What do you call this?
Im trying to source the following but don't know the proper name
Its a 5x4 piece of black cardboard with a 35mm cutout in the centre. You stick a 35mm negative behind the cutout before you set it up it in a 5x4 enlarger.
Any help would be appreciated :)
You mean a negative carrier? All enlargers have them for varying sizes of negatives. Designed for specific makes/models of enlarger and usually made from metal or plastic, not cardboard. Some enlargers can handle 35mm only, some 35mm to 6x6, and some LF enlargers can handle 35mm to 4x5". The enlarger lens focal length will need to be suited to the size of your negative. Usually a 50mm lens to print 35mm negs, an 80mm lens for 6x4.5 or 6x6 negs, 105mm for 6x7 negs and 135mm lens for 4x5".
It may also be possible to make a cardboard insert with a 35mm opening to fit into a negative carrier for 4x5", but I would be concerned about film flatness and dust on the neg from a material like cardboard. You want negative carriers to be as rigid and clean as possible.
Assuming it's not the negative carrier (usually made of metal and glass), the term you're looking for is a "mask". Used to mask off a small area of a big negative, or place a small negative in a much larger carrier while blocking (flare) light from going around the little neg.
Probably best used with a glass carrier so that the mask can press the neg against the glass. If the carrier is glassless, you will want a pair of masks in order that the neg be fully supported on all edges.
I mentioned cardboard because I was given some in the past they're usually if you plan to sandwich the negative between glass to keep it flat.
I can't help but chuckle at the idea of a thread in the enlarging sub-forum, started by someone with the screen name "nudist", asking the intriguingly vague question: "What Do You Call This"
Matt, you seem to have a distorted view on n nudism.
"nonono, I'm not that kind of doctor. I ain't gonna diagnose your rash."
No AgX, it is not distorted.
Originally Posted by AgX
There is nothing wrong, or salacious or obscene or un-natural about consensual nudity.
But the juxtaposition that I referred to is, IMHO, kinda funny.
similar thought occurred for me... so that's 2 that are really perverted or really perceptive! (i say the latter):cool: