Would I need glass for 35mm carrier?

[Tim Budd]

Hi all,

It has been suggested on photo.net that AN glass would be needed with 35mm negs in a neg carrier to cure flatness issues. Is this true? I would've believed that negative flatness problems increased with bigger neagtive sizes.

Is it worth using AN glass with 35mm negs - I use a condenser enlarger. Or would all be fine with just a glassless standard neg carrier that came with my DeVere Varicon?

Many thanks

Tim

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

AN (anti-Newton) glass is used to reduce the formation of Newton's rings, those interference patterns which appear when a negative doesn't lie completely flat against glass. You are correct that flatness problems increase with larger nagative formats. In general a glassless neg carrier is fine for 35mm format, and you avoid the problems associated with de-dusting four extra glass surfaces.

 

[Lee Shively]

A glassless carrier is fine for just about all enlargers. For my old Leitz Valoy and the other Leitz enlargers I have used, ANR glass is necessary. The condenser on these enlargers presses down on the negative and is essentially the top portion of the negative carrier. I'm not familiar with a lot of other enlargers so I can't comment on the need for ANR glass in their carriers.

 

[rogueish]

I've never had a problem with the glassless 35mm or the 6x6 neg carrier I use in my condensor enlarger (Omega D2-V).
If your going larger (4x5,8x10) a glass carrier might be best and likely would not hurt.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Glass will give you sharper results. It's the sort of thing you think you don't need until you try it.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I agree with David, you will indeed notice the difference on 35mm negatives.
Bob Carnie

 

[francl]

you will notice the difference with any format, really... A glassless carrier may be more convenient but a glass carrier will ensure that your film is really flat, thus yielding better results.

 

[Ed Sukach]

This is very interesting, but I am using an Omega D5500 and I have no problem with the glassless negative carrier - at least with 2 1/4 square. Scanning with a grain focuser indicates *nothing* like a significant degradation in focus from any "bowing" of the negative. Either I am "lucking out" like a bandit, or there is sufficient depth of FOCUS in the Rodenstock/ Schnieder enlarging lenses to take care of any negative flatness deviation. That is for 2 1/4 - I think I'd seriously consider a "glassed" carrier for 4 x 5.

I've done a fair amount of "brick tricking" .. tilting the enlarging easel to compensate for perspective distortion ... and one really has to get INTENSE to reach the point where focus errors exceed the benefit of perspective correction.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Try the same neg with glass and without. It surprised me too. There's sharp, and there's *sharp*.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Once again I agree with David. try both ways and see the difference
Bob Carnie

 

[bazz8]

glass carrier

This is interesting as for several years I have used a glassless carrier that fits in a durst 138s neg carrier the metal carrier fits around the neg top and bottom ala a besseler or super chromega neg holder 21/4 square 6x9 and 5x4 glassless carrier and no real problems especially dust etc.
This year I have been using 35mm rather than any larger formats and have noticed slight variation in focus presuming that the curl of the 35mm film to be a culprit I will try the glass carrier that comes with the durst I generally stop down to the 2nd smallest aperture of the nikon 50/2.8 and yet some other negs no worries.
My general comment about glass carriers is the safest place for them is in the draw were they can,t be broken and use glassless due to the surfaces
the light passes through.
regards
Barry Treleaven

 

[bazz8]

glass carrier

update on the glass or no glass thread
tried 1 neg today in the glassless carrier
subject a native coastal low brush lots of silver bark and edges to judge sharpness
print 1: LOOKS SHARP fairly bounces of the light box +overhead viewer
critic my other half comment that looks sharp
change over the carrier to the durst glass carrier top and bottom
made sure they were clean etc.
print 2: LOOKS SHARPER METER read 8.6 sec up from 6.6 glassless
checked with 8x loupe the print is definately sharper and more even
critic Oh that looks better.
the glass carrier opens up to 6x9 so will try some MF NEGS next week
as working away from home.
regards
Barry Treleaven

 

[Claire Senft]

Glass carrier for 35mm

I have a Durst S45. I have the glass carrier..nega 138 and a full set of metal masks. I use the optimum aperture on my enlarging lens, f4.. to print. Doing this very much shows the difference between the metal masks and using glass. What I have been doing is to use the bottom metal mask and using the AN glass from a Gepe 6x7 glass slide mount that I tape in place with strapping tapping tape to the metal mask.I view the taped combination on a light box before printing with 7x loupe to spot any dust between the glass and the negative base. If I see any I loosen the tape on one side and get rid of the dust and tape it back together and reexamine it. There is no reason that one should have any dust spots on the print when doing this. In my opinion the extra effort before printing is a handsome pay back compared to the time spent on print spotting.

The quality difference between metal and glass as far as sharpness is very easily seen.

I have just received but have not yet tried Denglass that I intend to use instead of AN glass. I am hoping that using the Denglass which is coated on both sides will increase my sharpness ove the use of AN glass due to the pattern on the AN glass.

 

[Robert Brummitt]

I use to tape negs down to avoid glass. Poor mans stretch carrier. I would need to tape negs down if I had a long exposer for the print. Heat from the enlarger lamp would cause the neg to pop. If your negs are popping you can turn on the lamp to get the pop. Than refocus the neg and place the paper in and do your print or use tape.

 

[JackRosa]

For what is worth, I use a glass carrier to enlarge my 8x10 negatives and sandwiches (negs + masks) with excellent results, without having to use an ANR glass.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Whether you need AN glass will depend in part on the film. Sheet film is more likely to have retouching surfaces on one or both sides, and this can keep down the newton's rings. T-max films seem very slick and prone to newton's rings.