Lynn Radeka pin registration system and small formats

Hi all,

So my next skill to learn to improve my BW prints is masking and based on my research it is best to have pin registration system to keep everything aligned especially for unsharp mask, contrast mask etc.

So I was looking for such systems and apparently they are either antiques so rarely available on eBay and if they are quite expensive or newly available ones such from Mr Radenka.

I’m sure there are members here who has used his system. I have sent him few emails but no response, so I’ll ask my questions to you;
1) Does it work with De Vere 504 enlarger or do I need a special equipment
2) Does it work with smaller formats like 6x6 or 35mm as well rather than 4x5 only?

I hope he will respond me sometime so I can purchase without any concern and if there is anybody who can give him a nudge that would be great

Many thanks,
Fatih

Way back when I was using unsharp masks, I never used a pin registration system. I couldn't afford one. A light table and tape were sufficient. I recommend going without until you understand the masking technique. At least then you'll have a clearer idea of how it works... for you. I used unsharp masks mainly for LF film from 4x5 to 8x10. I did on a few occasions, make them for 120 negatives.

Andrew O'Neill said:

Way back when I was using unsharp masks, I never used a pin registration system. I couldn't afford one. A light table and tape were sufficient. I recommend going without until you understand the masking technique. At least then you'll have a clearer idea of how it works... for you. I used unsharp masks mainly for LF film from 4x5 to 8x10. I did on a few occasions, make them for 120 negatives.

Click to expand...

That is a good point and probably in terms of alignment, masks like unsharp or contrast masks are the more critical ones and if we can do them without pin registration system, that will save me around $500, that means more films to shoot, more papers to print. I’ll study the method a bit more. I mean technically the De Vere negative carrier has pins, maybe if I measure them critical enough, I might be able to have a similar system like Lynn’s, the only caveat is, all the large pins on the carrier have different spacings and probably different sizes as well.

The Lynn Radeka pin registration system is designed for large format. It can be used for medium format and 35mm but the smaller negatives make it harder and more exacting than the larger ones. The Lynn Radeka pin registration system is the only one that I found that is complete and useful, the others are not worth the time or money. That said I still have to actually start using it. I presently do not have any negatives that to use for the different masking techniques.

Fatih Ayoglu said:

1) Does it work with De Vere 504 enlarger or do I need a special equipment
2) Does it work with smaller formats like 6x6 or 35mm as well rather than 4x5 only

Click to expand...

Frisket the 135/120 film into a suitable piece of 4x5 film & it is much easier to work with for any pin reg procedure.

The De Vere is an excellent machine for pin reg - they built some 504s with pin-reg onboard. Make sure the top of the column is tied off to the wall with the wall mount brace. The Radeka carrier receiver is designed to be held in place in the neg stage & the pinned carrier part pushed into that - in other words it's reliant on the weight of the enlarger head to keep the neg carrier receiver in place, with no clamps/ pins/ other positive connections to the enlarger chassis.

Old thread. I've commented on masking techniques many times before. Smaller film sizes are accommodated by taping them to a strip of larger film (always dimensionally stable PET sheet film or some art store equivalent), which is itself punched. If you encounter a matched Condit punch and pin frame in good condition, buy it. Those were the best. You don't need a pin-registered enlarger carrier system unless you're doing sequential tricolor printing like dye transfer. Just tape the mask and original film together in register, then put that sandwich in any ordinary carrier, meaning full glass on BOTH sides - no exceptions, and preferably anti-Newton glass.

I'm not sure what Lachlan means by a "frisket"; but apparently he's saying the same thing as me. Here in the US, especially in the South, a frisket is a slurred pronunciation for a picnic basket you put deep fried chicken in. Never use the same terminology in a photo lab that Col. Sanders spoke unless you use bacon grease as neg carrier or scanner mounting fluid. And if you mention "registar", someone will think their voting rights are being taken away.

The pin registration allows one to easily line up masks and reshoot masks and line up the new masks accurately. It can be done with masking tape but that requires more effort accurately lining up especially with smaller formats.

The smaller the film gets, the harder it is to register by eye. Doing things that way just for sake of a little experimentation to see if masking is for you or not is OK. But once you get serious and need to either mask many images, or a single image involving multiple masks, lack of a precise punch and register system is a first-class ticket to the insane asylum. So is not knowing how to work clean, free of dust and lint. The third thing guaranteed to drive you batty is trying to get larger sizes of acetate film to behave over time, since it's dimensionally unstable.

I can't imagine using masking tape for anything enlarger carrier related. It's messy and too thick; bad habit. I use very thin mylar "graphics" tape (even the tape needs to be dimensionally stable for best results).

I use 4x5 film for the mask and Scotch Magic Tape to hold it to the negative.

Neal said:

I use 4x5 film for the mask and Scotch Magic Tape to hold it to the negative.

Click to expand...

That is how I did it, too.

Sirius Glass said:

The Lynn Radeka pin registration system is designed for large format. It can be used for medium format and 35mm but the smaller negatives make it harder and more exacting than the larger ones. The Lynn Radeka pin registration system is the only one that I found that is complete and useful, the others are not worth the time or money. That said I still have to actually start using it. I presently do not have any negatives that to use for the different masking techniques.

Click to expand...

I used the Radeka system and found it to work perfectly

DREW WILEY said:

Smaller film sizes are accommodated by taping them to a strip of larger film (always dimensionally stable PET sheet film or some art store equivalent), which is itself punched.

Click to expand...

DREW WILEY said:

a "frisket"

Click to expand...

It's a term that's as old as the hills in printing/ graphic arts and is the closest descriptor of cutting a hole in a piece of larger sheet film & taping your 135/120 neg (+ step wedge if necessary) in place. Bob Pace (for example) refers to it as such. It's a better way of handling smaller formats than simply attaching a leader to them (which is fine with bigger sheet formats). Kodak's graphic arts handbooks even detail how to make them from litho film.

DREW WILEY said:

If you encounter a matched Condit punch and pin frame in good condition, buy it. Those were the best.

Click to expand...

They are one solution, not the only solution. There is nothing wrong with the Kodak style big pin systems (and others that were widespread across the graphics industry) - and the Kodak system pin-bar to punch tolerances seem a lot better than the tolerances in the Condit system you keep lecturing us about (having to match individual punch to pin spacing is not necessarily a signifier of tight & well maintained toolmaking tolerances, but rather of pragmatic and cost controlled solutions).

DREW WILEY said:

You don't need a pin-registered enlarger carrier system unless you're doing sequential tricolor printing like dye transfer. Just tape the mask and original film together in register

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the Radeka system - it requires not just unsharp masking the neg, but further usage of register masks (often on litho film) for further contrast/ tonal adjusting effects after the initial exposure of the original neg - thus requiring a register neg carrier. At the end of the day, It's masking for people who go to workshops & who want a whole turn-key system that makes them believe they've found a button they can press that will always produce perfect prints (of a sort).

Lachlan Young said:

...



I don't think you understand the Radeka system - it requires not just unsharp masking the neg, but further usage of register masks (often on litho film) for further contrast/ tonal adjusting effects after the initial exposure of the original neg - thus requiring a register neg carrier. At the end of the day, It's masking for people who go to workshops & who want a whole turn-key system that makes them believe they've found a button they can press that will always produce perfect prints (of a sort).

Click to expand...

The Radeka was designed to have the negative plus multiple masks align properly with pin registration eliminating the need to do that by eye which would be hard with multiple masks.

So I have found a workaround. My De Vere Negative masks have 1/4 inch pins on them. The only issue was each mask (35mm, MF and 4x5) has different spacings, so I have ordered an adjustable punch where the spacing between each hole can be adjusted. With that, I can replicate what Lynn is doing, on my negative masks. As negative carrier can be fit perfectly aligned each time and negative masks in the carrier are not moving, I believe I can solve the pin registered carrier issue. Now it's time to learn masking. Please let me know if there is any available online free source which goes through masking types and how to do them.

Most adjustable office punches for 1/4-inch holes being made these days are too sloppy. Certain older ones like the Boston ones, or perhaps more expensive "commercial"versions today, have often been successfully used for registration purposes by budget-conscious individuals. Or if you want to get more serious, there are plenty of used graphics punch and register supplies around, with the ability of precisely matched accessories still being supplied by Olec-Stoesser or Ternes Burton. Precise registration tabs and pins are also available from them, or easily online. Don't go out and buy just any kind of peg or pin unless it's stainless and you've got a trustworthy caliper or micrometer along to verify its actual diameter. The real deal are so inexpensive that there's no need to jerry-rig those. And make sure whatever you attach them to is dimensionally stable, and won't swell or shrink or warp with humidity changes.

The problem with masking literature and instructions is that a great deal of it pertains to types of film and styles of printing no longer available. And masking is applicable to so many darkroom tasks, with so many potential variations, that you need to be more specific about your own needs. Masking is not a single tool, but a whole huge toolbox of its own, having all kinds of potential applications and variations. But for learning purposes, it's probably best to start out with basic unsharp contrast masking relative to black and white printing. And there probably are some extant web tutorials on that, those none I've seen looked ideal to me due to cutting corners with respect to details. But until you've got a little practice in, it's hard to appreciate what those distinctions are.

More serious film masking punches are 1/16th inch micro-pin systems, which affect only the very margin of the film. A hole as big as a quarter inch (one of the old graphics industry standards intended for very large sizes of sheet material), would necessitate punching a scrap strip of sheet film and taping it to an edge the original neg you are trying to print, even if that original neg is itself just as wide. So there's really no need to jockey back and forth with spacing on the punch itself. To the contrary, you want it firmly locked down at one standardized spacing most suitable to your own setup. Otherwise, you'll go nuts with the inevitable discrepancies every time you change the punch settings.

Maybe someone still has instructions for the Radeka or other recent punch systems they can share with you. You might also look into the contemporary Alan Ross methodology, which is potentially complementary to classic unsharp masking, though not really a substitute. Once you're got your equipment itself all set up, then ask more specific questions about the technique itself.

My Radeka equipment costs on the order of $650US. I still have not gotten aroundtiut and used it.

Lachlan and Sirius - when it comes to more advance masking using multiple sheets of film, my own methodology involves generating a single master mask, then taping that together to the original for enlargement purposes, rather than stacking them all together in the enlarger carrier itself. And some tweaks equivalent to highlight masking can be simplified simply by Sharpie pen treatment of an unsharp mask or old school smudge pencil rather than another developed sheet of film itself. Obviously, working with large format originals is a lot easier than with small film shots.

Yeah, those of us who have done a lot of advanced color film printing know all about multiple masks, and have our own shortcuts. But I also know what it takes to do it well. I've got precise pin-registered carriers for all my color enlargers, including expensive 8X10 Durst versions, if I need those, but I rarely do. Of course, those kinds of carriers were often standard equipment on enlargers costing anywhere between $25,000 and $90,000 when new. I was lucky to be outright given that when someone semi-retired. But I already had my own Condit system, so modified the carriers to match that, since working Durst punches are now quite rare anyway.

The point I was trying to make, especially with reference to anyone just trying to test the waters using a very basic affordable approach, is that it is best just to learn the basics of unsharp masking first before trying anything complicated, which might in fact mandate even more precise accessories than Radeka offered. For a beginner, a registered carrier is optional. Many people who competently practice masking never need one.

DREW WILEY said:

I can't imagine using masking tape for anything enlarger carrier related. It's messy and too thick; bad habit. I use very thin mylar "graphics" tape (even the tape needs to be dimensionally stable for best results).

Click to expand...

Drew how do you tape the leader to the masking film in the dark? I assume the leader stays on while processing the mask?

It's NOT taped together in the dark. Each piece of film is punched. The original is obviously punched in light, since it's already developed, and placed on the registration pins in the exposure frame. Then the masking film or sheets of film are punched in the dark, and placed on the same set of pins, registering that to the original.

If the original is smaller than the distance between the pins, as will typically be the case with 35mm and 120 examples, and requires taping to a leader, the masking film itself should always be sheet film large enough to be punched on its own, without need to be taped to anything else. That is also important for dimensional stability.

But the end result - the original exposure and its mask - can be taped together on registration pins, then the taped sandwich removed for use in an ordinary glass carrier, eliminating the need for a pin registered carrier. Repeated forcing of film on and off of pins can result in failure of the punch holes over time. Only a few specialized techniques require an actual registration carrier.

The confusion behind your question seems to stem from the meaning of masking tape. Masking tape is the kind of tape painters use to mask things off. Many people keep it around in the darkroom, and might be tempted to use it for the kind of thing in question. But it should never be used for the kind of "masking" in question here, due to the fact it's both dimensionally unstable, and leaves a sticky mess behind. I use a stable, thin, narrow mylar-based tape often sold as "Graphics tape". It was once sold as Chart tape, used for creating black lines on copy art. Avoid the vinyl kind.

I hope that clarifies any confusion.

Thanks Drew, that makes sense. My misconception was really thinking you didn’t punch the negative or the masking film but rather were taping a leader to both. I do have a pin registered carrier, but as you said it seems like it could tear the film with repeated use. For now I will just use it as my registration frame and try the Mylar tape to make a permanent package.

I would never put painters tape on film. I don’t even like using it on anything because of the residue when you remove it.

If you have a look at a book/manual for dye transfer printing published by David Doubley you will find a lot of information on masking and the equipment needed. Keep in mind that this manual was published about 1984 but the process has not changed much. Information on masking can be found in Chapter 3 (3-14) and describes the eqipment needed. It explains the Condit system as well as some equipment that could be made in the home darkroom. It also explains what type of materials that should be or not be used for masking. Like Drew I don't use masking tape in the darkroom for anything than putting a quick label on something. For masking I use the 3M Mylar tape where step guides or transparencies have to be mounted in a film material to make a mask. Highlight and contrast masking are explained in the following chapter.

Fatih Ayoglu said:

. Now it's time to learn masking. Please let me know if there is any available online free source which goes through masking types and how to do them.

Click to expand...

Have a look at the Naked Photographer videos AKA Greg Davis. He covers the kind of masking to which I think you are referring

pentaxuser

Those videos cover it somewhat crudely, but are better than nothing. And the old dye transfer literature, which is still abundant if one knows where to look, had a quite different objective in masking, along with different sheet films back in its heyday. But the punch and register equipment which David would have used is still in principle the same thing, or even that Eliot Porter would have used well before. David doesn't allow downloading from his site, and plans to cancel the site within the decade. The most involved video tutorials were by Bob Pace and are very hard to acquire, but again, are quite married to dye transfer technique specifically. Masking for black and images is far easier to learn and practice.

Somewhere I've got an old Condit catalog. Later the company was acquired by a very skilled machinist who unfortunately also proved to be a quite shady businessman who didn't always ship what someone already paid for. The person is now deceased, so no sense mentioning names. I've made some of my registration accessories in my own shop, but most of it is Condit, except for my pin registered Durst carriers, which I've modified to match my Condit punches.

If one wants to go dirt cheap with small formats only, consider a slide registration punch and matching registered Anti-Newton glass slide mounts. Gepe made them in 35mm and 6X7, but not 6x9 if I recall correctly. These were used in slide show presentations for sake of title scripts registered to regular color slide, in the same glass sandwich. Sometimes a pile of these old mounts turn up in some old camera store or AV studio cleanout. I don't remember where my old punches are - somewhere in the bottom of a packrat nest around here. Haven't used any of that in the past 40 yrs.