Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,870   Online: 1113
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Enroute
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I didn't know John finally settled on Mirogard. Why not try that then?
    It just worked out at the time, I think he went with 2mm glass on the bottom only. I'll certainly consider it as I look into all the options...
    "I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~

  2. #12
    Rafal Lukawiecki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Co. Wicklow, Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    737
    I use a European equivalent of tru-vue made by GroGlass in my enlarger both top and bottom. It does help with NR but doesn't always eliminate them, I'd say it reduces the incidence to perhaps 25% compared to regular glass. It has also, slightly, increased light output and contrast. It's easier to see dust on film, too, with it.

    Normal anti-NR glass is too textured for my taste, when used with smooth tone negs (sky).
    Rafal Lukawiecki
    See rafal.net | Read rafal.net/articles

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafal Lukawiecki View Post

    Normal anti-NR glass is too textured for my taste, when used with smooth tone negs (sky).
    You mean above or below the negative?

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Grand Junction, Colorado
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    600
    Images
    57
    You might run down to your local frame shop, I'm sure they would have scraps of most of the tru vue line that they would probably give you to experiment with. For what it's worth, we live in a similar humidity area and I just use plain glass in my negative carriers (4x5 and 8x10) and I've never seen a newtons ring with any type of film. I've tried the tru vue ar glass and it worked fine but it is a pain to clean with its coated surface compared to plain glass. Anyway, if you want to experiment I would try your local frame shop first for scraps.
    Good luck!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Enroute
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,004
    Erik, you are currently 5 degrees warmer and 5% more humid than I am, so yeah, we are close, lol!

    In using glass carriers, AN or otherwise, I have got Newton Rings every time with both TMX 100 and Acros 100. I did a 11x23 with a 6x12 Acros neg last night and got a small set of rings in the center, no good...:-(
    "I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,083
    You got rings from the emulsion side (because of the glossy emulsion) or the base? I'm asking because obviously solving the problem above the negative is easier than below. In my testing I didn't find coated glasses helped much (hard to conclude definitively because it is an intermittent problem) vs other tricks.

  7. #17
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,020
    I am interested in this as well. Now that I have my 4x5 durst setup and running I am looking to make a decent negative carrier for it. Its an old Durst 45 Pro, there are just no parts as it is not as common. My current carrier is 2 pieces of matte board. Id like a glass carrier option to keep the film flat. I have experimented with plain glass in a cobbled together carrier for a lpl machine in the past, that that worked without any newtons rings. But if there is an affordable source to this material I'd like to try it in the near future.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Enroute
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    You got rings from the emulsion side (because of the glossy emulsion) or the base? I'm asking because obviously solving the problem above the negative is easier than below. In my testing I didn't find coated glasses helped much (hard to conclude definitively because it is an intermittent problem) vs other tricks.
    I'm pretty sure it is the emulsion side, I have AN glass on top.
    "I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~

  9. #19
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,719
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    I'm very interested in this as well. With a point source enlarger the texture from the AN top glass is very apparent. I also get newton rings from the clear glass with some color films and TMX. I've tried using AN glass top and bottom, but I can see distortion from the bottom AN glass.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,083
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    I'm pretty sure it is the emulsion side, I have AN glass on top.
    Have you tried wiping down the bottom glass with some alcohol before putting the negative in? This seems to work for me as well as coated glass (ie it might sort of work sometimes ). Another trick that works above the negative (I actually came up with this one) and might work below the negative in a pinch (testing required) is a piece of unexposed, fixed Tri-X 320 sandwiched in between the glass and negative. That film has just enough tooth on both sides to prevent the dreaded rings. Etc.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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