Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,062   Online: 835
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    21

    Would I need glass for 35mm carrier?

    Hi all,

    It has been suggested on photo.net that AN glass would be needed with 35mm negs in a neg carrier to cure flatness issues. Is this true? I would've believed that negative flatness problems increased with bigger neagtive sizes.

    Is it worth using AN glass with 35mm negs - I use a condenser enlarger. Or would all be fine with just a glassless standard neg carrier that came with my DeVere Varicon?

    Many thanks

    Tim

  2. #2
    Kevin Caulfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,072
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    52
    AN (anti-Newton) glass is used to reduce the formation of Newton's rings, those interference patterns which appear when a negative doesn't lie completely flat against glass. You are correct that flatness problems increase with larger nagative formats. In general a glassless neg carrier is fine for 35mm format, and you avoid the problems associated with de-dusting four extra glass surfaces.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    A glassless carrier is fine for just about all enlargers. For my old Leitz Valoy and the other Leitz enlargers I have used, ANR glass is necessary. The condenser on these enlargers presses down on the negative and is essentially the top portion of the negative carrier. I'm not familiar with a lot of other enlargers so I can't comment on the need for ANR glass in their carriers.

  4. #4
    rogueish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    3rd Rock
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    877
    I've never had a problem with the glassless 35mm or the 6x6 neg carrier I use in my condensor enlarger (Omega D2-V).
    If your going larger (4x5,8x10) a glass carrier might be best and likely would not hurt.
    Last edited by rogueish; 08-31-2004 at 07:10 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: opps!

  5. #5
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    Glass will give you sharper results. It's the sort of thing you think you don't need until you try it.

  6. #6
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,538
    Images
    11
    I agree with David, you will indeed notice the difference on 35mm negatives.
    Bob Carnie

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2
    Images
    1
    you will notice the difference with any format, really... A glassless carrier may be more convenient but a glass carrier will ensure that your film is really flat, thus yielding better results.

  8. #8
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    This is very interesting, but I am using an Omega D5500 and I have no problem with the glassless negative carrier - at least with 2 1/4 square. Scanning with a grain focuser indicates *nothing* like a significant degradation in focus from any "bowing" of the negative. Either I am "lucking out" like a bandit, or there is sufficient depth of FOCUS in the Rodenstock/ Schnieder enlarging lenses to take care of any negative flatness deviation. That is for 2 1/4 - I think I'd seriously consider a "glassed" carrier for 4 x 5.

    I've done a fair amount of "brick tricking" .. tilting the enlarging easel to compensate for perspective distortion ... and one really has to get INTENSE to reach the point where focus errors exceed the benefit of perspective correction.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  9. #9
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    Try the same neg with glass and without. It surprised me too. There's sharp, and there's *sharp*.

  10. #10
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,538
    Images
    11
    Once again I agree with David. try both ways and see the difference
    Bob Carnie

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