Newton's Rings

[kintatsu]

I just received an old enlarger, and used it as a light source for contact printing my 4x5 negatives. Using the same set up, I.E. frame, paper, etc, I got very noticeable Newton's rings in my prints. I've never had them before, using the same components, other than the light source.

The enlarger is a Durst F30 condenser for 35mm film.

Is there something I should be doing different with the enlarger, as opposed to a more diffuse light source?

On the plus side, I can now dodge and burn prints, whereas I couldn't previously.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You can diffuse the light source by putting a piece of milk glass in the light path, like at the negative stage in your enlarger.

But the Newton's rings are a function of the contact between the film and the glass, and your light source should, as far as I am informed, not make a difference in this regard.

Questions:
1. Are you using the same film? Some films are more prone to rings than others.
2. Are you using anti-newton-ring glass in your contact printing frame? Or are you using regular glass?
If you are using ANR glass, is the correct side of the glass in contact with the negative?

That's all I can think of. Good luck!

 

[bsdunek]

Are you using Photo-Flo? I found that normal strength Photo-Flo on 35mm makes Newton rings on my Durst 606. I dilute it twice as much and then quickly dip the film reel in plain water before hanging and squeeging. Worked for me - no Newton rings and still no water spots.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

use vaseline or Newton ring spray. If you use vaseline , you must find cleaning solution , prepress drum scanner labs knows where to find the spray or solution or Google it.

 

[kintatsu]

Thanks all for some great replies and advice. I haven't had a chance to print anything in the days since I posted this, but will definitely try the tips I receive.

To answer Thomas's questions- I'm not using anti-Newton glass. I'm printing the same exact negatives with the same glass. So no new film. The reason I suspected the condenser is the fact that my prior method had light bouncing all around the room, and no collimation, with no rings appearing. It was just a thought I had.

For Bruce, I don't use Photo-flow, just distilled water, no problems with stains since I got my routine down.

I am printing the 35 mm negatives without a glassless carrier, so they have no issues, it's just my 4x5 contacts.

I'll try the milk glass, I'm thinking of replacing the condenser with a piece. That should give me more uniform results for all my printing, I would think, anyway.

I don't think, Mustafa, I can find that spray around here, and would be afraid to try vaseline. I'll see what I can find, spray-wise.

Thanks again, I really appreciate it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Good luck! I hope that you find an answer.

It's difficult to believe that a change in light source would cause this to happen, especially if your prints have all been processed to the same final contrast. But I've been wrong before, and it's nice to find out when I'm wrong, because I end up learning something new...

 

[MattKing]

Just musing here.

Newton's rings are the result of reflections between two surfaces, and are dependent on the frequency of the light.

So a change in light source could change the appearance at least of the rings.

 

[eclarke]

Unrelated, but Howard Bond told a story to us workshop participants. He has used glass holders in his enlarger for years and years and never had Newton rings. At Westminster Abbey, he made a photograph with the tripod on the actual spot where Newton is buried. When he put the neg in the enlarger, he had Newton rings!!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Newton rings are a constant headache in my foggy climate. Anti-newton glass is a must. Anti-newton spray is also available from scanner supply companies, but there's a technique to using it, and anti-newton powders have long been available, which are basically just finely sifted
corn starch (not exactly something I want accumulating in my darkroom).

 

[chip j]

Old Leitz trick--runa hairdryer over the neg a little-1 ft away- to get the moisture out.

 

[sbuczkowski]

You probably not only had Newton's rings in the old setup as well but, since you say the light had a large diffuse component coming from other angles around the room, you probably had multiple instances of them with different radii. This might have smeared them out so they were less visible than they are now.

 

[kintatsu]

Well, I've tried several things.

I couldn't find any milk glass or thin diffusing "filter", so I used tissue, which works great, although if you're not careful, you get texture. It also helped with highlights when enlarging. I'll look for a plain white filter similar to Ilford's MG filters.

I contact printed without the frame. Just negative on paper, with glass on top. This helped a large amount. Apparently, the backing of the frame has more give than I thought. It wasn't noticeable before, which brings back the condensing light.

I also washed the glass with alcohol and a lens cloth, letting it air dry. This also improved things.

Doing each individually was an improvement, but putting the 3 together seems to be the ticket. On only 1 print did I get what may be something bad, but it's hard to tell if it's a fingerprint, or something else.

I also considered sbuczkowski's comment about previous contacts. I reviewed several at random, including earlier attempts with the same negatives that showed rings. Using a 10 loupe, not a single one was visible. Perhaps it was luck, grace, or something else that prevented them appearing.

When I get more paper and time, I'll add drying the negatives with a hair dryer, and possibly washing them with alcohol, and see what that gives me. The only paper I have left is an unopened pack of 25 sheets, 20ish year old Kodak Polycontrast 5x7. Even being unopened and stored in a cool, dry, and dark place, I think it will be unusable.

Thank you all for taking the time to reply, and for sharing your hard earned tips and tricks! I really appreciate it.