Tension Carrier for 8x10, ye olde glass/non glass questions...

[resurgance]

Hiya,

After shooting mostly MF and 4x5 for a year or two, have come across a Devere 5108 that was kindly yet reluctantly sold to me by a very active film photographer.
That same photog, is extremely handy and had constructed his own 4 corner pin-tension negative carrier for 8x10. Great idea! Am about to start work on my own, different design, but same principle, of attaching corner hole punched negatives to spring loaded pins with some lateral movement - obviously no vertical movement.

Anyhow, am also making an LED head to mimic my sensationally awesome Model 3 LED VC head from modern enlarger lamps, so will have;
- no fan
- no heat
- diffusion source.

I have been using the standard Devere 504 carrier with only bottom glass on my 504 enlarger then taping negs flat with lithographers tape with reasonable success, however with 8x10 think glassless will be the ticket, but FLAT!
I have an environment that is somewhere in the middle of dry and humid. Some probs with static, and some with dust. Actually i find static is a pain, but I know there are certain things I can do, boil the jug, careful clothing choice, etc.

Wondering about your experiences with tensioning negatives - have seen some old threads, as well as extreme points of view. Ive used both glass and glassless up to 4x5 and find dust a pain, but love flat negs and subsequently sharp images. Have also had probs with newtons rings too, and have sometimes swerved them by packing up the edges of the negative before I tape it with paper or similar thin material.

This tension carrier has not been made yet, it is a blank canvas - Will try differing strengths of spring - I have no idea how flat it will get.

In my mind, a piece of horizontal rope will require a parabolic amount of tension to go from nearly flat and level to actually level, but that I guess all depends on weight of said rope. The aforementioned photog who showed me his design really rated the end prints and ease of use.
Am counting on the fact that negs are fairly light, but will be interesting to see how much tension is needed and also will have to find point where it damages neg. holes will be 2.5mm and pins will be 2.5mm machine screws so even pressure on inside diameter of hole.

Any thoughts or experiences on tensioning negs will be appreciated!

[Neal Chaves]

I am very happy with the 8X10 carrier that came with my Beseler 45 VXL 810 enlarger. It grips the negative with smooth clamps only by the two long sides. The idea behind is that after the negative is in place, the carrier will expand slightly in the warmth of the light head. I wish there was a similar one for 4X5, as it is far better than the Beseler Negaflat with its sharp little teeth.

The Beseler 8X10 carrier is probably very difficult to obtain today, but a good machine shop could duplicate it quite easily.

[Tin Can]

I am very happy with the 8X10 carrier that came with my Beseler 45 VXL 810 enlarger. It grips the negative with smooth clamps only by the two long sides. The idea behind is that after the negative is in place, the carrier will expand slightly in the warmth of the light head. I wish there was a similar one for 4X5, as it is far better than the Beseler Negaflat with its sharp little teeth.

The Beseler 8X10 carrier is probably very difficult to obtain today, but a good machine shop could duplicate it quite easily.

I bought Beseler 8x10 glassless holder right here. It is a wonderful and simple device. It's doesn't need heat, my head produces no heat.

Glennview.com makes his own custom one of any size.

[Bob Salomon]

"Ive used both glass and glassless up to 4x5 and find dust a pain"

But then the dust will be on the negative and I would rather clean glass then film.

"Have also had probs with newtons rings too"

You said that you use the bottom glass. That is frequently not anti-Newton glass since Newton rings form when the base side of the film comes in contact with regular glass. Normally the base side is facing the lamp and the emulsion side faces the paper. So are you printing base side down?

Also, even without heat, film curls towards the emulsion side so glass keeps that from happening, a tensioned carrier will not prevent that from happening. You need the film not to move during the exposure to get the optimal quality out of a properly aligned enlarger, quality lens used at optimal aperture and magnification and a high quality piece of film. Going glassless will not meet these criteria.

[ic-racer]

Since your LED head will likely be a diffusion source, I'd not give up on a glass carrier without trying it, assuming you got a glass carrier with the 5108.

One way to determine your springs is to buy a few springs ( http://www.mcmaster.com/#extension-springs/=u4dsdr) and tug on the film with the spring through the hold, until it breaks through, and note the spring length. To get a safety factor of 1/2 the break-through tensoin, plan on making the frame so the spring winds up being 1/2 the 'rip-through' length when all 4 corners of an 8x10 negative are suspended.

[Bob Salomon]

Since your LED head will likely be a diffusion source, I'd not give up on a glass carrier without trying it, assuming you got a glass carrier with the 5108.

One way to determine your springs is to buy a few springs ( http://www.mcmaster.com/#extension-springs/=u4dsdr) and tug on the film with the spring through the hold, until it breaks through, and note the spring length. To get a safety factor of 1/2 the break-through tensoin, plan on making the frame so the spring winds up being 1/2 the 'rip-through' length when all 4 corners of an 8x10 negative are suspended.

Sounds like this will also require an awful lot of film handling to get the film positioned properly in that type of carrier.

[Tin Can]

My 8x10 film is drying very flat, both HP5 and Ektascan. I tray develop single sheets and hang dry from 2 pinpoints and make there sure is no curve in the film between the two pins. I dry it slow at ambient. Drying curved is avoidable. It lays dead flat on my light table and when mounted in the Beseler glassless carrier I sight across it and it is still very flat. It does require careful loading. I blow any dust off the top and bottom. I also do not let my negs lay around very long. Once dry, they go straight into my enlarger and I shut the neg chamber which is nearly lighttight and thus free from air movement and dust. Since my head makes no heat, it needs no ventilation. No fan, no vibration, no dust.

I spent my life making metal flat in large chunks to within 0.001" While my eyes are bad at focus, I can see flat better than most.

I have four 8x10 AN glass carriers, I don't use them now. Saving them just in case I become convinced they are better...

Of course I am new at this but, I can see which way the wind is blowing.

Almost forgot, I can now use my V700 film scanner holders as glassless holders for enlarged contact sheets of smaller formats. The V700 4X5 works best, MF and 35mm roll are all warped.

[Bob Salomon]

".....the neg chamber which is nearly lighttight and thus free from air movement and dust."

That statement is like someone being almost pregnant. Either it is or it isn't. If it is nearly then it isn't immune to air movement. Maybe reduced but not immune.

[Tin Can]

".....the neg chamber which is nearly lighttight and thus free from air movement and dust."

That statement is like someone being almost pregnant. Either it is or it isn't. If it is nearly then it isn't immune to air movement. Maybe reduced but not immune.

Bob, I do my best. It's all I can do. I have clumsy old hands, cleaning and handling glass for every negative is a real PITA.

[Kevin Crisp]

I have the 8X10 Beseler. I hated working with the glassless carrier that is supposed to stretch the film flat. The glass one, with the white plexi or whatever the diffuser is on the top has been great. No Newton's rings, ever, and it has been almost 25 years. Yes, I have to dust the negative and the carrier when I put the negative in, but it isn't like I'm slamming through 8X10 or 4X10 negatives at such a rate that I mind. I'd have to dust the negative anyway. I use the same one for 5X7's too, but with a mask inserted one slot above in the head to keep extra light from around the edges lighting up the darkroom. Maybe I'm just lucky with no rings, but this has been my experience. Something about that diffuser and the base side of the negative just don't cause a problem for me.

[Tin Can]

I have the 8X10 Beseler. I hated working with the glassless carrier that is supposed to stretch the film flat. The glass one, with the white plexi or whatever the diffuser is on the top has been great. No Newton's rings, ever, and it has been almost 25 years. Yes, I have to dust the negative and the carrier when I put the negative in, but it isn't like I'm slamming through 8X10 or 4X10 negatives at such a rate that I mind. I'd have to dust the negative anyway. I use the same one for 5X7's too, but with a mask inserted one slot above in the head to keep extra light from around the edges lighting up the darkroom. Maybe I'm just lucky with no rings, but this has been my experience. Something about that diffuser and the base side of the negative just don't cause a problem for me.

Why did you hate it?

[Kevin Crisp]

I thought it required a lot of handling of the negative to get it in proper position to be tensioned when you let go.

[jeroldharter]

The Beseler 8x10 Negaflat is the tensioning carrier for the 8x10 enlargers. I could never figure it out. Maybe there is a video showing the magic but I hated mine. The plain Jane carrier that Kevin mentioned worked fine although I thought it was a little primitive.

Although very expensive, you should check out the Radeka masking carrier for 8x10. You won't find a better carrier and it works great for masking. I had the one with anti-Newton glass and it was a Rolls Royce compared to the Beseler carriers.

[Tin Can]

I thought it required a lot of handling of the negative to get it in proper position to be tensioned when you let go.

Fair enough, my glass sandwiches also trouble me. The negative slides out of position if I tilt it slightly, while lifting the heavy object far over my head.

Everything is a tradeoff.

Some don't like the crop that occurs with a Beseler glassless, but full rebate prints are a post traditional SG print fashion affectation. Contact printers love that look and I also use it when contact printing, but when enlarging LF I find myself slightly reframing my enlarged print.

[Neal Chaves]

I find that trying to print the unexposed "rebate" area of the negative always results in degrading flare over the image area. This doesn't happen in a contact print, but in an enlargement the rebate area is so bright that it can flare into the image area. The use of any black line around the image in an attempt to hold together subject matter that could have been better composed or printed always falls short of its intended purpose.

[resurgance]

Well Bob and IC-racer you have me thinking about glass, as it is (or will soon be) a diffusion source, and I did indeed get the carrier with the Devere. Will certainly save me a LOT! of faffing and time when I want to use the little time that I have for shooting and making nice prints.

Bob with regards to your post about netwons rings - that still to this day is a bit of a mystery. Yes the emulsion side was most definitely down, and it was with this one particular 6x12cm acros 100 shot which happened (in my opinion anyway) to be at the time my most fine arty highest quality print I had achieved.
I have printed it since with no problems so actually truth be told I suspect I may have had a very damp darkroom possibly.

Here begins the inkling of a thought forming about shelving the tension carrier for next winter. (currently in Southern Hemi its warming up....)

[Drew Wiley]

Going glassless might be fine for Mr Magoo who can't see anything except by squinting anyway. I personally see no reason to even bother enlarging large format
if the prints themselves aren't going to be in proper focus. And a bit of dust falling on top the glass itself is going to far less likely to come into focus than something falling right atop the film itself, if you are using diffused light and are not stopping the lens down obscenely. I always use glass... always, always, always, BOTH sides on the neg.

[Bob Salomon]

Well Bob and IC-racer you have me thinking about glass, as it is (or will soon be) a diffusion source, and I did indeed get the carrier with the Devere. Will certainly save me a LOT! of faffing and time when I want to use the little time that I have for shooting and making nice prints.

Bob with regards to your post about netwons rings - that still to this day is a bit of a mystery. Yes the emulsion side was most definitely down, and it was with this one particular 6x12cm acros 100 shot which happened (in my opinion anyway) to be at the time my most fine arty highest quality print I had achieved.
I have printed it since with no problems so actually truth be told I suspect I may have had a very damp darkroom possibly.

Here begins the inkling of a thought forming about shelving the tension carrier for next winter. (currently in Southern Hemi its warming up....)

I think it may not have really been AN glass.

[resurgance]

Bob I have got the 8x10 enlarger going at last, and am using the original glass carrier. I bought an airbrush compressor to use to blow off dust. Used it tonight with 6x17 without the compressor, (it has not arrived yet) and only a single minor speck. Spent an hour or so getting the baseboard parallel, making the sharpest prints ever at the moment! well, from the 6x7. I thought 6x17 would be higher res, but the mamiya is noticeably better despite the smaller format. Have saved a pile of shed time too, not making stretchy carrier.
And I think re your last post that when I had made the unsharp mask I had put both non-emulsion sides together when sandwiching to make the final print. I was looking at some acros 100 tonight, and it is quite hard to tell which side is emulsion from looking. I have to refer to the notches, not like roll film where it is obvious...

Thanks,

[Drew Wiley]

If there is one thing I dislike about ACROS is that it's slick especially susceptible to Newton rings, and 120 ACROS is the worst version of it in this respect. I printed some of it yesterday, and even though the humidity is still reasonably low for this area, I need AN glass on both sides of the film. I have a bad opinion of glassless carriers to begin with, but they're beyond worthless if you are working with registered masks. You can both see and feel the difference between the emulsion and non-emulsion side of ACROS, with the emusion side being less shiny and having a tad of textured feel. Even the sound is different if you run your finger across it, which I obviously don't recommend, cause then you add fingerprints. So hold the film up to a halogen task light and look at the reflected light bulb. One side will be shinier and crisper than the other. And you probably already learned your lesson the hard way about stacking two slick sides of a film together in a mask sandwich.

[Vaughn]

...The use of any black line around the image in an attempt to hold together subject matter that could have been better composed or printed always falls short of its intended purpose.

I understand your POV...however, I usually see the rebate as part of the image when exposing film for later platinum printing, therefor for me, the black line (black rebate of the film, plus about 1/8 to 1/4 inch beyond) helps complete the 'intended purpose' of the image.

Because of this, I would not use an 8x10 carrier that in would mark the rebate of the film. Acros is a fine film -- just wish they did not mark up the rebate with letters and numbers!

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know when that custom of showing the film margin originated - maybe in the 70's. I've always found it terribly obnoxious and distracting to the image itself.