Negative Carrier Poll

[Silverpixels5]

Glass or no glass and why? For those that go glassless, do you have problems with negative flatness? For those that have the glass, do you have problems with dust and other things on the glass?

 

[Thilo Schmid]

I use glassless for 35mm and glass for film larger 35mm

 

[Jeremy]

I have a glass carrier for my 23C but have glassless for my new-to-me omega 4x5 enlarger... I'll probably change over to glass if I find that I'm having trouble with flatness, but I don't print above 11x14's right now and my enlarging lens stops down to 45.

 

[Ole]

Both:
Glass for 35mm to 6x4.5, glassless 6x6 and 6x9, glass again for 9x12, glassless for 4x5", glass again for 5x7"...

Confusing?

I have two enlargers: An Opemus I use for 35mm to 6x4.5 with glass holder.

For the Durst 138S I have glassless holders for 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 4x5". All other sizes go in the glass holder, but a 150mm lens is really too long to print 35mm negs - especially when I have a smaller enlarger.

I have not seen any problems with flatness, even with 4x5" negatives and exposure times of several minutes ("Gymnopedie #1" by Eric Satie is my favorite timer for slow papers) at f:8

 

[Tom Duffy]

I've used both but perfer glassless, I never noticed any difference in print sharpness. trying to keep 6 surfaces dust free instead of 2 is a study in frustration for me.

 

[philldresser]

I use an hired LPL 5x4 enlarger which has glassless carriers in both 35 and 5x4. I have had no problems to date but only enlarging to 10x8 max at present

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I find glass to be preferable, allowing me to use a wider aperture, but Newton's rings even with anti-newton glass can be a problem.

Another interesting discovery is that a sheet of glass over negs and transparencies will improve sharpness very substantially on my flatbed scanner (Agfa Duoscan).

 

[Donald Miller]

I have used both. My present enlarger (4550 XLG VCCE) has a glass carrier for 4X5 (the only neg size I enlarge).

 

[Eric Rose]

I use glass on anything bigger than 35mm. I makes a huge difference in edge to edge sharpness with some of the more flimsy negatives.

 

[Robert]

My current enlarger came with a bunch of carriers. Mostly glassless but the 4x5 size came in both glassless and glass. I've masked the glass one for smaller sizes sometimes. To be honest with the smaller sizes I'm not sure I can tell the difference never tried the glassless 4x5 one.

 

[Jorge Oliveira]

I had a Dursr M600 that was prone to Newton rings.

Now I use a Opemus II and, 'though it's a relativelly sort time neve had any problem with rings.

I can live with dust cleaning...

Jorge O

 

[Jorge Oliveira]

Oop,s make it an Opemus III.

Is it possible to edit postings?

 

[Jeremy]

when you're logged in you can click on "edit" in the upper right hand corner of your posts next to the quote button

 

[Donald Miller]

Jorge, Not that I find fault with your post, but rather to answer your question. The posts can be edited by the person entering the post. If you will notice in the upper right portion of the post window of your post there is an edit tab. By selecting that you will be able to edit your post.

 

[FrankB]

When I first acquired my LPL 7700 it came with a universal carrier with glass plates. I immediately started having problems with what turned out to be Newton's Rings. I replaced the glass with 35mm insets, no more problems.

 

[Loose Gravel]

I use glassless, even at 5x7. I have a tensioner for 5x7, but have never used it. 8x10 I use glass. This, too, can be done glassless with a tensioner, but I don't have 810 tensioner.

 

[brimc76]

My old Saunders 670XL came with glassless carriers and my Omega DII also has glassless from 35mm to 4x5. I've used glass carriers in community darkrooms but didn't care for them much as they were always dirty and scratched. I've never had a problem with the glassless carriers.

 

[Les McLean]

I use glassless and like Losse Gravel have a tensioner for my 4 x 5 Zone VI. I do use it and it works very well.

 

[dr bob]

It would be nice to have a glass carrier for my 4x5s just in case I need one someday. There are just so many drawbacks to using them: there are 6-surfaces to keep clean instead of two, negatives are subject to Newton rings unless the environment is very clean and very dry, I can literally throw my empty DII carriers on the shelf with no regard to damage, and I can, and have modified them (Oh Boy!)

Truly, dr bob.

"I've filed this thing three times and its still too big!"

 

[Jim Chinn]

I have always used Omega D2 enalrgers and just got used to glassless. I am using a glass carrier for the vintage negatives I have been asked to print. They are very thin and will bow down in the glassless carrier.

I have never had a problem with sharpness over the entire negative for 4x5.

 

[Lex Jenkins]

I tried my Durst M605 dichro head with and without the glass carriers. It works better with. I added a HEPA filter to the darkroom to control the dust. Before getting the HEPA filter dust was sometimes a problem during the winter.

Also have a Durst 606 condenser that can be used with or without a glass carrier. So far I've used this enlarger only to preflash and make contact sheets.

 

[Konical]

All glassless in my Beseler MCR-X; the Beseler Negaflat is a worthwhile investment for sheet film, even though I never had any real problem using the standard 4 x 5 carrier.

Konical

 

[sbaggett]

I use a glass carrier when printing with masks. Dust is a constant problem. I use a glassless "negatflat" for non-masked negative.

 

[removed account4]

glass carrier for 6x6 & 35mm & 5x7. glassless for 4x5.
sometimes i sandwich the 4x5 in 2 pieces of glass but it isn't my "official" carrier. haven't had any problems with dust or keeping things flat. ( knock wood) ..

 

[MikeK]

Glassless for all formats from 35mm through 5x7 (Omega D2 & E5). I do have a special glass carrier masked for 6x17cm which I have not used as I do not have a camera in this format. Although I might use it to make a panoramic from a 5x7 negative.

- Mike