Do I need a 6x6 carrier if I have glass 4x5 carrier with masking attachment?

[Grayjohn900]

Hello Everyone,

I just purchased a Saunders 4500ii and decided to buy a 4x5 glass carrier with a masking attachment. With this setup - will I still need negative carriers for 35mm and 6x6? Or would the mask attachment mean I don’t need the smaller carriers?

Thank you in advance!

 

[Renato Tonelli]

The glass carrier can handle all formats up to the largest size negative it is intended for.
I have a Durst with a 4x5 glass negative carrier and use it for 35mm, medium format and 4x5. The Anti-Newton glass should be on the top portion of the carrier.

 

[MattKing]

With the LPL 7700 (as the LPL enlargers are branded except in the USA), the masking attachment only limits extraneous flare - it doesn't provide crisp cropping. So if you are looking to have the masking attachment form your print image area boundaries, you may not like them.
If you rely on the easel for that purpose, then that won't be a concern.
The 4x5 version of the masking attachment appears to put the blades even farther from the negative plane.

 

[Grayjohn900]

Thank you Matt! You always have the answers I need lol

Could you please briefly elaborate on what you mean by “rely on the easel”? Sorry, I’m still fairly new to darkroom work and want to make sure I’m not missing anything.

Thanks again!

 

[Hassasin]

Masking within negative carrier should certainly suffice. Common solution in majority of enlargers with exception of some brands like Beseler.

Main purpose of making is to cut out light outside negative area, so projection on easel is through negative only. Combined with glass carrier (hopefully one of the glasses is of Anti Newton type) it will also allow freedom of printing negative as a whole with edge marks etc.

Easel for me has always been part of the set up and never printed without it. So-called frameless easels where paper is not obstructed by any masking blades, never worked for me. So if you use typical easel with masking blades you will get print with white borders.

 

[MattKing]

Sure!
If you rely on the negative carrier to delineate the edges of the image on your print, you accept any blurring or artifacts that the carrier imparts.
Here is an example of the effect that the thick carriers on an Omega D series imparts - see the very edges of the image area:

This only occurs, of course, when you elect to print the full image area on the negative, as revealed through the carrier.
If you try to mask off any of the image area on the negative by relying on those masking accessories, there will be more of a blurred area between where the image in the print is sharp and where the paper is white.

If you let that blurred area fall on the easel arms or even further afield, and rely on the edges of the easel arms instead, the fact that those edges are right against the paper means that you will end up with a sharp demarcation between image and white.

This might illustrate the difference:

 

[mshchem]

Glassless 6x6 dedicated carrier would be my approach. Negative is flat, less dust to deal with, easier.

 

[Grayjohn900]

The glass carrier can handle all formats up to the largest size negative it is intended for.
I have a Durst with a 4x5 glass negative carrier and use it for 35mm, medium format and 4x5. The Anti-Newton glass should be on the top portion of the carrier.

Thank you for letting me know to have the anti newton glass on top!

 

[Grayjohn900]

Sure!
If you rely on the negative carrier to delineate the edges of the image on your print, you accept any blurring or artifacts that the carrier imparts.
Here is an example of the effect that the thick carriers on an Omega D series imparts - see the very edges of the image area:
View attachment 411245

This only occurs, of course, when you elect to print the full image area on the negative, as revealed through the carrier.
If you try to mask off any of the image area on the negative by relying on those masking accessories, there will be more of a blurred area between where the image in the print is sharp and where the paper is white.

If you let that blurred area fall on the easel arms or even further afield, and rely on the edges of the easel arms instead, the fact that those edges are right against the paper means that you will end up with a sharp demarcation between image and white.

This might illustrate the difference:
View attachment 411246

Thanks Matt for the detailed response

On your omega do you prefer to use the 4x5 with the masking attachment or like mshchem recommends - using a glassless 6x6 carrier?

I half hate the thought that the glass carrier may not be as “universal” as I initially thought

I had read in the forums that the masking attachment for the Saunders 4500ii did not complete mask all the way down to 35mm, so I bought a 35mm glass carrier too just to cover my bases

I don’t think Saunders/lpl (now omega) made a 6x6 glass carrier and KHB and George brown did not have anything for sale that comes close to a glass carrier for medium format

 

[Grayjohn900]

Glassless 6x6 dedicated carrier would be my approach. Negative is flat, less dust to deal with, easier.

you’re probably right - I’m only complicating my life in some sense

I suppose I hoped the 4x5 carrier would work because it would mean not having to buy a whole other negative carrier and I thought glass carriers were considered superior to glassless

Still much to learn on my end!

 

[mshchem]

you’re probably right - I’m only complicating my life in some sense

I suppose I hoped the 4x5 carrier would work because it would mean not having to buy a whole other negative carrier and I thought glass carriers were considered superior to glassless

Still much to learn on my end!

It will work fine, as long as you keep it clean etc. Dedicated carriers just make things easier