Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,546   Posts: 1,544,513   Online: 1144
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,741

    Anti-newton ring strategy - 35mm

    I've found I only really need a top glass to maintain good flatness. Having experimented with regular glass with thin spacers, anti-newton ring glass etc, I would now like to try using the glass from a multicoated clear B+W filter (not a UV filter, just a clear protective filter). I'm wondering if this might be an interesting alternative if the multicoating helps cut down on the interference effect. I have a spare filter so figured I'd pop the glass out of the ring and use it in the negative carrier on top of the negative.

    Anyone have any thoughts on this? In theory should the anti-reflective multicoating reduce the newton ring effect? Or not?

    Thank you.

  2. #2
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    What was wrong with the anti newton's ring glass?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,301
    Interference patterns will not be affected by coated glass. They will look different if the glass you are comparing it to is not a polished optical flat as is the filter. The only guaranteed way to a flat neg and no newton rings is a wet mount, messy but it works super well.

  4. #4
    richard ide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Markham, Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,215
    The newton rings are a light interference pattern between 2 smooth surfaces and the vaying thickness of the air film between them. Anti-newton glass and other methods of eliminating them such as using starch prevent the 2 surfaces from coming into close contact the way they do with regular glass. Google newton ring theory for a better explanation
    Richard

    Why are there no speaker jacks on a stereo camera?

  5. #5
    Vlad Soare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    251
    Back when I was using an enlarger with glass negative carriers, I removed the bottom glass altogether and replaced the top one with the glass from an anti-newton 35mm slide mount. Problem solved.
    Curiously, I've never got any Newton rings with medium format film. Only with 35mm.

    My current enlarger uses glassless negative carriers. I'll never go back to glass.
    Last edited by Vlad Soare; 09-29-2010 at 07:31 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,741
    Thanks everyone for the responses. For 35mm I have both glassless and glass carriers (top glass only) with various types of glass. Trying different things.

    To answer tomalophicon, I've never had reliable success with anti-newton ring glass. First, I sometimes get newton rings anyway. Second, depending on the image, the texture on the glass is sometimes visible in the print.

    One day I'd like to try wet mounting. It seems like a real mess and I'm not quite sure how you get the negative clean after.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oregon and Austria
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    835
    Vlad, you and I are the heretics!

    I agree, ditch the glass. You'll have less dust, more time and no Newton's rings.

    I got glass carriers because of all the hype about greater sharpness and just found them to be a PITA. Plus, they didn't deliver sharper results than I was getting already. Maybe if I were enlarging my 4x5 negs to larger than 20x24 I would find them necessary. As it is, I need a loupe to resolve all the detail on the prints. That's sharp enough for me.

    The reason for glass is to keep the negatives flat. There are other ways to do this. With your 35mm negs, a good carrier should hold them very flat.

    Best,

    Doremus Scudder
    www.DoremusScudder.com

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,741
    It is not heresy. I use glassless carriers fairly often but for negatives requiring lots of burning, popping is sometimes an issue. Refocusing after the negative pops doesn't really work unless I stop way down. As for dust, I've never found that to be as much of a problem with glass carriers as people suggest. I just keep everything very clean and give a final blast of compressed air on all surfaces right before closing the carrier. I've never had a problem (besides the damn newton rings, although it happens less often in the winter months when humidity is down).

  9. #9
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,995
    Images
    6
    Yes glass carriers are PITA. You have 6 surfaces to keep dust free. When there's humidity, there's Newton's rings, when the air is dry, there's static electricity which attracts dust. There's no winning using them.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,741
    Only 4 surfaces for me with 35mm. I only use glass on top.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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