Saunders 4-blade masking attachment use

[Fragomeni]

I’m getting used to a new to me Saunders/LPL 4550 XLG enlarger and am loving it but I have a question about the Saunders 4-blade masking attachment that came with the enlarger. Overall I’m just wondering how people use it.

I’m still waiting on a regular 35mm negative carrier to arrive so have been using the 4x5 glass negative carrier that came with the enlarger. The Saunders version of the masking attachment (compared to the Omega version) does not mask down to 35mm. It seems to mask down to about 645 or so. I was able to reverse the blades as an experiment to see if I could get it to mask 35mm and that was successful but what I’m noticing is that with any format, the masking attachment creates a soft/feathered edge on the image. I typically like to print with a solid black line around the print but have been unable so far to get it with this setup. I was hoping the masking attachment would work as a one size fits all approach to making any negative size from 35mm to 4x5 but that’s not looking to be the case.

Now I’ve seen reference to people using the making attachment with regular negative carriers as a way of cutting down on stray light from the enlarger and that seems to work very well and it does reduce stray light compared to using the regular negative stage.

So can someone who using this enlarger and the masking attachment give me some insight into how you’re using it? I’m looking for direct user experience here, not anecdotal ideas based on other enlargers.

Thanks for the help.

 

[ic-racer]

I use my masking negative carrier with a glass carrier. Masking lets me use smaller film than the full size of the glass. Just like using any other negative carrier, I usually make my print borders with the blades of a paper easel.

Not sure why the LPL does not close down to cover 35mm.

 

[MattKing]

I know you said you didn't want experience with other enlargers, but this may be rather generic.
One advantage that I found useful with the Omega version - which looks like it should work the same way - is that it makes it easier to handle the glassless carriers and to insert film into those carriers.
My practice was to remove the masking attachment and negative from the negative stage of the enlarger all as one sandwiched unit. They would sit flat on my counter or baseboard, and the masking attachment would hold the bottom of the negative carrier quite still while I positioned the negative. I could, if I wished, also provisionally position the masking blades with the sandwich on the flat surface, in the light.
You are correct in observing that the masks cannot be used to create a sharp border, because they are at a different plane from the negative. But they do cut down on stray light. That becomes particularly important with the 4x5 glass carriers, but it also helps with the glassless carriers.
I don't know whether the LPL masking attachment can be inserted turned 90 degrees - the Omega one could be, which was useful when that helped with making large prints from rectangular negatives .

 

[Fragomeni]

I use my masking negative carrier with a glass carrier. Masking lets me use smaller film than the full size of the glass. Just like using any other negative carrier, I usually make my print borders with the blades of a paper easel.

Not sure why the LPL does not close down to cover 35mm.

Yea, this is what I was hoping to do essentially but I guess I was expecting the mask to take care of the borders but now that I’m thinking about it, Matt’s comment about makes complete sense re mask blades being on a different plane than the neg. So to be sure I understand, you place a neg in your glass 4x5 carrier, use the masking attachment to mask down to the negative size, and create a border using the easel blades at the baseboard. If I’ve got that, it makes sense and I’ll go back to making then order using the easel. Have you found that using the glass carrier and the masking attachment this way eliminates the need for size-specific carriers? Or, are do you still use size specific carriers in some cases as well? Thanks again.

I know you said you didn't want experience with other enlargers, but this may be rather generic.
One advantage that I found useful with the Omega version - which looks like it should work the same way - is that it makes it easier to handle the glassless carriers and to insert film into those carriers.
My practice was to remove the masking attachment and negative from the negative stage of the enlarger all as one sandwiched unit. They would sit flat on my counter or baseboard, and the masking attachment would hold the bottom of the negative carrier quite still while I positioned the negative. I could, if I wished, also provisionally position the masking blades with the sandwich on the flat surface, in the light.
You are correct in observing that the masks cannot be used to create a sharp border, because they are at a different plane from the negative. But they do cut down on stray light. That becomes particularly important with the 4x5 glass carriers, but it also helps with the glassless carriers.
I don't know whether the LPL masking attachment can be inserted turned 90 degrees - the Omega one could be, which was useful when that helped with making large prints from rectangular negatives .

Yea, the Omega version works the same way, it’s just not cross compatible with the LPL because of the underside of the attachment and how it mounts to the enlarger. And it doesn’t attach 90 degrees because of that but the negative carrier can be rotated inside of it 360 degrees in any direction which helps with the larger print situation that you mentioned.

Your note about the attachment blades being on a different plane than the neg and that causing the soft edges makes total sense. I hadn’t been thinking about that before.

Same question to you as above. Do you use it primarily with your glass carrier or so you find yourself still using size specific carriers as well? If so, why? Thanks much.

 

[MattKing]

Same question to you as above. Do you use it primarily with your glass carrier or so you find yourself still using size specific carriers as well? If so, why? Thanks much.

Sadly I have to speak in the past tense about my 4x5 D6 enlarger, because a move and downsize in 2020 meant that after several years of enjoyable use, the Omega had to go to a new home. At least I can use one of the several 4x5 enlargers that my Darkroom Group has when I need to print something larger. Unfortunately, not every one of those has the masking attachment installed.
I used the masking attachment for everything. Most of my printing was done with the size specific carriers, so the masking function wasn't as critical, but I still found it helpful. Mostly because of the handling advantages and reduction of stray light I referred to earlier, but sometimes also when I was printing from a portion of a medium format negative, and wanted to minimize out of image flare.