alternatives to filed down negative carriers?

Forum statistics

Threads
199,646
Messages
2,794,662
Members
99,979
Latest member
XhenjiX
Recent bookmarks
0

Ornello

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
295
Format
35mm RF
brent8927 said:
There's no need for critical comparison because no one is going up to photographs with microscopes. I do use a lens hood, but the flare you get from the sun is quite different than the supposed flare you get from the filed negative carrier (as I said before, I get no flare).

I do keep my lenses clean, in fact I'm quite OCD about it it, even though it makes no or incredibly little difference because any dust on the lens is not in the plane of focus. I just like my equipment clean, I trust that's a good enough reason?

I get the feeling you just want to argue. I keep saying that I like to do things the way I do them, because I both enjoy it and prefer the looks of my images that way, so why must you keep arguing with me (and everyone else for that matter)?

Flare has the opposite effect in enlarging. Flare reduces contrast in the highlight areas. In taking, flare reduces contrast in the shadow areas.

If you're compulsive about keeping your lenses clean because you want to minimize flare, I suggest you be consistent and keep your negative masked right up to the edge. That's really all there is to this.
 

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
I agree that masking down a negative to reduce flare light passing through the negative stage will improve ones image.
Much the same as not wearing a white lab coat or having white objects close to the easal while printing.
 

Saganich

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
1,282
Location
Brooklyn
Format
35mm RF
For the 23C you want the Beseler 8055 full frame Negative carrier. I just bought one on eyab for $35. Now only if I can find the same in 6x6 and 6x9 without heading to the machine shop.

Chris
 

brent8927

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
465
Location
CA Central Coast
Format
Medium Format
Ornello Pederzoli II said:
Flare has the opposite effect in enlarging. Flare reduces contrast in the highlight areas. In taking, flare reduces contrast in the shadow areas.

If you're compulsive about keeping your lenses clean because you want to minimize flare, I suggest you be consistent and keep your negative masked right up to the edge. That's really all there is to this.

I don't keep my lenses clean to prevent flare, I simply like to keep my equipment clean. I'm not going to keep my negative masked right up to the edge because I simply prefer printing the way I do now; I think my prints look much nicer with a border and as I said before, I notice no flare whatsoever.
 

Ornello

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
295
Format
35mm RF
brent8927 said:
I don't keep my lenses clean to prevent flare, I simply like to keep my equipment clean. I'm not going to keep my negative masked right up to the edge because I simply prefer printing the way I do now; I think my prints look much nicer with a border and as I said before, I notice no flare whatsoever.

You won't 'notice it' except in a direct comparison. It would be analogous to having a small fingerprint on your camera lens. You may not notice the effect until you compared images taken with a perfectly clean lens. Flare always degrades image contrast. How noticeable the effect is depends on the image propeties and the amount of flare. If you go to the movies, take a look sometime at the projector window, and see how dirty it can sometimes be. How badly is the image affected by dirty windows? Until they clean it, it's hard to tell. You may note that the projected image is masked at the projector (you don't see the sprocket holes, do you?), and that in addition black cloth is usually draped around the screen, to give a sharp edge to the image.

Flare=bad
Masking=good
 

Ornello

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
295
Format
35mm RF
John McCallum said:
Me thinks he did not wish to know...




... from you, no?

Blaming the messenger, no?

"Please don't tell me that! I don't want to know!"
 

roteague

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
6,641
Location
Kaneohe, Haw
Format
4x5 Format
John McCallum said:
Me thinks he did not wish to know...




... from you, no?

Just give up on him John, he won't even attempt to listen to your point of view, it is like talking to a brick wall. Ornello Pederzoli II occupies a nice cozy place with Michael Scarpitti in my ignore list - they should enjoy one another.
 

brent8927

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
465
Location
CA Central Coast
Format
Medium Format
Ornello Pederzoli II said:
You won't 'notice it' except in a direct comparison. It would be analogous to having a small fingerprint on your camera lens. You may not notice the effect until you compared images taken with a perfectly clean lens. Flare always degrades image contrast. How noticeable the effect is depends on the image propeties and the amount of flare. If you go to the movies, take a look sometime at the projector window, and see how dirty it can sometimes be. How badly is the image affected by dirty windows? Until they clean it, it's hard to tell. You may note that the projected image is masked at the projector (you don't see the sprocket holes, do you?), and that in addition black cloth is usually draped around the screen, to give a sharp edge to the image.

Flare=bad
Masking=good

I understand what you're saying and I know flare is a bad thing. However, the benefits (for me) far outweigh the consequences (such as possible flare).

However, if you can tell me a way to get that somewhat uneven black border, on the photograph and not from a window matt, using a negative carrier that crops the image closely, then I'll give that method a try, assuming it's cost effective and practical.
 

Ornello

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
295
Format
35mm RF
brent8927 said:
I understand what you're saying and I know flare is a bad thing. However, the benefits (for me) far outweigh the consequences (such as possible flare).

However, if you can tell me a way to get that somewhat uneven black border, on the photograph and not from a window matt, using a negative carrier that crops the image closely, then I'll give that method a try, assuming it's cost effective and practical.

Well, I don't know. I have no idea why anyone would want a ragged border anyway, and I have never made prints that way. The camera, you may notice, gives a clean edge to the negative. The interiors of cameras are treated to minimize flare, I need not remind you.

I simply suggest thumbing your nose at fashion and making the best quality prints you can make. I don't care what anyone else does. Why should you?
 

Ornello

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
295
Format
35mm RF
John McCallum said:
Yes. You see, you may even be correct. But the problem for you is soooo maaaaanyyy people doooooon't waaaaan't to knooooooow (from you) :smile: .

So what? What do I care?

And of course, I am correct....
 

John McCallum

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,407
Location
New Zealand
Format
Multi Format
Ornello Pederzoli II said:
... What do I care?
There seems to be plenty of evidence to the contrary.
It's unfortunate you are a poor teacher. I'm sure otherwise you could contribute to the pool.

Just musing .... you know, the very best teachers are continually open to learning. Unfortunately you appear not to believe this to be true. This is a shame.
 

Ornello

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
295
Format
35mm RF
John McCallum said:
There seems to be plenty of evidence to the contrary.
It's unfortunate you are a poor teacher. I'm sure otherwise you could contribute to the pool.

Just musing .... you know, the very best teachers are continually open to learning. Unfortunately you appear not to believe this to be true. This is a shame.

On the contrary, I have changed and refined my techniques numerous times over the many years I have been involved with photography. Been there, done that. More than once I realized what I was doing was not quite 'there'. I bought and sold lenses; changed films, developers, papers, enlarging lenses. I altered agitation patterns. You name it! What I can do now is the best I have ever done. Just like Edison, I found thousands of ways to do it wrong...and that's why, once you find that 'just right' way, you run with it...
 

John McCallum

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,407
Location
New Zealand
Format
Multi Format
Ornello Pederzoli II said:
On the contrary, I have changed and refined my techniques numerous times over the many years I have been involved with photography. Been there, done that.

... and don't need to any more huh?




Ornello Pederzoli II said:
So what? What do I care?

And of course, I am correct.... not so :cool:
 

brent8927

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
465
Location
CA Central Coast
Format
Medium Format
Ornello Pederzoli II said:
Well, I don't know. I have no idea why anyone would want a ragged border anyway, and I have never made prints that way. The camera, you may notice, gives a clean edge to the negative. The interiors of cameras are treated to minimize flare, I need not remind you.

I simply suggest thumbing your nose at fashion and making the best quality prints you can make. I don't care what anyone else does. Why should you?

Others can do what they want, I was simply defending my preferred method of printing. I never said I thought printing with a filed negative carrier was a superior method than printing with one that crops close to the negative, I simply said I personally preferred that method.
 

Ornello

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
295
Format
35mm RF
brent8927 said:
Others can do what they want, I was simply defending my preferred method of printing. I never said I thought printing with a filed negative carrier was a superior method than printing with one that crops close to the negative, I simply said I personally preferred that method.

Fine. I simply want you and everyone else who does it that way to be aware that it may well have adverse effects on tonality. That's all I'm saying.

OK?

If you are doing something out of the ordinary, it is only right that you be informed of the consequences. Enlarger companies are not idiots. They don't make negative carriers that impinge on the negative a little just to piss you off.
 

brent8927

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
465
Location
CA Central Coast
Format
Medium Format
John McCallum said:
Brent, may I suggest a good practical soln is in fact using the cutt matt technique. This way you'll get to keep your neg carriers in their orig condition also. Though I must admit mine are also filed out to full frame size. (I also haven't experienced flare that was significant enough to be a problem).

Thanks for the suggestion. I have used cut window matts but I just don't like them as much. However, people's preferences and styles do change so I'll keep it in mind.

On a side note, does anyone know how to print a 4x5 negative full frame? Does it require the use of a negative holder with glass? (I realize contact printing is an option, but I mean if I want a bigger print, and please don't say "buy an 8x10," my 4x5 is big and heavy enough!)
 

Ornello

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
295
Format
35mm RF
brent8927 said:
Thanks for the suggestion. I have used cut window matts but I just don't like them as much. However, people's preferences and styles do change so I'll keep it in mind.

On a side note, does anyone know how to print a 4x5 negative full frame? Does it require the use of a negative holder with glass? (I realize contact printing is an option, but I mean if I want a bigger print, and please don't say "buy an 8x10," my 4x5 is big and heavy enough!)

I believe you may find some sag in the negative if you try it without glass. That's one of the reasons carriers do have a slightly smaller opening. It helps grasp the negative and hold it flat. In other words, you may have trouble with focus not being even across the entire negative.
 

brent8927

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
465
Location
CA Central Coast
Format
Medium Format
Ornello Pederzoli II said:
I believe you may find some sag in the negative if you try it without glass. That's one of the reasons carriers do have a slightly smaller opening. It helps grasp the negative and hold it flat. In other words, you may have trouble with focus not being even across the entire negative.

Without the glass wouldn't the negative just fall through, since I'm using sheet film instead of roll film?
 

John McCallum

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,407
Location
New Zealand
Format
Multi Format
It doesn't actually require a glass neg holder. But you could find 'neg-pop' drives you round in circles a bit if you didn't realise what is happening. Suggest letting the enlarger head warm up completely, then aligning the neg and also allowing it to reach temp before focusing.
Using cut mats would not be as easy here, and it might be worthwhile getting a neg holder for the enlarger.
 

Ornello

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
295
Format
35mm RF
brent8927 said:
Without the glass wouldn't the negative just fall through, since I'm using sheet film instead of roll film?

No, I was talking about a negative carrier that had a slightly larger opening. It would be really tricky, as you point out, to hold.
 

Ole

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
9,245
Location
Bergen, Norway
Format
Large Format
I use both glass and glassless carriers on my Durst 138S. The glassless 4x5" carrier holds the negative surprisingly flat, and I have yet to experience "negative pop". Even lith prints with 5 minutes exposure time have not been a problem; sharpness is perfect and stable.

The opening is slightly smaller than the image area, yes. Contrast is visibly higher than with the full-size (13x18cm) unmasked glass carrier, too. A bit less than half a grade - and that it after setting the sliding masks exactly on the edge of the image area.
 

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
I would suggest glass to print the whole negative with 4x5, but as some have pointed out 4x5 does not pop as much as the smaller formats, I think due to the thickness of the film. 4x5 glassless carries are made to show all the negative and some rebate, I just prefer the glass carriers in all format work I do , 35mm-11x4. Heating up the negative as John suggests is a good idea and Ornellio is correct that using a glassless carrier for this purpose is difficult.

When using glass carrier and the need is to show some rebate, I still always mask off the excess light to reduce flare!
 

Incroyable

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
11
Format
Multi Format
Diane Arbus used the filed out negative carriers on her 6x6 prints. Her broder was created by adding small pieces of cardboard to the edges.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom