Neg carrier

Discussion in 'Enlarging' started by cliveh, Mar 17, 2012.

  1. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,537
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Glass or glassless neg carrier? I would go for glassless every time.
     
  2. pstake

    pstake Member

    Messages:
    715
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Glassless for me, too. Assuming the enlarger condenser / head is designed to hold the film flat, and mine is. More glass means more surface to keep clean and to interfere with light transmission.

    I shoot 35mm, now, so it's easy for me say all that ... when I was shooting a lot of 6x7, I used a glass neg carrier :smile:
     
  3. Ken Nadvornick

    Ken Nadvornick Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,782
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Location:
    Monroe, WA,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Glass carriers are a specialized piece of equipment intended to solve specific problems. Sheet film negatives too large to not sag in the middle. Roll film negatives with a pronounced curl - especially the piping variety. Recently I have been printing from series of 35mm negatives that were stored uncut and tightly wound inside their metal film cannisters for 50+ years. That would be the definition of a specific problem requiring glass for the best results.

    I have and use a full set of both glassless and AN glass carriers for my D5XL. If one can afford them, they should be a standard tool in every darkroom.

    Ken
     
  4. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,210
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I agree with Ken.

    In addition, something like a 4x5 glass carrier works fine with smaller negatives, so you can use it with odd sizes like panoramas.
     
  5. R.Gould

    R.Gould Member

    Messages:
    587
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Jersey Chann
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Glassless for me every time, The biggest ne I print is 66, and less glass means less dust, which means less time spotting.
    Richard
     
  6. mooseontheloose

    mooseontheloose Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,236
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Location:
    Kyoto, Japan
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Glass carrier for me (in most cases). For whatever reason, the amount of dust that I have to deal with seems the same with or without the glass. However, I do do a lot of lith printing, which means extended times under the enlarger (2-5 minutes usually) -- my negs, usually 6x6, used to pop until I got the glass carrier. And as Matt has indicated, a larger sized carrier can be masked off to print unusual sizes like panoramas or ditychs, or allow me to print the rebate, without the need to file away any carriers.
     
  7. Newt_on_Swings

    Newt_on_Swings Member

    Messages:
    2,115
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Location:
    NYC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I use both, glassless when I can get away with it, glass when I really need it.

    I kinda hate cleaning the surfaces though, streak marks on glass really gets on my nerves.
     
  8. sandermarijn

    sandermarijn Member

    Messages:
    770
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Location:
    Leiden, Neth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    In 120, glassless generally doesn't allow printing of the rebates, unless you file away the sides of the masks (Durst M800, Auda 70 masks). I like those rebates.
     
  9. fotch

    fotch Member

    Messages:
    4,822
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Location:
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Prefer glassless unless no choice.
     
  10. semi-ambivalent

    semi-ambivalent Subscriber

    Messages:
    700
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I switched to glass because I could not get a flat 35mm negative without it. I use a hardening fixer since the smallest prints I make are 8x10 and, at 8X, I want as much protection from negative scratches as I can get. So I put up with the negative 'piping' (nice turn of phrase!) and the glass carrier has the last word. Until I get some film for my wife's baby gray Rollie I print only 35mm. I can not speak to larger negatives and their merits in this.

    Having said that I have noticed no increase in incidence of spots on my prints since moving to a glass carrier. I was worried about the extra surfaces provided by the glass and the dust problem but it was a non-issue. A couple quick puffs of canned air and it's good to go. If there's spots I spot them. (I find it relaxing.) If the grain on the print is blurry I think it looks sloppy regardless of the quality of the image, and it goes in the trash. For me it was an easy choice once I saw the results.

    s-a
     
  11. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser

    Messages:
    19,318
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    i have both, and am not partial one to the other.
    the glass carriers are useful, but glassless is easy ..
    sometimes i remove the glassless carrier in the durst
    and just stick a piece of glass in there ( with an image on it ) and print that .
    it makes it easy to do fun stuff when you can remove a big carrier.
     
  12. Maris

    Maris Member

    Messages:
    840
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Location:
    Noosa, Queen
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I make all my negative carriers with only one glass: the top glass.

    A negative placed in an enlarger in the conventional way, emulsion side down and held along its edges, will "pop" when the heat from the lamphouse hits it. But it will pop upwards. In effect the negative flattens itself against the top glass. By omitting the bottom glass two dust collecting surfaces are eliminated. In my darkroom the top glass is never turned over once the underside, the side touching the negative, is dead clean. Dust does not fall upwards. The top surface of the glass is checked in the enlarger beam and any specks are brushed off immediately before putting the carrier in the enlarger.
     
  13. clayne

    clayne Member

    Messages:
    2,837
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Glass.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Michael R 1974

    Michael R 1974 Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,200
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Ca
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Glass every time for me in all formats. And I use glass on the bottom even with 35mm. I don't use anti-newton ring glass in my carriers. I don't have problems with dust.
     
  16. semi-ambivalent

    semi-ambivalent Subscriber

    Messages:
    700
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Michael,

    Just regular, thin-ish glass? Or something like 1/8 window glass? I considered rigging up something with window glass but I have seen Newtons Rings before, although not in this context. So I went with the carrier. (Dammit, I'm worth it :laugh:)

    s-a
     
  17. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,195
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It depends. The bigger the enlargement, the flatter the film needs to be. Low magnification enlargements are fine with a glassless. High magnification enlargements need a glass carrier. You don't have much of a choice.
     
  18. Michael R 1974

    Michael R 1974 Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,200
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Ca
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm OCD about stuff (and I enjoy the projects) so I've worked on my own carriers over the years, solving enlarging problems as I go. I start with empty Saunders carriers for my enlarger and go from there. My latest version is for 35mm and is pretty over-the-top. I had Schneider cut the top and bottom glasses from Multi-Coated glass out of two B+W clear filters :D. This carrier is also to print 35mm with masks. The glass is 2mm thick.

    It is possible the coated glass is also reducing Newton Ring problems. Some say yes, some say no. Either way, my fail-safe to eradicate Newton Rings is a sheet of unexposed, undeveloped, fully fixed TXP placed between the top glass and negative. Light loss is .5 stops. However with a glass carrier I'm printing at wider apertures anyway so who cares.
     
  19. PKM-25

    PKM-25 Member

    Messages:
    2,004
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Location:
    Enroute
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    What is the procedure you guys are using to clean glass carriers? I have AN glass coming for my 6x6...
     
  20. sandermarijn

    sandermarijn Member

    Messages:
    770
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Location:
    Leiden, Neth
    Shooter:
    35mm
  21. EASmithV

    EASmithV Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Location:
    Maryland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    You should buy an Aircraft Carrier instead.
     
  22. Michael R 1974

    Michael R 1974 Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,200
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Ca
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Funny you say that. The code name for my latest carrier modification was actually Project Nimitz.
     
  23. Michael R 1974

    Michael R 1974 Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,200
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Ca
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I just use the same Tiffen or Zeiss lens cleaning fluid I use on my camera lenses, with Tiffen tissue.
     
  24. clayne

    clayne Member

    Messages:
    2,837
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I use just cotton pads (avail at freestyle) and air. Not mirror clean but enough. I find that microfiber cloths bring back too much fine dust, even with cleaning solution.
     
  25. Trond

    Trond Subscriber

    Messages:
    717
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I use glass carriers. It takes a little more effort to keep the dust away, but it's worth it.

    Trond
     
  26. DREW WILEY

    DREW WILEY Member

    Messages:
    4,182
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I thought glassless carriers went extinct somewhere back in the dark ages. That's where they belong. Might as well throw away your enlarging magnifier too, along with the fine focus knob on
    the enlarger itself.