Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,697   Posts: 1,549,092   Online: 1112
      
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,215

    Colour negs more prone to Newton's Rings?

    I've been printing B&W for the best part of a decade and have never had a problem with Newton's rings. I assumed I had anti-Newton glass in my neg carrier. I've just started colour printing and I'm getting loads of rings from a roll of Ektar.

    So, are colour negs more prone to Newton's Rings?

    Flat bed scan then digi P&S: there's at least 5 rings on this print.




    Apologies for the colour balance, it's a test print that the digi systems have taken to 'correct' (wrongly).

  2. #2
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,288
    Images
    148
    Never found colour films to be any worse, but I stopped using glass for the top with 35mm and use a plain mask in my Dursts, that way I just don't get newtons rings and I found it better for dust control too.

    Ian

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,215
    I could try that. Presumably your negs are sufficiently flat using this method.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,887
    Images
    62
    I've recently printed Kodak Ektar 100 and Portra negatives with glass negative carriers and suffered Newton Rings. Using the same carrier with ILFORD Delta negatives produces no Newton Rings.

    Tom

  5. #5
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,288
    Images
    148
    Just as flat as with Glass on top. I made my own mask back in 1975 when I was a penniless student, Durst wanted too much for a simple piece of painted aluminium

    Ian

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Perkeleellinen, I use a glassless negative carrier for my Opemus 6a and enlarge from 135 negs only. I don't know about larger negatives, but I never had a problem with flatness. I use a 75W bulb, so the generated heat is not that much to cause problems either. A 150W bulb might cause problems, but I don't know. As an added bonus (as Ian said) you only need to clean dust from the negatives, not the carrier.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,215
    Anon - I also have the Opemus 6a and enlarge only 135. Good to know you've had no issues with a glassless carrier. My current carrier is the metal one with adjustable masks. I've got a glassless insert somewhere around here (which I filed out in my youth!). Later today I'll try to replace the top glass with that.

  8. #8
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,675
    Using matting agents in a back layer is described in literature, however a hint at this I found so far only in two data sheets:

    …back layer of the film (designed to achieve optimum vacuum draw down)…

    Back layer designed for best reduction of Newton rings.


    respectively


    (To avoid confusion: a back layer does not necessarily need to be based on gelatine or a swelling polymer it can also be made of a waterinsoluble polymer, a lacquer.)
    Last edited by AgX; 11-04-2009 at 05:11 AM. Click to view previous post history.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin