Filing negative carriers...

[Loose Gravel]

I don't suppose there is a good answer here, but why do I have to file out every carrier that I've bought from either Beseler or Omega? Doesn't matter whether it is 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5. They are all undersized. What are they afraid of?

Are other manufacturer's carrier undersize?

 

[metod]

I got Durst M601 from a friend recently and first thing I had to do was to file the carrier. I could never print without seeing the whole negative on my easel. Maybe they are afraid that the white light around the negative would scare some people off? I also wonder...

 

[Kino]

Probably for the same reason Television manufacturers used to overscan the image by up to 25%; I guess they were afraid someone would turn to stone if they ever saw the vertical interval of the video signal.

It has been the same way with every 35mm motion picture projector I have ever run; get the aperture mask, get a file and spend the better part of a day cutting and checking, cutting and checking...

Go figure...

 

[unregistered]

I have a feeling it has more to do with the carriers ability to grab enough of the neg to keep it flat, and the manufacturer not wanting to be held accountable if it doesn't. If you notice, after you file, there isn't a lot of rebate edge to hold onto. Imagine if the manufacturers made their carriers allowing the whole neg to be seen and it didn't hold the neg flat. I can hear the uproar now.

 

[Roger Hicks]

All sizes are pretty nominal: '6x7cm' runs from 55 to 57mm on the short dimension, though most are 56, and 68 to 72mm on the long dimension, and I've measured full-frame 35mm from 22.5 to 25 on the short dimension and 35 to 38 on the long dimension.

In the days of uncoated enlarger lenses, undersize carriers may have been an important safety measure in reducing enlarger flare, and they just never got changed.

It also seems that a lot of people don't WANT to print all-in.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[haris]

It is interesting question, and I asked myself that too. But, this is more interesting. I have two Meopta's enargers, Opemus5 (up to 6x6cm) and Magnifax 4 (up to 6x9cm). Both come with glass carriers, and glasless are bought optionally. I have glasless carriers for both enlargers and for all film sizes, that is 35mm and 6x6 for Opemus, and 35mm, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 for Magnifax. Now, 35mm carriers for both enlargers are 23x35mm, not 24x36mm. I asked Meopta is that normal, and they said it is, and as I can see it is not only Meopta but others too. But, all others carriers, for MF format and for both my enlargers doesn't have to be modified. All other MF carriers for Opemus and Magnifax have full 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 negative size. And both Opemus and Magnifax 35mm carriers have 23x35 size and have to be modified. That is strange.

On the other hand, as all my 35mm cameras doesn't have 100% viewfinder coverage, when compose photo what I see in viewfinder will be on print. That area which Opemus and Magnifax enlaerger negative carriers cover on 35mm frame is approximately area which my 35mm cameras don't show in viewfinder, so I don't include them in photograph in first place. That is why I didn't have need to modify negative carriers.

But that is SLR 35mm story. If (when) I get myself rangefinder camera, then I think I would have to cut carrers on full 24x36mm negative size...

 

[haris]

What they are afraid of? Maybe it is matter of area needed to press negative to be flat. I don't think it would be enough to press negative only on two sides (lenhgt) to be flat, negative need to be pressed on width sides too, and non picture area of negative width is maybe not enough... Who knows?

If nothing helps, use glass carrier, but be ready to fight dust... Dust is reason why I agreed to 23x35 instead of 24x36 negative carrier size...

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Everyone,

One of the Beseler 35mm carriers (#8302) for my MCR-X has an opening slightly bigger than full-frame negative size. With 35mm, of course, there's plenty of film outside the image, and flatness is no particular problem as it might be with the more limited rebate on 120. Perhaps other enlargers have similar carriers available.

Konical

 

[bill schwab]

One of the Beseler 35mm carriers (#8302) for my MCR-X has an opening slightly bigger than full-frame negative size. ...Perhaps other enlargers have similar carriers available.

I have over-cut carriers for 35mm, 120 and XPan for my MX45 Beseler allowing me to print the black borders if I wish. I did have to special order them. Try your specific manufacturer to see if they are available.

Good luck,

Bill

 

[Bob Carnie]

One of the big reasons I use glass carriers , so I can see all the rebate and then some if I want.

 

[Papa Tango]

I asked this question about 30 years ago of one of the old-guard cigar chomping newspaper photogs that owned a pro-lab that I worked at. His answer was that as Roger stated, to cut down on what he called "frame flash", a bleed of light on the general easel area not part of the negative information.

I guess that the size variability issue is a genuine concern for masking by a carrier. I have filed out my beseler 35 carrier, even though FF ones are available. Seems like sellers of those think they are plated with gold. More often than not, I use the negatrans, which cuts more off the bottom of the frame due to the transport mechanism. A habit has been created to allow a little more frame space in composition.

A new issue I have run into is with the Mamiya RB backs. The newer SD backs have a slightly larger frame area than the Pro and ProS... It goes back to what old Cigar Bob said about composition, "if it's too tight it ain't right..."

 

[J D Clark]

Are other manufacturer's carrier undersize?

I have a Saunders 4550 and it's glassless carriers are pretty close to the correct size -- I've not had to do the filing that I had to with the Bessler. Additionally, their 4x5 glass carrier is slightly larger than 4x5, and it's meant to be used with a masking frame that allows you to (hypothetically) crop at the negative stage, but in reality, allows you to mask the flash mentioned in the previous message.

John Clark
www.johndclark.com

 

[david b]

Well I too have the Saunders 4550 and the 6x6 neg carrier is just about full frame. I like it a bit wider so I will do some filing later today (I just got this rig).

 

[Papa Tango]

David, to cut down on possible spurious reflections from your filing-out, run a black permanent marker over the bright metal surface. And be ABSOLUTELY sure to fine sand the edges (especially the 90) smooth to prevent scratching. How do I know this???

 

[david b]

thanks patrick. i have filed a bunch of carriers already and have been lucky enough never to have a problem.

I can't believe Saunders got so close but didn't go the extra milimeter.