gather light from a 'large area' in front of the camera, and focus it down onto a small area of film or digital sensor to collect the light. And in regular film photography that will capture an inverse image.



Film is made with a clear or at least very transparent base so that light can shine through it, and the parts that react will darken to reduce how much light gets through.



This is easiest to understand in black and white, where bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film, and dark areas will appear clear. The masking in colour film is more involved.



An enlarger is effectively a camera with a light source in the back behind the film, that allows you to project the image on the small film back through a lens and onto a larger surface, where you will place photographic paper to expose in nearly the same way as you did the film when taking the initial image.



There are various adaptations made to make these easier to use and better suited to the task than a normal camera, but you will recognize most of the focus methods and adjustment methods, and the biggest difference is that the equivalent of a shutter control is focused on longer duration periods due to the slow speed of photographic paper. [Which also enables one to interfere with the light during exposure, blocking parts so they get less exposure and don't get as dark.]



The stereotypical setup is to contain the film and light inside a box, and project the image onto a wall or table surface in a dark room, but some commercial lab equipment was designed to have all this contained in a larger box so that the techs could work with the lights on in the room.



It should also be noted that there are a LOT of details and specifics for the different systems that were used over the years, with some of the more recent systems actually being a 'scan and print' process, rather than purely optical/chemical system, and more closely resembles prints/enlargements from digital images. We even have systems that scan the film, and then 'print' onto photographic paper with a computer controlled light/laser system. [Which enables the image to be adjusted by computer, but still results in a 'photographic print'.]



The subject gets really deep with things like printing from reversal/slide film, and is well worth further reading or questions.






share|improve this answer













Normal enlarging processes are kind of a reversal of taking a photo.



In a camera you gather light from a 'large area' in front of the camera, and focus it down onto a small area of film or digital sensor to collect the light. And in regular film photography that will capture an inverse image.



Film is made with a clear or at least very transparent base so that light can shine through it, and the parts that react will darken to reduce how much light gets through.



This is easiest to understand in black and white, where bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film, and dark areas will appear clear. The masking in colour film is more involved.



An enlarger is effectively a camera with a light source in the back behind the film, that allows you to project the image on the small film back through a lens and onto a larger surface, where you will place photographic paper to expose in nearly the same way as you did the film when taking the initial image.



There are various adaptations made to make these easier to use and better suited to the task than a normal camera, but you will recognize most of the focus methods and adjustment methods, and the biggest difference is that the equivalent of a shutter control is focused on longer duration periods due to the slow speed of photographic paper. [Which also enables one to interfere with the light during exposure, blocking parts so they get less exposure and don't get as dark.]



The stereotypical setup is to contain the film and light inside a box, and project the image onto a wall or table surface in a dark room, but some commercial lab equipment was designed to have all this contained in a larger box so that the techs could work with the lights on in the room.



It should also be noted that there are a LOT of details and specifics for the different systems that were used over the years, with some of the more recent systems actually being a 'scan and print' process, rather than purely optical/chemical system, and more closely resembles prints/enlargements from digital images. We even have systems that scan the film, and then 'print' onto photographic paper with a computer controlled light/laser system. [Which enables the image to be adjusted by computer, but still results in a 'photographic print'.]



The subject gets really deep with things like printing from reversal/slide film, and is well worth further reading or questions.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 18 at 15:40









TheLucklessTheLuckless

71915




71915












  • "bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film"... this is only the case for negative film, not for reversal film, which you give a cursory mention to at the end, but it's not insignificant. Also, of the film, you say that "the parts that react will darken"... it's important to realise that the film in the camera doesn't darken. The film contains only a latent image. What determines whether you end up with a negative or a positive image is the development process that the film goes through after being removed from the camera.

    – osullic
    Apr 18 at 16:00







  • 2





    @osullic well if we're going to pick nits, we should also feel that it is important to recognize that some photosensitive materials DO darken with exposure to light, and only require fixing without a development step... [*Some details may have been glossed over in the original answer to avoid writing an entire textbook series for a 'complete' answer covering all possibilities...]

    – TheLuckless
    Apr 18 at 19:32

















  • "bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film"... this is only the case for negative film, not for reversal film, which you give a cursory mention to at the end, but it's not insignificant. Also, of the film, you say that "the parts that react will darken"... it's important to realise that the film in the camera doesn't darken. The film contains only a latent image. What determines whether you end up with a negative or a positive image is the development process that the film goes through after being removed from the camera.

    – osullic
    Apr 18 at 16:00







  • 2





    @osullic well if we're going to pick nits, we should also feel that it is important to recognize that some photosensitive materials DO darken with exposure to light, and only require fixing without a development step... [*Some details may have been glossed over in the original answer to avoid writing an entire textbook series for a 'complete' answer covering all possibilities...]

    – TheLuckless
    Apr 18 at 19:32
















"bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film"... this is only the case for negative film, not for reversal film, which you give a cursory mention to at the end, but it's not insignificant. Also, of the film, you say that "the parts that react will darken"... it's important to realise that the film in the camera doesn't darken. The film contains only a latent image. What determines whether you end up with a negative or a positive image is the development process that the film goes through after being removed from the camera.

– osullic
Apr 18 at 16:00






"bright/white areas of the scene will appear as dark parts on the film"... this is only the case for negative film, not for reversal film, which you give a cursory mention to at the end, but it's not insignificant. Also, of the film, you say that "the parts that react will darken"... it's important to realise that the film in the camera doesn't darken. The film contains only a latent image. What determines whether you end up with a negative or a positive image is the development process that the film goes through after being removed from the camera.

– osullic
Apr 18 at 16:00





2




2





@osullic well if we're going to pick nits, we should also feel that it is important to recognize that some photosensitive materials DO darken with exposure to light, and only require fixing without a development step... [*Some details may have been glossed over in the original answer to avoid writing an entire textbook series for a 'complete' answer covering all possibilities...]

– TheLuckless
Apr 18 at 19:32





@osullic well if we're going to pick nits, we should also feel that it is important to recognize that some photosensitive materials DO darken with exposure to light, and only require fixing without a development step... [*Some details may have been glossed over in the original answer to avoid writing an entire textbook series for a 'complete' answer covering all possibilities...]

– TheLuckless
Apr 18 at 19:32

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106667%2fhow-were-pictures-turned-from-film-to-a-big-picture-in-a-picture-frame-before-di%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How to write a 12-bar blues melodyI-IV-V blues progressionHow to play the bridges in a standard blues progressionHow does Gdim7 fit in C# minor?question on a certain chord progressionMusicology of Melody12 bar blues, spread rhythm: alternative to 6th chord to avoid finger stretchChord progressions/ Root key/ MelodiesHow to put chords (POP-EDM) under a given lead vocal melody (starting from a good knowledge in music theory)Are there “rules” for improvising with the minor pentatonic scale over 12-bar shuffle?Confusion about blues scale and chords

What if the end-user didn't have the required library?What is setup.py?What is a clean, pythonic way to have multiple constructors in Python?What does Ruby have that Python doesn't, and vice versa?What is the reason for having '//' in Python?How do I create a namespace package in Python?How to package shared objects that python modules depend on?setuptools vs. distutils: why is distutils still a thing?Navigation in Windows 10 vs code not going to virtualenv library when the same library is installed at user levelPython create package for local usePackaging a project that uses multiple python versionsWhy is permission denied on pip install except for when “--user” is included at end of command?

Esgonzo ibérico Índice Descrición Distribución Hábitat Ameazas Notas Véxase tamén "Acerca dos nomes dos anfibios e réptiles galegos""Chalcides bedriagai"Chalcides bedriagai en Carrascal, L. M. Salvador, A. (Eds). Enciclopedia virtual de los vertebrados españoles. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid. España.Fotos