masks in glass carriers

ic-racer's post today made me remember a couple questions I have wondered about.

Question 1:

Do people ever use the negative carrier mask to define the borders on a print? In other words, project the image onto the photo paper and let the edges be defined by the carrier mask instead of easel blades? Just curious. Seems like the edges of the print might be a little soft, instead of crisp straight lines. On the other hand I can imagine that might look nice for some prints... would there be enough spillover to fog the surrounding white border?

Question 2:

Also, how many of you use glass carriers for 6x9? About two years ago I made a homemade mat board carrier for 6x9 and it seemed to work pretty well at keeping that big expanse of film flat. But then I stupidly made the opening bigger to print part of the rebate. I then found that I didn't like printing the rebate and furthermore with the smaller "grip" area the negatives were no longer flat. Last week I made a 6x9 print with that carrier and the film curl ruined my print... I might try to make another carrier but it seems like glass might be necessary to really get the film flat. If that's true, why did they manufacture 6x9 carriers without glass in the first place!?

Happy New Year!

Answer 1: No
Answer 2: I do not shoot 6x9.

Occasionally I'll let the mask around the negative show, but I don't think it always looks good. This is an example of a 4x5" glass carrier masked down to 16mm. I used the black plastic bag that Ilford paper comes in and cut a hole in the center with an Exacto knife. In this print the edges of the mask defining the outer border of the print.


In terms of 6x9, when I started 6x9 about 9 years ago I always printed with a glassless carrier, but, looking back at all those prints, I think I can see areas slightly blurred by subtle negative flexing due to the heat from the light beam during print exposure. So, for the last few years I only use a glass carrier for 6x9.

I should have searched APUG a little more before asking question 2. It seems one reason for glassless carriers is just to make throughput faster, which makes sense.

I was looking at this beseler 8072 ( And the price went up a few dollars since 2 days ago!!! )

But Polyglot mentioned in another thread getting NR with acros with normal lower glass. I'd be pretty unhappy if I spent that much and got NR on my prints. I do use some acros.

It seems like ANR glass above and no glass below might be safer compromise. Now I'm just confused

1- Yes, I do that frequently because I like the look. You have to carefully cut a black mask around the neg though, or use a hand cut neg carrier as I do, as light will spoil over and ruin the writing otherwise. 4x5 looks especially good using the contact print method. The image below is from an Agfa Isola w/ 120 roll film. It doesn't look that great dry mounted, but a matted print does look very good.

2- I don't have an enlarger that can print 6x9 negs, but do print 6x9 negs using a 6x6 negative carrier (the largest size my enlarger can print). Works fine, as nearly always my subject matter is in the center of the neg anyway. You can print sharp photos from a glassless 6x9 neg though (just as you can print 4x5). You just need to keep the printing exposure times short.

NedL said:

It seems one reason for glassless carriers is just to make throughput faster, which makes sense.

Click to expand...

I think if you had a 'poll' most would indicate that DUST is the issue with glass carriers. Especially when printing with condenser enlargers. The dust on all SIX surfaces can show with great clarity.

Everything is a trade-off. Some disadvantages of glassless are that with high magnifications, many (most?) non-APO enlarger lenses have a curved field OPPOSITE that of the natural curve of most rollfilms. Another disadvantage is the potential of the heated film base to move a fraction of a millimeter during exposure.

1) Regularly.

The edges of the carriers for my Omega D6 create a distinctive frame for the image that make it look like the edges are almost three dimensional. I believe it is due to a combination of diffraction and reflection of the inner surface edges of the film gate.

I'll scan and post an example.

EDIT: See attached, but note that this is from a glassless carrier

momus said:

...
2- I don't have an enlarger that can print 6x9 negs, but do print 6x9 negs using a 6x6 negative carrier (the largest size my enlarger can print). Works fine, as nearly always my subject matter is in the center of the neg anyway. You can print sharp photos from a glassless 6x9 neg though (just as you can print 4x5). You just need to keep the printing exposure times short.

Click to expand...

Then you should be using a Rollei or Hasselblad. Dang! My BAD again! :devil:

1 - yup, especially with 645. Though I frequently do it just to see as much of the frame at a decent size and then the final print might be cropped some. The edges usually just look a little rough instead of straight. The carrier isn't filed out so there's no black border.
2 - Since I have a little Zeiss 6x9 folder, I must have printed at least a few of them. I don't remember if I have a 6x9 negative carrier or if I made one - it's a 50/50 guess. Though I think I've done more contact prints from that camera than enlargements.

MattKing said:

1) Regularly.

The edges of the carriers for my Omega D6 create a distinctive frame for the image that make it look like the edges are almost three dimensional. I believe it is due to a combination of diffraction and reflection of the inner surface edges of the film gate.

I'll scan and post an example.

EDIT: See attached, but note that this is from a glassless carrier

Click to expand...

Wow that's cool! That's what I was wondering about: using the negative carrier mask to define the borders when not printing the rebate. That's an interesting look! Sounds like Bethe does it too.

I'll try it when I figure out what to do about a new carrier. I think for a start I'll make another one from matboard, and see how it goes. I'm not sure about purchasing one with glass on both sides if I might still get NR. I use a diffusion enlarger, but that doesn't mean dust is no issue.

NedL said:

Wow that's cool! That's what I was wondering about: using the negative carrier mask to define the borders when not printing the rebate. That's an interesting look! Sounds like Bethe does it too.

I'll try it when I figure out what to do about a new carrier. I think for a start I'll make another one from matboard, and see how it goes. I'm not sure about purchasing one with glass on both sides if I might still get NR. I use a diffusion enlarger, but that doesn't mean dust is no issue.

Click to expand...

Glad you like it.

My light source is diffused - an Ilford 400 series variable contrast head.

And I think the metal negative holders are critical to the result - at least some of it results from reflection from the edge of the openings in the plates.

MattKing said:

And I think the metal negative holders are critical to the result - at least some of it results from reflection from the edge of the openings in the plates.

Click to expand...

That figures. Each holder probably has a different "look".

I do a lot of prints where the neg carrier opening is the mask for the print. When I give prints to friends, they'll sometimes notice the rough edge and usually say they think it's cool and more organic looking. I do like the full 35 frame proportions for some prints vs. the 6x7/8x10 ratio, especially since I'm composing full frame in camera with 35.

I use a Beseler 67 enlarger - no glass carriers were made for it, but I've been sketching out something using the bottom of a 6x7 carrier and 3D printing to make a glass carrier that's pin registered to the enlarger with pin registration for film and masks... will be some weeks before that gets completed though. We'll see if the 67 is stable enough to be pulling negs in and out for one print...

Here's the 35 neg carrier exposed on 11x14 paper with 2" or so all around. I like the randomness of the look on some prints.