Quote Originally Posted by KenM
As I have previously mentioned my system is enlarger mfg and model specific. I purchased Lynn Radeka's original system and looked at Lynn's new system and opted to spend the additional money because of greater precision.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'greater precision'. The current system uses a two hole 1/4" punch which offers large holes. The supplied negative carrier has the 1/4" brass pins already spaced. Once you've taped the film leader to the original negative, and punched the masking film, you get perfect registration (or as perfect as it needs to be) every time.

The negative carrier slides into the mount, and is held in place by a magnet, again offering perfect replacement. You can remove the negative carrier, replace it, etc. and it always goes back to the same place.

Am I missing something?
The problem that I envisioned with Lynn's system is in the area of the negative stage and negative carrier. The information that he provided did not address the matter of the negative stage being immovable and I also was bothered by the fact that the negative carrier wasn't specific to my enlarger. Additionally at that time he offered an over the counter paper punch as a film punch. The punch that he offered is not a machined item, they are rather a stamped production item and not subject to a great deal of integrity insofar as precision is concerned. I have found that absolute repeatability is required when degree of enlargement becomes great. In my masking I most usually remove and reinstall negatives and masks many times in producing a print. I am quite obviously not in competition with Lynn Radeka since I don't sell a competitive system. I try to spend money for valid reasons, as well. I researched the matter thoroughly and had valid reasons for taking the approach that I did. Those reasons were greater precision.