Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,557   Posts: 1,545,132   Online: 1087
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,750

    35mm glass negative carriers?

    Does anyone use glass negative carriers for 35mm? If so, who makes them? Can I get one to fit an old Omega B66?

    I imagine using a glass carrier in 35mm is a dust spot nightmare, but some of my film just won't lie flat enough in the carrier. Sort of lumpy or wavy Delta 100, on a small scale, but enough that it's difficult to get the whole print sharp at 8x10. I at f11 and don't want to close down any more (as it is I'd rather be at f8).

    Michael R

  2. #2
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,220
    I put the 35mm negative in a 6x6cm, 4x5in, or 8x10in glass carrier (depending on enlarger) with some form of masking. Diffuse light source is almost needed.

    Without a glass carrier, have you tried f11 or f16? If you are not cropping and printing smaller than 8x10 on the 8x10 sheet, the diffraction may be tolerable. Since the diffraction limit parameters are 'user defined' the only way to know is to try and see.

  3. #3
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,995
    Images
    6
    I've used them and yes they trap dust. I also have Newtons ring on prints sometimes. But you can't beat the flatness of the negs when you use glassed carriers.

  4. #4
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,941
    Images
    33
    How about putting the 35mm negs in slide mounts and using the matching 35mm slide carrier in your enlarger.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,750
    I hadn't thought of slide mounts. I also like the idea of using a medium format carrier. I will try both.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,750
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    I put the 35mm negative in a 6x6cm, 4x5in, or 8x10in glass carrier (depending on enlarger) with some form of masking. Diffuse light source is almost needed.

    Without a glass carrier, have you tried f11 or f16? If you are not cropping and printing smaller than 8x10 on the 8x10 sheet, the diffraction may be tolerable. Since the diffraction limit parameters are 'user defined' the only way to know is to try and see.
    I'm already using f11. That's as small as I dare go. Not only does diffraction interfere, but even at f11 my printing times are extremely long.

  7. #7
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I'm already using f11. That's as small as I dare go. Not only does diffraction interfere, but even at f11 my printing times are extremely long.
    Look for #423-129 2¼"x2¼" (6x6cm) Universal Glass Carrier.
    I make the 35mm mask out of the black material that paper comes packaged in. I lay the mask on top of the glass and hold it in place with a piece of tape.

    Another thing to consider is that the enlarge can focus like a view camera. If you have a grain magnifier that can see the edge, then you can focus the enlarger by moving the head on the column. So, with your existing carrier, focus on the corner of the image and note where the column is (easier if you have 429-101, Magnification Reference Scale installed on the column). Then focus on the center of the negative without touching the focus knob, by moving the enlarger head. Then set the head to the point exactly half-way between the extremes. This will optimize your depth of field at any aperture.

    If you want, you can actually calculate the aperture to get it all in focus based on the focus spread.

    N = 20/(1+M) * square root of 'dv'

    N = Aperture number
    20 = user dependent constant (circle of confusion 0.15mm for me)
    M = magnification
    'dv' = millimeters of focal depth on the enlarger column.

  8. #8
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,290
    Images
    20
    Omega made a glass Rapid Shift carrier for the D-series enlargers, so I'd be surprised if they didn't make one for the B-series.

    A diffuse light source helps with dust suppression.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,750
    Never thought of that either. thanks.

    If I use a glass carrier, is the dust factor as bad as people say?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,965
    I have used one glass for 35mm on a Durst 605, just as an experiment. Dust didn't seem to be that much of a problem but I am not sure that the prints( I don't do bigger than 10x8) were any better than glassless prints and Newton's rings occasionally appeared.

    pentaxuser

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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