difference in process to make anti-newton glass vs. non-glare, vs. ground glass.

I know why I need to use A_N_ glass for 8x10 enlarger,so . .. . .. .. . . If I am using a diffused light source, Can I use Non-glare glass instead? or can I use GG as well? ( as long as there is no Lines on the GG)

what is exactly the difference in "etch" between all three?

I do not the process for anti-newton Glass. can some one answer. . .please

I think non-glare is just an acid "wash" so to speak, on one side, i think?

I think GG is made by a fine pumice with water as lubricant to abrade the surface, I think?

can anyone confirm or denie my general statements on process of aformention products.

More to the point I wish to find a cheaper A_N_glass alternative then the USD 100 or more for one sheet.

thanks in advanced GZ

This is no way answers your question about the different etches but maybe something cheap to try. I havent got around to it yet, but I was going to try a bit of P99 Anti-glare acrylic from tap plastics as an ANR alternative.

I have read on the "internets" and on the "googles" of other people using non-glare plexi ( one sided) claiming no impairment of image. However plexi has quite a bit of static charge( dust) and scratches easily. I was hoping to avoid plexi.

I was really wondering if anyone is using non-glare glass as ANR glass? and does it impair image quality?

I guess I will spenf the 10 bucks and try it. test both types against each other, clear glass vs. non-glare. .

o.k. so went to Hobby Lobby and bought 8x10 non-glare ( on one side). placing the non glare side down, on top of the negative - it did not cuase newton rings like regular glass does. so there !! I bought the glass for 6 bucks. ( no the dollar bills did not have a buck on the back) I would have saved it- but still you get the point. the glass does not leave "artifact" .( nice)

I once kept samples of all kinds of options on hand for testing, from multiple countries. At least in this climate (coastal and foggy) no kind of optical coated glass has been a reasonable substitute for real ANR glass, and even those differ. Plexiglas is NOT dimensionally stable (it bows toward heat), is electrostatic (attracts dust like crazy), scratches easily, and does not have the same textural qualities at all, so it's not a reasonable substitute either (I DO have a lot of experience with non-glare acrylics, along with lots of serious fabrication equipment). Trying to make your own? - good luck with that one! There are extant commercial sources for custom sizes, so why bother? Frosted picture frame gloss - C'Mon ... No greasy Jack in the Box burger is a steak. Giant difference qualitatively. Hobby Lobby is not a place to go for enlarger glass. Get the real deal. My last set came from ScanTech in LA. And no, it's not just "acid washed" or ground. The precise texture can make a huge difference unless you want the texture pattern evident in your prints.

Thanks drew!! Great news. I will be contacting Scantech in L.A. if you have a contact name, phone, Cc me on that one.

I will spend the money for the real deal. Thanks again I appreciate your suggestion. After thinking about it, True-vue non glare may not be the best choice. But the glass did eliminate the rings. Smiley face

The owner of scan tech, I read has a terminal illness and the company is unable to fill orders??? I think. But if any one else has a recommendation for the best glass to sandwich a neg. Let me know

DREW WILEY said:

no kind of optical coated glass has been a reasonable substitute for real ANR glass,

Click to expand...

DREW WILEY said:

Plexiglas is NOT dimensionally stable (it bows toward heat), is electrostatic (attracts dust like crazy), scratches easily, and does not have the same textural qualities at all, so it's not a reasonable substitute either

Click to expand...

The OP says he bought non-glare glass, neither optically coated glass nor plexiglas

greg zinselmeier said:

bought 8x10 non-glare ( on one side). placing the non glare side down, on top of the negative - it did not cuase newton rings like regular glass does. so there !! I bought the glass for 6 bucks. ( no the dollar bills did not have a buck on the back) I would have saved it- but still you get the point. the glass does not leave "artifact

Click to expand...

so why resort to derogatory statements

DREW WILEY said:

C'Mon ... No greasy Jack in the Box burger is a steak.

Click to expand...

More expensive is not always better. Case in point: I use ordinary 2x1.5mm2 cables for my speakers, and no-one is going to convince me that exotic (and super-expensive) audiophile cables are better, unless he/she can detect the difference in a double-blind test.
The OP seems to be happy with the results using anti-glare. Maybe his eyes are not as finely tuned as Drew Wiley's.

Greg, it does not always makes sense to insist on finding the cheapest solution. The fact you want to print using a 8x10 enlarger gives away you want to work at a high level. That often comes with a price. I suggest you first try to find the original AN glass of your enlarger en tell us the brand of your enlarger. You will be surprised what folks have laying around and will be willing to part with. Also, people may have suggestions where to find it.

Create search alerts on the auction sites.

For those who are unfamiliar with what AN glass looks like I attach a picture of two Leitz Valoy II condensers (which make direct contact with the glossy side of the negative, pressing it flat). The first version is clear and nor AN. The later version was AN treated.

I have never seen a Leitz condenser with AN treatment. Only the AN attachment that is added onto condenser. Live and learn. Does the AN condenser lens predate the Focomat?

I appreciate all support, from everyone!!! People here on APUG are very passionate what they feel is good practice. I like hearing from those whose opinions are different then mine. It keeps me from landing in the ditch.

I still would like peoples opinions about their choice of manufacturer for ANR-G.

Thanks to all of those who have responded.

KHBPHOTOGRAFIX in Canada sells ANR-Glass. Has anyone used there glass?

Are you actually seeing any issues w/ your current setup? You have that diffused light source on your enlarger, the new glass you bought at Hobby Lobby, and a test that went very well. Sounds like you fixed the issue, unless you bought plexi, and yes, that stuff will pull dust from the other side of the room!

guangong said:

I have never seen a Leitz condenser with AN treatment. Only the AN attachment that is added onto condenser. Live and learn. Does the AN condenser lens predate the Focomat?

Click to expand...

You missed where I say these are condensers for the Leitz Valoy II enlarger. Not the Focomat Ic. The Valoy II was developed parallel to the Ic. They share the same negative holder and the same Focotar lenses. The Valoy II has no automatic focus and instead a very efficient large helicoid. The later grey version came with the AN condenser.

momus said:

Are you actually seeing any issues w/ your current setup? You have that diffused light source on your enlarger, the new glass you bought at Hobby Lobby, and a test that went very well. Sounds like you fixed the issue, unless you bought plexi, and yes, that stuff will pull dust from the other side of the room!

Click to expand...

um, Hard to say. I think the prints look good, meaning no problems of "noise" , but could they be better with top of the line ANRG. . . .. IDK maybe??? I can not compare, since I do not have expensive glass.

Everything has to be optimized to make realistic comparisons. For hobby-ish purposes all kinds of things are allowable. But it you want serious quality you need to go about it more specifically. I'm not discouraging experimentation - you name it, I've probably tried it myself for an enlarger carrier at some time during the learning curve.

If you're just talking about tiny 35mm negs or even up to 6X7 cm roll film ones, find a few old Gepe plastic slide mounts with AN glass in them. They were once abundant, and are dirt cheap now if you stumble onto them.

I hear ya on that Drew, ( everything needs to optimized to make realistic comparison)

I'd say it depends on the Hobby Lobby glass. {Funny, but political observation deleted here by Moderator}

Seriously though, I've used coated glass before for small (Leitz) enlargers and it worked great. I've also used anti-glare acrylic from Home Depot that I saw there one day. Worked fine too. In fact these days I use the acrylic on my scanner to sandwich negs against the glass. Works great for that. I probably wouldn't use it on an 8x10 enlarger though.

I've used AN glass out of a GEPE medium format AN slide mount too as Drew suggested, but that won't help you obviously.

In the end if you want the ultimate quality (maybe you do? Don't?) then get the appropriate anti newton glass for the top and if you can find some, a coated glass for the bottom.

If you don't have coated bottom glass and you get newton rings (can happen on the emulsion side with some films like Acros in my experience) then a fine dusting of corn starch can eliminate the newton rings and the CS won't show up in the print. I've had to do that with Acros before. Then again, it is why I stopped using Acros...

I realize that you want to find "cheaper" glass but sometimes you gotta just bite the bullet. You could look for a used neg carrier. That might already be set up the way you need it and might cost less than just buying the anti-newton glass.

You never said what enlarger you are using.

Hope that helps you.

Thanks Patrick. Which ANRGlass do you recommend? Have you tried the KHB photografix anrglass ? And compared against other ANR glass ?? I hear all ANRGlass are not all the same?