Switch to English Language Passer en langue franÁaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,118   Posts: 1,636,820   Online: 1049
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 58

Thread: Neg carrier

  1. #41
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,763
    Images
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    Of course, it just depends on one's objective. If you just want to have some fun, whatever. If you're serious about optimizing the output per quality and have the time and budget to do it, there are all kinds of advanced options.
    While I don't have your resources, and I do like to have a good time in the darkroom, I also try to get as much as I can out of each print. It's only black and white, and I have no one but myself to please.
    To me, however, the quality I seek from a print is probably less to do with ultimate print quality, and more to do with simply expressing myself; I'm interested in the art a lot more than the technique. With that said, I am not exactly sloppy in the darkroom. I'm very critical of my own output, and I set the bar very high of what may pass into my portfolios, and what gets axed. It's just that with 11x14, or smaller, in the Leitz, I just cannot justify spending an hour spotting a print, for the loss of sharpness that I can't see with the naked eye and 20/20 vision.

    Anyway, I don't want this to become a pissing contest. I understand why you have to work with methods other than 99% of us, and gladly respect the choices you make (can make) to get what you need. Absolutely nothing against it. But then there are the rest of us, the mortals, with limited budgets, and resources in time and money that we can plough into our passion. It isn't easy to always squeeze the maximum out of every orange.
    Finally, photography in its entire process and art is something that I care extremely deeply about. I call it my 'insanity asylum'. With the pressures daily life brings, I need this, badly, to stay level. To focus all my energy on attempting to make one single print perfect, is soul rewarding to me, and that's why it's such a big deal to me.

    I'll try to see it from your view, if you try to see it from mine.

    - Thomas
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,502
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    As mentioned when starting this thread, Iím with the glassless camp. For me simplicity is king and as Thomas points out he canít see a difference in prints up to 11 X 14. I print both 35mm and 6cm X 6cm in a glassless carrier. The less air to glass surfaces the better. The comparison with slide projection does not hold up as the lamp is usually on for a much longer time generating more heat and as for popping, how long do you have the enlarger on? Surely the picture is more important than micro science considerations.
    Although the enlarger is not on continuously as as the case with a slide projector, there is often plenty of time for enough heat to build up at the negative stage to cause the negative to deform during exposure. It can happen quickly and can happen regardless of the type of glassless carrier. First, with many enlargers, and in particular condenser enlargers, a surprising amount of heat can build up at the negative stage quite quickly. Second, it is not just the printing exposure, but the initial setup (focusing, adjusting) and subsequent temperature cycling which can change the degree of negative flatness. Third, there can often be significant burning and dodging work to do after the basic exposure, which means the lamp is actually on for a lot longer than one might expect. Then again I recall you indicated in a previous thread you were not much interested in such manipulations, so perhaps you don't experience any heat buildup .

    I'm not referring to esoteric microscopic problems here. I'm talking about very easily visible blurriness at normal viewing distances. I have seen this many times.

    The simplicity argument doesn't work. It is only marginally less simple to use a glass carrier. Further, if it is only about the image, which seems to be your default point in the threads you start, why even raise the issue? Image versus printing complexity is a false dichotomy. While I can't speak for all printers, I think in most cases the image is just as important to us as it is to people who don't want to get involved with technical details in printing.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    3,305
    Well it's certainly not my intent to impose my methods on your style, Tom.
    "Art" and "craft"(or technique) tend to be married, however. Salvador Dali
    tended to use an itty bitty squirrel hair brush, for example, rather than a
    palette knife. I'm only working with four completely different enlarger at
    the moment (but adding a fifth), so am not generalizing, that is, from my
    own perspective on this. But if I was a real purist, I'd machine my own
    fluid mount carriers. That would solve most of the dust issues outright,
    but making cleaning the negs and trannies an even bigger headache.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    While I don't have your resources, and I do like to have a good time in the darkroom, I also try to get as much as I can out of each print. It's only black and white, and I have no one but myself to please.
    To me, however, the quality I seek from a print is probably less to do with ultimate print quality, and more to do with simply expressing myself; I'm interested in the art a lot more than the technique. With that said, I am not exactly sloppy in the darkroom. I'm very critical of my own output, and I set the bar very high of what may pass into my portfolios, and what gets axed. It's just that with 11x14, or smaller, in the Leitz, I just cannot justify spending an hour spotting a print, for the loss of sharpness that I can't see with the naked eye and 20/20 vision.

    Anyway, I don't want this to become a pissing contest. I understand why you have to work with methods other than 99% of us, and gladly respect the choices you make (can make) to get what you need. Absolutely nothing against it. But then there are the rest of us, the mortals, with limited budgets, and resources in time and money that we can plough into our passion. It isn't easy to always squeeze the maximum out of every orange.
    Finally, photography in its entire process and art is something that I care extremely deeply about. I call it my 'insanity asylum'. With the pressures daily life brings, I need this, badly, to stay level. To focus all my energy on attempting to make one single print perfect, is soul rewarding to me, and that's why it's such a big deal to me.

    I'll try to see it from your view, if you try to see it from mine.

    - Thomas
    Thomas,

    Back in the 70s I worked with a guy who was grinding a 6" telescope mirror in his basement. I went there one day to check it out and, well, his basement was what it was. His folks didn't seem to believe in throwing stuff away. This guy had made a space for the grinding stand and enclosed the work area using plastic shower curtains that touched the floor (low ceiling). As the work progressed and the grit used got finer and finer he began stopping working and mist the work space with water from like a Windex bottle. He said the mist would settle and take the dust down with it. As long as the floor was a bit damp he didn't worry about kicking up anything that could get between the mirror blank and the tool (at least nothing bigger than the grit size he was using at that stage). As I recall he made it to the final step, where the spherical surface of the mirror is figured into a parabola, without much issue. I'm sure the rouge was orders of magnitude finer than anything you have to deal with, so it can be done.

    Oh. There's cats. Natasha told me all bets are off.

    s-a
    I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
    - Garry Winogrand

  5. #45
    richard ide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wellington County, Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,227
    Having done enlarging as part of my business for 20 years and experimenting with many combinations of procedures; my work flow consisted of the following:

    Glass carriers or vacuum film stage for all enlargements. Negatives from 35mm up to 30" x 48".

    Windex with a lintless tissue (Kimwipes)

    Airgun to clean glass and negative surfaces when positioning negative in carrier.

    Vacuum easel for holding enlarging media up to 80" x 192".

    On occasion when Newton Rings were visible; blow a very small amount of rice starch on to the glass. Just a few grains are enough to eliminate the problem with no spots on prints.

    Sometimes used paint thinner to mount negatives to glass.

    When you work to deadlines you cannot afford the time to redo a job. Never had to redo a project and never missed a client's delivery time.
    Richard

    Why are there no speaker jacks on a stereo camera?

  6. #46
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,763
    Images
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent View Post
    Thomas,

    Back in the 70s I worked with a guy who was grinding a 6" telescope mirror in his basement. I went there one day to check it out and, well, his basement was what it was. His folks didn't seem to believe in throwing stuff away. This guy had made a space for the grinding stand and enclosed the work area using plastic shower curtains that touched the floor (low ceiling). As the work progressed and the grit used got finer and finer he began stopping working and mist the work space with water from like a Windex bottle. He said the mist would settle and take the dust down with it. As long as the floor was a bit damp he didn't worry about kicking up anything that could get between the mirror blank and the tool (at least nothing bigger than the grit size he was using at that stage). As I recall he made it to the final step, where the spherical surface of the mirror is figured into a parabola, without much issue. I'm sure the rouge was orders of magnitude finer than anything you have to deal with, so it can be done.

    Oh. There's cats. Natasha told me all bets are off.

    s-a
    Thanks for the account. I don't doubt it can be done.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    365
    I use a neg carrier for 6x6 film with:
    For medium format, AN glass on top, plain glass at the bottom.
    For 35mm, AN glass on top, no glass at the bottom, i.e. only a glassless insert for 35mm film.

    This works perfectly for me and I never tried to change anything about it.

  8. #48
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,831
    Images
    122
    I have always prefered glassless. The film managed o.k. without glass support in the camera so it should be possible to hold it with the same precision in the enlarger.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  9. #49
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,560
    Camera has a pressure plate - it doesn't have to shine a light through it.

    That said, I am fairly clean and careful and dust is STILL an occasional problem. I might quit photography before I added four more surfaces to keep dust free!

    Ok, probably not, but glassless is indeed simply good enough for me. And with my LED lamphouse on my Omega D2, negative popping from heat is a non-issue.
    Last edited by Roger Cole; 03-22-2012 at 05:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #50
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,831
    Images
    122
    Oh yes, the pressure plate. I forgot about that bit!

    I don't want to add four dust collecting surfaces either, two is enough. And I also use LEDs so heat is not an issue for me either.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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