Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,747   Posts: 1,515,678   Online: 799
      
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 77
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie View Post
    Michael

    When you focus the image you are focusing on the grain of the negative which is at a different plane than the glass the neg is sitting on.
    I do not think that optical verses regular glass would make much difference... but I have never tested this and would be surprised to find it made a difference.
    If it makes a difference then optical glass would be decisive consideration for the bottom piece.

    I use AN glass for the top and this I am sure is not in play.
    Hi Bob, I agree the top glass should not be in play regarding optical vs regular glass. Also agree some of the imperfections in the bottom glass itself might be out of focus (assuming a large enough aperture). I'm trying to get my head around whether inferior quality and/or uncoated glass below the negative can have adverse optical effects though, since technically it is an additional lens element in the total optical "system" between the neg emulsion and the paper. To have zero effect I assume it would have to be "optically flat" (to optical standards) and free of flare. I don't know, I'm probably making too much of this.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,432
    Michael - I generally use AN glass both above and below the film when printing large format color.
    The nature of the dye cloud detail is not affected provided you have the correct type of AN glass
    relative to format. With most black and white films I use it only on top, or not at all if the film has
    some classic retouch "tooth" to it. Some black and white films are much "slicker" than others.

  3. #13
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,011
    Images
    60
    Theoretically, the glass below the negative could act as a lens and re-focus and/or distort the light path.

    But unless that piece of flat glass is really poor (centuries old window glass?) I wouldn't expect that the results of the re-focusing or distortion would be substantial.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,432
    One of the things rarely mentioned is how condensation forms much more readily on uncoated glass than coated. A darkroom is typically a damp place, and enlarger bulbs heat the surface very quickly. Uncoated glass attracts atmopheric smudges much more easily too, just like uncoated camera filters; you have to clean them way more often. Secondary reflections from uncoated glass can sometimes be seen using a grain magnifier. Even the top glass can have an unwanted
    effect in this respect. I never understood why people will spend top dollar for yet another taking
    lens they rarely use, but then throw it all away attempting shortcuts in the darkroom.

  5. #15
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,885
    Images
    6

    You probably work cleaner than me

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I only use glass. I need my negatives to stay perfectly flat even if heat builds up. I don't have problems with newton rings or dust.
    I especially have problems when the air is dry and when they're static. I get Newton's rings on humid days. I do admit that negs stay flat. There are advantages with glassed negatives and glassless negatives. I've never had consistant luck with glassed carriers.

  6. #16
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,602
    Images
    14
    Michael - we are in basically the same climate zone, if you find a difference I would like to know.. Hope my clients don't come back asking for a return policy because I used the regular glass from Focal Point.

    Drew- Anti Newton glass on bottom??? with no ill effect, now thats a new one on me.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,490
    Same question here re anti-Newton ring glass on the bottom. That's a totally new one to me. On the other hand I've never done color enlarging.

    Bob: I doubt you'll be issuing any refunds. A nice thing about the multi-resistant coated (B+W "MRC") filter glass I installed in my 35mm carrier is how easy it is to keep clean (as Drew alluded to). That coating is extremely hard too, so it reduces the chance of me buggering it up with a scratch or something. It will last extremely long. I like this stuff for 35mm because with the bigger enlargement factors every little flaw can become more of an issue. Unfortunately since I threw away the regular glass for that carrier a long time ago, I can't test to see if any of this makes any difference. On balance I'd have to agree with you it is likely just overkill in the end, particularly when it comes to enlarging sheet film.

    Drew: I agree sometimes people fail to consider the entire end to end system from taking lens to print. That's why I thought this would be an interesting discussion. On the other hand this particular issue might be trivial. I don't know.

    Re newton rings, my Tri-X 320 spacer works like a charm. But if I could find the right anti-newton glass I'd surely use that instead. But I only know of Focal Point. So if it is as complicated as you say (ie need different types for different formats), yikes. I wouldn't even know where to start.

    Appreciate everyone's input on this so far. Very interesting.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,432
    Yes, I routinely use AN glass on the bottom for chromes and color negs. But in each instance I've
    carefully selected the specific type. And I do routinely use longer than "normal" focal length lenses
    and diffused light sources, so this affects the angle of incidence of the rays. For smaller originals
    (4X5 down) the wavy pattern Omega and Durst style glass works quite well. For 8X10 the Focal
    Point product is fine. Newton rings are a contstant problem in this climate (classic SF Bay fog). In
    many cases I need to use AN glass below slick black and white sheet films like TMX, TechPan, or
    Delta 100. A tricky proposition with small 120 or 35mm work, however. It's a delicate game getting
    not getting too much MTF out of a high-end enlarging lens in such cases and revealing a bit of the
    AN pattern with high-contrast papers. That's why I have kept some of my older regular rodagons
    on hand, besides the Apo Rodagon and Apo Nikkors. Tricky in theory to predict all this, but easy to
    cumulative test per various applications.

  9. #19
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,602
    Images
    14
    Do you think Focal Point can offer this glass beveled to my carrier size..?
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Same question here re anti-Newton ring glass on the bottom. That's a totally new one to me. On the other hand I've never done color enlarging.

    Bob: I doubt you'll be issuing any refunds. A nice thing about the multi-resistant coated (B+W "MRC") filter glass I installed in my 35mm carrier is how easy it is to keep clean (as Drew alluded to). That coating is extremely hard too, so it reduces the chance of me buggering it up with a scratch or something. It will last extremely long. I like this stuff for 35mm because with the bigger enlargement factors every little flaw can become more of an issue. Unfortunately since I threw away the regular glass for that carrier a long time ago, I can't test to see if any of this makes any difference. On balance I'd have to agree with you it is likely just overkill in the end, particularly when it comes to enlarging sheet film.

    Drew: I agree sometimes people fail to consider the entire end to end system from taking lens to print. That's why I thought this would be an interesting discussion. On the other hand this particular issue might be trivial. I don't know.

    Re newton rings, my Tri-X 320 spacer works like a charm. But if I could find the right anti-newton glass I'd surely use that instead. But I only know of Focal Point. So if it is as complicated as you say (ie need different types for different formats), yikes. I wouldn't even know where to start.

    Appreciate everyone's input on this so far. Very interesting.

  10. #20
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,602
    Images
    14
    A tougher glass would really be nice as one does stand the chance of scratches over multiple cleanings.

    I have about 5 sets(top and bottom) ready to go right now thanks to Focal Point, but I have a monster sheet required for my 11x14 . if this MRC glass is as good as you state then I need to find a source to cut and bevel.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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