Neg carrier

[Bob Carnie]

My Darkroom is kept at about 50% humidity year round and it seems to help keeping dust down..

 

[DREW WILEY]

You gotta be kidding, Thomas? Ever own even an old ordinary Ektagraphic slide projector? They made different lenses for slides sandwiched in glass mounts than for ordinary unsupported mounts
because the film always popped with the heat. You let the rig heat up first to get things popping the correct way. Of course, everyone knew that if you wanted a crisp auditorium image rather than
the kind of vacation shots Aunt Maud showed on her kitchen wall, you always mounted them in glass. Was that a different kind of film??? Maybe a cold light is a little "colder" than a halogen bulb,
but in principle it's just a matter of time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Spotting the hell outa the print? Do you always have a pillow fight in the darkroom before each printing session? ... Actually a glass carrier reduces spotting if correctly used. Here's how ... you
very precisely align everything, use the lens at an optimized fairly wide aperture, and focus only on
the emulsion itself. Also helps to have a longer than "normal" lens relative to format for shallow depth of field. That way minor bit of whatever even on the backside of the film, and on the glass itself don't come into sharp focus. (Yeah, I always used diffused sources)... Since I do a lot of masking for color work, life would be utter hell otherwise. But there are a lot of other tricks to working clean too...

 

[cliveh]

As mentioned when starting this thread, I’m with the glassless camp. For me simplicity is king and as Thomas points out he can’t see a difference in prints up to 11 X 14. I print both 35mm and 6cm X 6cm in a glassless carrier. The less air to glass surfaces the better. The comparison with slide projection does not hold up as the lamp is usually on for a much longer time generating more heat and as for popping, how long do you have the enlarger on? Surely the picture is more important than micro science considerations.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Spotting the hell outa the print? Do you always have a pillow fight in the darkroom before each printing session? ... Actually a glass carrier reduces spotting if correctly used. Here's how ... you
very precisely align everything, use the lens at an optimized fairly wide aperture, and focus only on
the emulsion itself. Also helps to have a longer than "normal" lens relative to format for shallow depth of field. That way minor bit of whatever even on the backside of the film, and on the glass itself don't come into sharp focus. (Yeah, I always used diffused sources)... Since I do a lot of masking for color work, life would be utter hell otherwise. But there are a lot of other tricks to working clean too...

The darkroom I can afford is in my basement, which is an entirely open floor plan. Concrete floors, stone walls, and rafters with floor boards so low that I bang my head if I stand up straight. Before you ask, no I can't afford to wall it in. I can't even afford to fix the broken Leitz enlarger I have, and am using a friend's spare unit for now. There are cats running around, and there's nothing I can do about it. If you ever wanted to know what a tight budget is, have a look in my wallet.

Negs are kept in archival dust free clam shell folders. Negs are not the problem and are squeaky clean. It's the neg holder itself. Whether I use one that looks perfectly clean for either the Omega or the Leitz, I get dust, no matter what I do. Do you honestly believe that I haven't tried to clean them out? I may be poor, but I'm not an idiot. I have used Windex with a little bit of alcohol in it to remove static. I use compressed air and lint free cloths. I use camel hair brushes and I use anti-static brushes. Just about the only thing I haven't tried is an anti-static gun, but I can't afford one.

So, back to glass or not glass. I like the added sharpness I get from my Omega when I use the glass carrier. I use a Rodenstock Rodagon 80mm lens, usually at f/5.6 to f/11 (1-3 stops from wide open, depending on the neg). The spotting sucks, but it's worth it, in my opinion.
With the Leitz, I just don't feel like looking at my print through a magnifying glass, so I just print without glass. It's good enough for the sizes I print up to 11x14. If I print 16x20 (largest I can print in my darkroom), I use the glass carrier, because the quality difference becomes apparent to the naked eye.

 

[anikin]

Actually, Thomas brings up very good points. Most likely the kind of enlarger and the negative holder you use makes a lot of difference on whether glass carrier is worthwhile. And if you print relatively small with short exposure times, it likely does not matter what you use. Why spend time on cleaning a glass negative if all you want is a fast 8x10 print? But if you decide to print 30x40 inch print, negative pop becomes a real problem. This is becoming a quite a lively discussion :munch:

Speaking of pillows - my darkroom used to be a place where we raised our chickens. Talk about permanent dust cloud I always keep my glass negatives in ziplock bags.

 

[clayne]

As mentioned when starting this thread, I’m with the glassless camp. For me simplicity is king and as Thomas points out he can’t see a difference in prints up to 11 X 14. I print both 35mm and 6cm X 6cm in a glassless carrier. The less air to glass surfaces the better. The comparison with slide projection does not hold up as the lamp is usually on for a much longer time generating more heat and as for popping, how long do you have the enlarger on? Surely the picture is more important than micro science considerations.

Well if none of the details are important, why care about the amount of air-to-glass surfaces?

 

[cliveh]

Well if none of the details are important, why care about the amount of air-to-glass surfaces?

Good point, but I did not mean details that ditract from the final image such as dust.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Of course, it just depends on one's objective. If you just want to have some fun, whatever. If you're serious about optimizing the output per quality and have the time and budget to do it, there are all kinds of advanced options. This includes many potential varieties of glass to put in a carrier, which specifically addresses the remark about air/glass interfaces. But if you've got precise film plane focus at I outlined, you've won half the battle already. I personally put the same fuss into a small enlargement as a big one. Bigger film wins every time
because any specks of dust get enlarged much less. But I know all about cats ... they take over everything,
that is, except the darkroom. But before I go in there I blow off any cat hairs etc completely, scrub down as
needed, and when cleaning film or loading carriers, wear a true 100% dacron cleanroom smock. One of the best
investments I ever made.

 

[cliveh]

But before I go in there I blow off any cat hairs etc completely, scrub down as
needed, and when cleaning film or loading carriers, wear a true 100% dacron cleanroom smock. One of the best
investments I ever made.

I take it you are joking.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Not joking at all. We love cats, but my darkrooms are in a different building. The film itself is handled in a true cleanroom. A single cat hair could cost me a hundred bucks in a spoiled sheet of paper, esp
if it's the last of my Cibachrome, or ruin a once-in-a-lifetime shot if it got into an 8X10 holder with
color film. When I do critical work in that room it is totally sponged down, ceiling to floor - with a
real clenroom sponge, which doesn't leave stuff behind like a supermarket sponge. I've come thru the
school of hard knocks in this respect, so ain't bluffing. But when my older brother was alive and made
his living as a pro, all he had was a darkroom in a spare bathroom in a barn, and still he made a lot
of money from it. The color work handled by a stock agency, so he never printed color himself. I could make a joke or two about a couple of well know experts in the field who have similarly primitive
digs. My own first one-man show of color was printed in a bedroom with a shag carpet and dev in a
bathroom - but it's sooooo much easier now!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Of course, it just depends on one's objective. If you just want to have some fun, whatever. If you're serious about optimizing the output per quality and have the time and budget to do it, there are all kinds of advanced options.

While I don't have your resources, and I do like to have a good time in the darkroom, I also try to get as much as I can out of each print. It's only black and white, and I have no one but myself to please.
To me, however, the quality I seek from a print is probably less to do with ultimate print quality, and more to do with simply expressing myself; I'm interested in the art a lot more than the technique. With that said, I am not exactly sloppy in the darkroom. I'm very critical of my own output, and I set the bar very high of what may pass into my portfolios, and what gets axed. It's just that with 11x14, or smaller, in the Leitz, I just cannot justify spending an hour spotting a print, for the loss of sharpness that I can't see with the naked eye and 20/20 vision.

Anyway, I don't want this to become a pissing contest. I understand why you have to work with methods other than 99% of us, and gladly respect the choices you make (can make) to get what you need. Absolutely nothing against it. But then there are the rest of us, the mortals, with limited budgets, and resources in time and money that we can plough into our passion. It isn't easy to always squeeze the maximum out of every orange.
Finally, photography in its entire process and art is something that I care extremely deeply about. I call it my 'insanity asylum'. With the pressures daily life brings, I need this, badly, to stay level. To focus all my energy on attempting to make one single print perfect, is soul rewarding to me, and that's why it's such a big deal to me.

I'll try to see it from your view, if you try to see it from mine.

- Thomas

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well it's certainly not my intent to impose my methods on your style, Tom.
"Art" and "craft"(or technique) tend to be married, however. Salvador Dali
tended to use an itty bitty squirrel hair brush, for example, rather than a
palette knife. I'm only working with four completely different enlarger at
the moment (but adding a fifth), so am not generalizing, that is, from my
own perspective on this. But if I was a real purist, I'd machine my own
fluid mount carriers. That would solve most of the dust issues outright,
but making cleaning the negs and trannies an even bigger headache.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

While I don't have your resources, and I do like to have a good time in the darkroom, I also try to get as much as I can out of each print. It's only black and white, and I have no one but myself to please.
To me, however, the quality I seek from a print is probably less to do with ultimate print quality, and more to do with simply expressing myself; I'm interested in the art a lot more than the technique. With that said, I am not exactly sloppy in the darkroom. I'm very critical of my own output, and I set the bar very high of what may pass into my portfolios, and what gets axed. It's just that with 11x14, or smaller, in the Leitz, I just cannot justify spending an hour spotting a print, for the loss of sharpness that I can't see with the naked eye and 20/20 vision.

Anyway, I don't want this to become a pissing contest. I understand why you have to work with methods other than 99% of us, and gladly respect the choices you make (can make) to get what you need. Absolutely nothing against it. But then there are the rest of us, the mortals, with limited budgets, and resources in time and money that we can plough into our passion. It isn't easy to always squeeze the maximum out of every orange.
Finally, photography in its entire process and art is something that I care extremely deeply about. I call it my 'insanity asylum'. With the pressures daily life brings, I need this, badly, to stay level. To focus all my energy on attempting to make one single print perfect, is soul rewarding to me, and that's why it's such a big deal to me.

I'll try to see it from your view, if you try to see it from mine.

- Thomas

Thomas,

Back in the 70s I worked with a guy who was grinding a 6" telescope mirror in his basement. I went there one day to check it out and, well, his basement was what it was. His folks didn't seem to believe in throwing stuff away. This guy had made a space for the grinding stand and enclosed the work area using plastic shower curtains that touched the floor (low ceiling). As the work progressed and the grit used got finer and finer he began stopping working and mist the work space with water from like a Windex bottle. He said the mist would settle and take the dust down with it. As long as the floor was a bit damp he didn't worry about kicking up anything that could get between the mirror blank and the tool (at least nothing bigger than the grit size he was using at that stage). As I recall he made it to the final step, where the spherical surface of the mirror is figured into a parabola, without much issue. I'm sure the rouge was orders of magnitude finer than anything you have to deal with, so it can be done.

Oh. There's cats. Natasha told me all bets are off.

s-a

 

[richard ide]

Having done enlarging as part of my business for 20 years and experimenting with many combinations of procedures; my work flow consisted of the following:

Glass carriers or vacuum film stage for all enlargements. Negatives from 35mm up to 30" x 48".

Windex with a lintless tissue (Kimwipes)

Airgun to clean glass and negative surfaces when positioning negative in carrier.

Vacuum easel for holding enlarging media up to 80" x 192".

On occasion when Newton Rings were visible; blow a very small amount of rice starch on to the glass. Just a few grains are enough to eliminate the problem with no spots on prints.

Sometimes used paint thinner to mount negatives to glass.

When you work to deadlines you cannot afford the time to redo a job. Never had to redo a project and never missed a client's delivery time.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas,

Back in the 70s I worked with a guy who was grinding a 6" telescope mirror in his basement. I went there one day to check it out and, well, his basement was what it was. His folks didn't seem to believe in throwing stuff away. This guy had made a space for the grinding stand and enclosed the work area using plastic shower curtains that touched the floor (low ceiling). As the work progressed and the grit used got finer and finer he began stopping working and mist the work space with water from like a Windex bottle. He said the mist would settle and take the dust down with it. As long as the floor was a bit damp he didn't worry about kicking up anything that could get between the mirror blank and the tool (at least nothing bigger than the grit size he was using at that stage). As I recall he made it to the final step, where the spherical surface of the mirror is figured into a parabola, without much issue. I'm sure the rouge was orders of magnitude finer than anything you have to deal with, so it can be done.

Oh. There's cats. Natasha told me all bets are off.

s-a

Thanks for the account. I don't doubt it can be done.

 

[ooze]

I use a neg carrier for 6x6 film with:
For medium format, AN glass on top, plain glass at the bottom.
For 35mm, AN glass on top, no glass at the bottom, i.e. only a glassless insert for 35mm film.

This works perfectly for me and I never tried to change anything about it.

 

[Steve Smith]

I have always prefered glassless. The film managed o.k. without glass support in the camera so it should be possible to hold it with the same precision in the enlarger.


Steve.

 

[Roger Cole]

Camera has a pressure plate - it doesn't have to shine a light through it.

That said, I am fairly clean and careful and dust is STILL an occasional problem. I might quit photography before I added four more surfaces to keep dust free!

Ok, probably not, but glassless is indeed simply good enough for me. And with my LED lamphouse on my Omega D2, negative popping from heat is a non-issue.

 

[Steve Smith]

Oh yes, the pressure plate. I forgot about that bit!

I don't want to add four dust collecting surfaces either, two is enough. And I also use LEDs so heat is not an issue for me either.


Steve.

 

[bill@lapetelabs.com]

I'm a fan of Anti Newton 4x5 Glass Carriers. They work with all formats up to 4x5! I just cut an opaque mask around the smaller format negs to prevent flare and center the cut out to keep the film in the center of the light source cone to allow me the use of that formats normal lens. Keeping the six surfaces dust free can take a little work and a humidifier in the room will help keep the air relatively static free and the environment is much more pleasant to work in.

Bill LaPete

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Interestingly, I experienced Newton's Rings for the first time in my last darkroom session. I was printing a TMax 400 negative in the Leitz V35 enlarger, and it was the last negative of the particular strip of film, and more curly than usual. So I decided to use AN glass on the top to hold the negative flatter; I could visibly see it curl as it was in the neg carrier.

I got what I thought was a nice print, on a piece of 8x10 Ilford paper. Fixed it, toned it, dried it, flattened it, and scanned it. Lo and behold - Newton's Rings in the upper left hand corner. That had never happened to me before, and now I wonder how I'm going to print this nice negative without having issues...
Example attached.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for the suggestion, Michael. I will try that some time. See if I can find a donor for an unexposed sheet of 4x5 TXP as I'd very much dislike to buy a whole box.

 

[K-G]

I got what I thought was a nice print, on a piece of 8x10 Ilford paper. Fixed it, toned it, dried it, flattened it, and scanned it. Lo and behold - Newton's Rings in the upper left hand corner. That had never happened to me before, and now I wonder how I'm going to print this nice negative without having issues...
Example attached.

Can you see the Newton Rings already on the photographic print or is it at first on the scanned result ? In that case it could possibly be Newton Rings from the contact between the print and the scanner glass. I know it sounds improbable as the print surface seldom is flat enough unless you ferrotype the print or use glossy RC-paper. It can be worth looking into.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Can you see the Newton Rings already on the photographic print or is it at first on the scanned result ? In that case it could possibly be Newton Rings from the contact between the print and the scanner glass. I know it sounds improbable as the print surface seldom is flat enough unless you ferrotype the print or use glossy RC-paper. It can be worth looking into.

Karl-Gustaf

I attached a picture to a post above where I've marked the rings in red.