Negative holders with or without glass

[Frank53]

At the moment I use a Durst m700 (well, actally it's a combination of a m700 and m800) and I am offered a LPL (Saunders in US) 7452, which I think is a better enlarger in some ways.
The only thing that keeps me from buying it, is the fact that the neg holders are without glass. There are holders with glass, but they seem to be scarce in the second hand market.
What do you guys think about glassless negative holders?
Frank

 

[darkroom_rookie]

Glass holders all the way. If the glassless holder for that model is anything similar to another (Jobo-branded) LPL model I had a chance to play with, you can adapt it to a glass holder. Anti-Newton glass on top and regular glass on bottom. But not all AN glass is the same. For example, I have what looks to my eyes a factory original glass holder for my Fujimoto 450M, and the top AN glass shows its texture on prints from medium format if you look carefully. So I got two used pieces of most recent version of Durst glass and modified a glassless carrier using that glass. No texture whatsoever shows, even on large prints from 35mm format.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

At the moment I use a Durst m700 (well, actally it's a combination of a m700 and m800) and I am offered a LPL (Saunders in US) 7452, which I think is a better enlarger in some ways.
The only thing that keeps me from buying it, is the fact that the neg holders are without glass. There are holders with glass, but they seem to be scarce in the second hand market.
What do you guys think about glassless negative holders?
Frank

only a glass holder will keep the negative truly flat

 

[Frank53]

Ok, thanks, that's what I thought.
I'll stay with the Durst for now.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Smudger]

I have compromised by using a single glass over the negative for formats to 6x7.
It is the way the film is held in-camera , so why not? My prints are grain sharp corner to corner,and I have only two surfaces to keep clean.

 

[gone]

I guess it depends on how much you like spotting prints. My preference is for glassless, but the enlarger I have now is glass carrier equipped. Looks to be a little dicey converting it over to the glassless, and those are hard to find (old Federal enlarger), so I'll just have to be more careful. Condenser enlargers will be more prone to showing every teeny tiny spec of dust.

 

[Rick A]

Years ago I owned a Durst with glass negative carriers, hated it because of the dust issue. These days I use an Omega D-6, and have no glass carriers, and do not have any issues with negative staying flat. I've even been known to leave a 4x5 in with the lamp on for several minutes and still no need to refocus due to "negative popping". I think enlarger light source design and location is key here, some machines get far too hot, I never had problems with my Beselers (23c and 45m) either.

 

[Dali]

What do you guys think about glassless negative holders?
Frank

Never used anything else.

 

[Frank53]

The situation changed a bit (the enlarger appeared to be so cheap including lots of extras) that I decided to take the lot and see for myself.
Frank

 

[tedr1]

LPL 4x5 glass carriers turn up used over here, and KHB in Canada often has them, I use one for all formats, I mask off the unused surrounding area with black tape on the upper glass.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Glass both sides, always, always, always...

 

[MattKing]

I have both, and use the glassless versions most frequently.

 

[bdial]

I'm like Rick, had a Durst with a glass carrier that was a dust nightmare. It didn't help that I lived in an arid climate at the time, and static was also a big problem. The current enlarger is an LPL 4x5, I mostly use glassless carriers now, and no issues with edge to edge sharpness. I do have a glass carrier, but rarely use it.

 

[Frank53]

I'm like Rick, had a Durst with a glass carrier that was a dust nightmare. It didn't help that I lived in an arid climate at the time, and static was also a big problem. The current enlarger is an LPL 4x5, I mostly use glassless carriers now, and no issues with edge to edge sharpness. I do have a glass carrier, but rarely use it.

Which LPL exactly do you have and how is it compared to the Durst in general. As said mine will be the 7452.
Frank

 

[bdial]

Mine is the same as the 7450 (labeled as a Saunders/Omega 4500 for the U.S. market) according to KHB Photografix's website.
From what I can tell, it's fundamentally similar to the 7452.

It's not really comparable to my M600 which accommodates 35 and 6x6 only, as the LPL is much larger and capable of bigger prints from 35 or 6x6 negatives along with everything else up to 4x5.
In my estimation, the LPL is the best enlarger I've ever used. I've used Omega 4x5's in a professional environment making 100's of prints a day on them, as well as Beseler's. The LPL is much nicer to work with than either of those.

That said, I have always been fond of Durst enlargers, and in general, they are quite good. I've never used an M700, so I am unable to make a direct comparison between it and the LPL. I think you will be happy with the LPL, from what I see online it is capable of bigger prints than an M700, not to mention accommodating larger negatives. I think you will find the transition relatively easy. For example, like the Dursts, the LPL uses a round lens board. Though, unlike the Durst, it's reversible, so that for 50mm and shorter lenses it can be used as a recessed board, and for longer lenses you use it the other way around. The general layout is similar, though the head doesn't detach and cannot be rotated for side projection, or perspective correction.

As I said earlier, I've not had any noticeable issue with my glassless carriers, though I've been shy of using my glass carrier much because of my earlier problems with dust. The glass carrier is available for the LPL new, as a worst case you may need to import one from KHB though. I would recommend the addition of the masking attachment to go along with the glass carrier, but that does get you into another area of a hard to find in the used market item.
I think the indirect illumination the LPL uses minimizes any negative popping issues, the LPL head is fan cooled and the lamp is well separated from the negative. I've had exposures as long as 3 or 4 minutes making lith prints and have never had a negative pop out of focus from heat using the LPL.

 

[Frank53]

Mine is the same as the 7450 (labeled as a Saunders/Omega 4500 for the U.S. market) according to KHB Photografix's website.
From what I can tell, it's fundamentally similar to the 7452.

It's not really comparable to my M600 which accommodates 35 and 6x6 only, as the LPL is much larger and capable of bigger prints from 35 or 6x6 negatives along with everything else up to 4x5.
In my estimation, the LPL is the best enlarger I've ever used. I've used Omega 4x5's in a professional environment making 100's of prints a day on them, as well as Beseler's. The LPL is much nicer to work with than either of those.

That said, I have always been fond of Durst enlargers, and in general, they are quite good. I've never used an M700, so I am unable to make a direct comparison between it and the LPL. I think you will be happy with the LPL, from what I see online it is capable of bigger prints than an M700, not to mention accommodating larger negatives. I think you will find the transition relatively easy. For example, like the Dursts, the LPL uses a round lens board. Though, unlike the Durst, it's reversible, so that for 50mm and shorter lenses it can be used as a recessed board, and for longer lenses you use it the other way around. The general layout is similar, though the head doesn't detach and cannot be rotated for side projection, or perspective correction.

As I said earlier, I've not had any noticeable issue with my glassless carriers, though I've been shy of using my glass carrier much because of my earlier problems with dust. The glass carrier is available for the LPL new, as a worst case you may need to import one from KHB though. I would recommend the addition of the masking attachment to go along with the glass carrier, but that does get you into another area of a hard to find in the used market item.
I think the indirect illumination the LPL uses minimizes any negative popping issues, the LPL head is fan cooled and the lamp is well separated from the negative. I've had exposures as long as 3 or 4 minutes making lith prints and have never had a negative pop out of focus from heat using the LPL.

Hi,thank you for the usefull information.
The enlarger was delivered today and with it came a 4x5 carrier with glass and an item with adjustable bands. Looks like the latter is supposed to be in the enlarger all the time to be used with any negative carrier and that I have to look now for negative carriers for 6x6 and 35. Is that correct?
Kind regards,
Frank

 

[bdial]

The item with the adjustable bands is the masking attachment. It replaces the non-adjustable negative carrier stage if it's there.
With the glass carrier and the adjustable mask, you theoretically don't need any other carriers.
The carrier can be rotated on the negative stage so that the negative aligns with your easel, or the masks. Just get the negative you want to print as close to the center of the carrier as you can. Then fine-tune by rotating the carrier and/or adjusting the masks.

 

[Frank53]

The item with the adjustable bands is the masking attachment. It replaces the non-adjustable negative carrier stage if it's there.
With the glass carrier and the adjustable mask, you theoretically don't need any other carriers.
The carrier can be rotated on the negative stage so that the negative aligns with your easel, or the masks. Just get the negative you want to print as close to the center of the carrier as you can. Then fine-tune by rotating the carrier and/or adjusting the masks.

Ok, thank you very much. I will try it after I put together the enlarger. Looks very impressive!

Frank

 

[Frank53]

Beside the 4x5 carrier with glass, I now also have the glassless 24x36 and 6x6 carriers.
The carriers can be moved in all directions, which may be an advantage sometimes, but I wonder if there is a way to center the carrier. If you put it in the enlarger from the front, it is centred from back to front, but it can still be moved to left and right and I image sharpness is gone soon if it is not exactly in the middle.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Svenedin]

I had an LPL enlarger with an adjustable glass carrier that was adjustable up to 6x6 and I also had glassless carriers for 35mm, 6x4.5 and 6x6. I only enlarged up to 8"x10" and I could not detect any loss of sharpness from using the glassless carriers. This was a condenser enlarger and dust on the glass carrier was a far more important problem than possible problems with negative flatness. I gave up using the glass carrier due to constant dust problems.

I started using 6x7 and had to switch enlarger. Now I have a Kaiser diffusor/condenser and I can use the negative carrier with or without glass using interchangeable masks. For 6x7, even though it is not much bigger than 6x6, there does seem to be a flatness issue.

So from my limited experience it seemed to depend on the size of the negative. There are of course many other variables and it will depend on the individual set up. For example, if the negative gets hot it may "pop" out of flatness even for 35mm. If the enlarger lens is wide open there is less depth of field so flatness is more critical and of course if the enlargement if very large then any focus issue will be more obvious.

Really the only way to test is to try both in your own set up.

 

[Ian Grant]

Withn my Durst enlargers I use glass in the bottom and the metal mask in the top, I've found this works well. My LF enlargers have always been glassless, again they work well.

Ian

 

[darkroommike]

The 4x5 LPL will also use the newer Omega 4x5 carriers, the ones with the positioning "ring" (actually an octagon) on the bottom.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I haven't had much luck with glass. I get more dust and Newton's rings when I use glassed carriers. With glass carriers, I have to make sure 6 surfaces are clean. Glassless carriers I only have to clean 2 surfaces.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

At the moment I use a Durst m700 (well, actally it's a combination of a m700 and m800) and I am offered a LPL (Saunders in US) 7452, which I think is a better enlarger in some ways.
The only thing that keeps me from buying it, is the fact that the neg holders are without glass. There are holders with glass, but they seem to be scarce in the second hand market.
What do you guys think about glassless negative holders?
Frank

neg holders with glass need more cleaning and produce some Newton rings on the shiny side of the film but, they are really the only way to keep the film perfectly flat.My preference are glad holders with ANglas on the top.I don't mind the cleaning.

 

[Frank53]

neg holders with glass need more cleaning and produce some Newton rings on the shiny side of the film but, they are really the only way to keep the film perfectly flat.My preference are glad holders with ANglas on the top.I don't mind the cleaning.

I don't mind the cleaning either, but glassless makes it a bit easier, so I will compare the two.
I observed some difference between with or without glass with the Durst.
What puzzles me at the moment is how to center the negative holders in the LPL.
The "negative stage plate" is centered by a pin, but there does not seem to be anything like that on the negative holders. They can move to the left and to the right, so they easely move out of the sharpness of the lens.
I suppose a small deviation will affect sharpness in the edges.
Regards,
Frank