Does antiNewton glass under the negative cause any reduction in sharpness of the image? I guess it doesn't otherwise you wouldn't do it. But it surprises me a bit.
I do not refurbish old cars and motorcycles and speed boats. Fortunately, my neighbors don't either. Time is limited. I'd rather make prints than refurbish my enlarger.
I remember the summer before I went to college. My friends and I were sort of bicycle fanatics. So every morning before we went on a ride we would go up to the university bike shop and replace the grease in our hubs and cranks. It had no effect on the performance of our bicycles, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. And it made us feel like expert bike mechanics. The folly of youth. Some never get over it.
Old age is wasted fixing, and paying for fixing things over and over again that should have been built right in the first place. False economy. Set up a nice darkroom while you can, so you can enjoy it later. I don't think Pablo Casals ever said, "To hell with it if the bow breaks, it's just the music which counts." Nor did Michelangelo, working with marble, likely say to his assistant, "another dull chisel is good enough; just hand me whatever is lying on the floor". Mediocrity just breeds more mediocrity. Tools count.
I greatly improved the flatness of paper in my Beard 2-blade enlarging easel by placing a heavy magnet (from an old loudspeaker) on the two blades where they cross. Has to be lifted off each time to open the easel, so I glued a piece of card on the underside to save scratching things.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that a super sharp print of a mediocre photograph is a mediocre photograph...
Yet extensive testing by one Photrio member Bill Burk within the past year showed that the focus accuracy is NOT undermined for accuracy to a notable degree, by putting a grain focuser directly on the easel surface (no dummy piece of enlarging paper at time of focusing)...
0.070" range of undetectable error has been determined in Bill's test
To quote him,
"It's totally OK to put paper under the grain focuser to account for the thickness of paper because it is more accurate.It's totally unnecessary, proven by experiments."Using grains focuser with or without paper on the easel
What you're showing is more like random measurement error, which is already represented well enough in the dots. What I'm talking about are flaws in the system which are repeatable. They are there with the same magnitude and direction every time. So what is the difference between the upper...www.photrio.com
That’s fine - but the OP wanted to know how to get materials flat. The main point for me was to get clean edges, because light was getting under the easel blades. However, I would point out that the amount a sheet of paper can bow in an easel is a lot more than the paper thickness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?