How did they print with non AN glass carriers back in the day?

[Bob Carnie]

I assume it was applied in similar ways, that is with a similar brush, as it is done with cosmetic powder or soot powder.

No -- the powder was in a container and you squeezed the powder into the air and then brought the images through the floating dust... I would have a composite of 10 -30 images on Lexan that would be passed through the cloud of dust, then laid emulsion up and with canned air gently take excess powder off then put onto the glass vacuum and hope no Rings.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Time era for this.... 1983-87

 

[AgX]

Thank you. What an endeavour... Already with one image, let alone with thirty in composition..

 

[Ian Grant]

I've just got a quarter plate Gnome enlarger with a glass carrier and also have a Kodak Precision glass carrier. Neither seem to be AN glass.

How did old time printers manage to avoid Newton Rings while using non AN glass?

You don't need any other glass when printing Quarter plates, after all th emulsion is already coated on glass

I've never used anti-Newton glass, for 35mm and 120 (6x4.5 & 6x6) I use glass in the bottom of the carrier and a glass-less metal mask on the top. Larger formats I use glass-less negative carriers.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

AN glass has been available for at least the past 50 yrs, and a far bigger selection of types than today. Prior to that, very fine corn starch was used. It's still available, along with aerosol AN sprays from scanning products suppliers. A last resort in my opinion. Has to be cleaned off afterwards. The ultimate solution is to use an oil immersion carrier, but even messier. Carlwen once made those.

 

[Hilo]

they used AN glass in 1952 enlargers

Not always. The AN glass for the Leitz Focomat 1c was optional. The clear glass condenser of the Leitz Valoy II wasn't replaced by a anti newton treated condenser (that presses down the negative) until in the very late fifties and perhaps even only in the sixties. The AN glass for the negative holder of the Durst Laborator 1000 (1960 >) was also optional and even today you find most of them with clear upper glass. I have never seen a non AN upper glass for the negative holder of the Focomat 2c, so in that case you are right.

My experience is only with the enlargers I mentioned and I guess the fifties and sixties was the moment when AN things changed.

Something else, sometimes people switch from using AN glass to not using it. It will be different for each enlarger, but some AN glasses even out the image (as in make it slightly softer or more subtle) and it is not always what you want . . .

 

[DREW WILEY]

I routinely use AN glass on both sides of the negative, and the prints are every bit as sharp and crisp as plain glass. But I use only the best types.

 

[Ian Grant]

I routinely use AN glass on both sides of the negative, and the prints are every bit as sharp and crisp as plain glass. But I use only the best types.

What formats though. I bought a second hand Durst M605 with AN glass and the drop in sharpness was noticeable with 35mm. I replaced the AN glass and haven't looked back.

Ian

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

What Bob says makes a lot of sense. I think Newton's rings happen in with glass in high humidity. Cornstarch absorbs moisture so it would help with Newton's rings.

 

[DREW WILEY]

All formats - 35mm to 8x10, but not necessarily the same type of AN glass. Choice is relative not only for magnification, but angle of light incidence. I once had samples of eight different types on hand. Darn few are still in manufacture.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Corn starch acts as a spacer disrupting the smooth surface. I dislike the whole idea. Powder potentially getting around in the enlarger and attracting mold and booklice. I live in coastal fog, so Newton rings are a constant challenge.

 

[dante]

Clear matte spray lacquer or hairspray on the top glass.

Cornstarch? Hell no.

The idea setup for glass-but-no-glass is AN glass on the top, none on the bottom. You can do this with Durst carriers.

 

[chip j]

No one here seems to think much of my posted solution? It's the purist.

 

[AgX]

What Bob says makes a lot of sense. I think Newton's rings happen in with glass in high humidity. Cornstarch absorbs moisture so it would help with Newton's rings.

I do not see a realationship between the forming of Newton rings and humidity. They form if there is an airgap in the range of wavelength. As said above cornstarch forms a larger gap.
One may argue about a relief in the emulsion and this being humidity dependant, but I consider this as not valid.

 

[John51]

No one here seems to think much of my posted solution? It's the purist.

I like it.

Heated air is much easier to clean than cornstarch.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The role of humidity is very well known. Not a myth at all. And a number of modern films are quite slick even on the emulsion side. Some people have employed optically-coated glass instead of AN because it attracts less condensation. It doesn't work in my climate, and my enlargers are in completely different rooms from the sinks and water use.

 

[AgX]

But if humidity would be high enough to hamper the AN effect of AN glass by condensation, then polished glass yielding a not yet condensating surface would introduce Newton rings just due to its smoothness. To me such seems Catch 22.