Sir:
I shoot 4x5 and 8x10. I use a glass carrier in the 8x10 and the prints seem fine. However, I use a glassless carrier in my 4x5. Am I losing some sharpness by using the glassless carrier due to flatness problems? Some up to date thoughts would be appreciated.
Jerry Cunningham
In my experience a glass carrier gives significantly sharper results with 4x5 than a glassless one. This will be especially true if your light source is a hot one.
The best film carrier I ever saw was for an HK horizontal 8x10 enlarger. It grabbed the film at the corners and pulled it tight as a drum. It gave the best of both worlds ... perfectly flat film, and no extra surfaces to attract dust. And it didn't leave a mark on the film.
Sadly, the carrier itself cost over $700. And the only similar thing I've seen for 4x5 is made by beseler, and isn't so well executed ... my friends who've used it call it the Neg-A-Scratch.
After many moons of printing 4x5 negs without a glass carrier, I would think not. If you were losing sharpness you would most likely see it through the grain magnifier. And what a relief to be rid of the newton rings and extra surfaces to dust!
However, if you wish to "go for the gold", Beseler has a dandy 4x5 glassless carrier with little sharp barbs which stretch the negative tight as a drum when the lever is turned. Perhaps it could be modified to use with your enlarger. Mainly a matter of moving the locator studs on the bottom.
In the words of Barry Thornton in his book, Edge of Darkness,"If you use a glassless negative carrier, you might just as well buy the cheapest enlarging lens you can find. You are simply throwing away the money and sharpness you paid for it in your enlarging lens, and also in your fine camera and expensive lenses you bought for it--often worth thousands of pounds." He shows a photo of 4x5 film bowing in a glassless negative carrier. The negative carriers that stretch the neg to hold it flat are obviously designed to do the same thing as a piece of glass. I don't know whether these are better than a glass neg carrier, but the choice between a regular glassless carrier and one with glass seems obvious based on Thornton's statement. As for me, what do I know. I only do contact prints.
Thornton's tendency to exaggerate is absolutely ludicrous in its scope, and his measurement techniques leave much to be desired; for example, he tried to compare a lightweight tripod to a heavyweight one by extending the column on the lightweight tripod.
That said, he occasionally has a point. 4x5 might be the point where glass carriers start becoming important--I've never heard of an 8x10 enlarger without one (although admittedly I am not real up on 8x10s).
Negative carriers vary a good deal in their build quality. It is not a good place to economize. I use the Bessler 4x5 with anti-newton glass and love almost every print. It is good, of course for all formats including doubling up negs from small and meduim formats. Newton rings still sometimes appear but I have always been able to shim them away. DO look at Barry Thornton's book and decide for yourself.
You don't say what kind of enlarger you have. Some glass carriers (like Omegas) can be found cheap used. Why don't you get, or make, a glass carrier and see if your prints look any sharper?
I second the vote for the beseler glass carrier. I believe it will fit some other enlargers too.
I modified mine to improve it. I had a machinist slightly enlarge the window and then bevel the edges of it to 45 degrees. Then I painted the edges black. This eliminates any edge effects from light reflecting onto the film from the sides of the carrier. Also makes it easier to print the full image. I also put foam weatherstripping inside the carrier all around the perimeter. This stops light leaks out the side, whih used to light up my whole darkroom.
All of this was done when I had a bit more free time, a darkroom, and no girlfriend.
Whether you're losing sharpness will depend on the degree of enlargement, your working aperture, the amount of heat generated by your light source and the effectiveness of the cooling in your enlarger head, the film base you're working with, and probably other stuff too.
Using standard depth-of-field/depth-of-focus formulas, it's possible to calculate just how much "slop" you can get away with in the film plane.
I don't do much enlarging from 4x5, but when I do, they're usually small enlargements (<2x) and a glassless carrier is fine even for critical requirements.
For whatever reason, when I started using glass carriers I noted an improvement in my 4x5 work. Now I use a glass carrier for all sizes, including 35mm. And yes, I do note an improvement in my 35mm.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks