Enlarging issues - masking

So I decided to put my MF enlarger search on hold temporarily and instead take some 35mm shots and use the V35 for the first time instead.

It is my first time doing any wet prints and I am finding the process super slow and impossible to get consistent.

One issue that I have had is the placement of the negative in the holder and using the negative masking in the V35. Is there a trick to getting this right? It is near impossible to get the negative perfectly centre in the negative holder. Ànd the V35 masks don't seem to work very well - the screws seem to have some give so the darkened area moves if I just bump them; they don't seem to be parallel to the edges; there isn't a sharp light to dark, but almost a soft edge with light falling off (or at least it seems that way when I am adjusting the image).

Am I doing something wrong? Is there a trick I am missing? So I have faulty equipment?

There's good news and bad news here. The bad news is that I have no experience with your model of enlarger so cannot directly answer. The good news is that if the enlarger model as a model was as bad as this then most if not all would have been scrapped.

That isn't to say that you haven't got a faulty model of course but if this is the case then two things might help those who have or have had this particular model.

1. An instruction manual
2. Pictures of those parts of it that would seem to be faulty including as much detail on those parts as possible

pentaxuser

What are you trying to accomplish? Negative stage masking is usually to reduce flare in crops or when enlarging a negative format smaller than the negative carrier opening. Are you doing either of these things or something else?

I may be wrong but I believe the V35 is made by Durst. If you can't find an instruction manual for the V35 maybe you will find one for a comparable Durst enlarger.

Dan0001 said:

I may be wrong but I believe the V35 is made by Durst. If you can't find an instruction manual for the V35 maybe you will find one for a comparable Durst enlarger.

Click to expand...

A manual, along with lots of good information on the v35, can be found here:

https://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/v35.htm

In the past I've had Durst and Opemus 6X6 enlargers with masking negative carriers. What I did was use a little tape to hold the mask in place for a 35mm negative and marked the glass with a grease pencil where the 35mm negative should fit. You can also make make a cut out with black paper as a mask and tape it or use rubber contact cement to the glass. Although I like the idea of the glass carrier to keep the negative flat, when I updated to a Saunders L6700 I made sure I got a standard 35mm carrier.

Thanks. I have read the manual. The problem is that it is not particularly useful when everything is new to someone, and not just that particular enlarger (in my view).

The issue is that I pretty much have no idea what I am doing and there are a lot of moving pieces, so it is hard to figure whether I am doing something wrong, the equipment is faulty or if there is actually no problem at all.

ic-racer said:

What are you trying to accomplish? Negative stage masking is usually to reduce flare in crops or when enlarging a negative format smaller than the negative carrier opening. Are you doing either of these things or something else?

Click to expand...

What I was trying to do was to eliminate all the light around the image, effectively only allow light to go through the image and not the rest of the negative. It sounds like this is not what the masking is for? I.e. it is ok to leave a gap and then use the board to cut out the light around the exposed part of the negative? That makes things a little easier. I was trying to get the mask to come perfectly to the edge of the exposed part of the negative on all four sides by turning the four screw knobs, but had the above described problems.

Either case, I think there is something wrong with two of the screw knobs. Two of them are very secure and only move in and out if I turn them. The other two have quite a bit of give. Enough to make a difference in terms of the area of the negative they cover. And masking area definitely does not form a perfect rectangle. Maybe it doesn't matter if I am supposed to mask using the board rather than the enlarger itself.

Is it normal for the 35mm negative to not be a perfect fit in the holder? The gap in the holder through which I guide the negative is wider than the negative so it moves around and I have to spend loads of time realigning it for every frame.

I was awake till 5 in the morning trying to make the most of the darkness to print as many photos as I could. Took me 6 hours to print 14 photos! I'll see if I can take some shots of the problem later, but right now I can't bare to look at the enlarger.

Paul Howell said:

In the past I've had Durst and Opemus 6X6 enlargers with masking negative carriers. What I did was use a little tape to hold the mask in place for a 35mm negative and marked the glass with a grease pencil where the 35mm negative should fit. You can also make make a cut out with black paper as a mask and tape it or use rubber contact cement to the glass. Although I like the idea of the glass carrier to keep the negative flat, when I updated to a Saunders L6700 I made sure I got a standard 35mm carrier.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I am having a little bit of difficulty imagining what you mean. In any case, the negative carrier is a standard 35mm one (I think). This is the one:

https://picclick.co.uk/RARE-Leitz-Wetzlar-Negative-Holder-inc-Glass-401539467523.html

Can you post a photo of the negative carrier?

And 6 hours for 14 photos is super fast. It can take me that long to come up with a good print of a single photo and I've been printing for years

I found this revue about the V-35, seems he had the same issue with his:
[Dec 25, 2002]
Lars Bryant
Professional

STRENGTH:
Sharp lense. Strong build.

WEAKNESS:
Only 35 mm. And I did not find the Af very easy to use. Did not like the film carrier, hard to make the film stay in one place...

Overpriced. Sharp lense, but I prefer the Nikkor 50mm/2.8 lense with a Durst 370 or 670. The Nikkor looks more black&white. And at distance looking at prints the Nikon looks sharper cause they look more black and white and looks like they have more contrast or something....just better...

Similar Products Used:

Durst

That's the correct negative carrier. There is some space in the carrier for the negative to move around a bit, but it shouldn't be too hard to align with the opening. I usually align it roughly and then gently close the carrier. I then do a final adjustment with the carrier mostly closed. It doesn't need to be perfect, you can do the final masking using the easel.

Bob Bibab said:

Sorry, I am having a little bit of difficulty imagining what you mean. In any case, the negative carrier is a standard 35mm one (I think). This is the one:

https://picclick.co.uk/RARE-Leitz-Wetzlar-Negative-Holder-inc-Glass-401539467523.html

Click to expand...

Sorry, thought it was the 6X6, yours looks pretty straightforward, really don't stand what the trouble is, put negative in the carrier, hold it up the light until it fills the cut out, hold until inserted into the enlarger, is the negative slipping once in the enlarger? If the negative is slipping once in the carrier then use a small stip of transparent tape on the edge to hold it.

There are a few issues:
1 - The alignment issue, which what that reviewer posted picked up on. I guess it is normal with this enlarger.
2 - Two of the masking knobs aren't really secure. So I can push them in and out without turning them and the mask area changes significantly.
3 - I had thought I needed to use the mask in the enlarger head to frame my print (rather than the easel), which meant that the negative not being 100% perfectly parallel to the masking lines in the head was a major problem and would take me a long time to get as close to perfect as possible. It was even harder because the masking in the head didn't seem to work very well. But if all the masking in the head is supposed to do is get rid of most of the light around the exposed negative, and the proper framing is done on the easel, then it is probably not a major issue.

Have I got it pretty much right?

logan2z said:

Can you post a photo of the negative carrier?

And 6 hours for 14 photos is super fast. It can take me that long to come up with a good print of a single photo and I've been printing for years

Click to expand...

You are probably trying to print works of art. I am just trying to print my holiday photos.

Bob Bibab said:

But if all the masking in the head is supposed to do is get rid of most of the light around the exposed negative, and the proper framing is done on the easel, then it is probably not a major issue.

Click to expand...

Yep - the easel is where you set the framing.
The masking allows you to minimize extraneous flare, and permits you to enlarge smaller/unusual film formats. As it is at a different plane than the negative, you wouldn't be able to use it for crisp borders anyways.
And don't feel bad. If you have been trying to set the framing with the negative holder masks, there is no surprise that you felt frustrated!
I use one of these with my 4x5 enlarger - it is about 16 times the size of what you were struggling with, but equally imprecise:

Bob Bibab said:

You are probably trying to print works of art. I am just trying to print my holiday photos.

Click to expand...

Trying, yes. Successful? Very debatable

Bob Bibab said:

... I was trying to get the mask to come perfectly to the edge of the exposed part of the negative on all four sides by turning the four screw knobs, but had the above described problems.

Either case, I think there is something wrong with two of the screw knobs. Two of them are very secure and only move in and out if I turn them. The other two have quite a bit of give. Enough to make a difference in terms of the area of the negative they cover. And masking area definitely does not form a perfect rectangle. Maybe it doesn't matter if I am supposed to mask using the board rather than the enlarger itself.

Click to expand...

The mask blades will always be out of focus, so don't depend on them for creating the border around your prints if you want sharp borders. Set the enlarger's making blades so there is a rim of light around the negative and then bring the paper easel blades a few millimeters into the image area. In many cases this duplicates the less-than-100% framing of many 35mm SLR cameras.