8X10 negative holder

[Drew Wiley]

It just seems the idea of going glassless defeats the whole purpose for 8x10 quality. You
might get away with it with a relatively brief cold light exposure and limited enlargment.
But it doesn't take much temp change to deflect the film. Glass can actually supress dust
problems, because if you keep your plane of focus very precise and shallow, any dust
circulating above the carrier will land atop the glass and not come into focus. You obviously have to start with a clean carrier. But merely transfering it from the work station to the enlarger has the risk of attracting dust. Newton rings are a different problem and need correct glass type.

[ic-racer]

any dust
circulating above the carrier will land atop the glass and not come into focus.

Shadows of dust in the light path above negative don't need to be in focus to be clear and sharp in the projected image. Collimated light from a point source or condenser head, maintains the dust shadows sharp edges. It is the shadow of the dust on the negative that is projected.

That is different than dust on your bottom diffuser plate. That dust does not cast a clear shadow on the negative, but under certain adverse conditions it might be in focus (diffusion box too low, stopped down too much, very large particles, etc).

[Drew Wiley]

Who still uses an undiffused light source for large format? I certainly don't know anyone.
Maybe someone who picked up an old Durst condenser head and doesn't know how to
diffuse it. I don't even print 35mm that way, and see no reason for it whatsoever. That
seems to be a debate from the 1950's, or for someone trying to accentuate a very particular grain pattern in a high-speed 35mm film. You can do the same thing with a high
quality enlarging lens. Whatever.... To each his own. Newton rings are a pain in the butt
in this foggy climate here. But I learned darkroom technique making large Cibachrome prints
(before I ever did black and white) - and you can't retouch those, and they were damn
expensive to make! So I think I understand dust control way better than most, though if
glassless does work for you, I commend it. I'm just a little skeptical how sharp the prints
really are, however.

[gary mulder]

Ever since I sourced a set of Durst Tensioncarrier's my prints need less dust correction and are sharper than with AN glass. I am a happy camper .

[Drew Wiley]

Try something like 30x40 Cibachromes, or anything involving registered masks or separations. Glassless would be a prescription for suicide. But if you don't use a colorhead
with its inherent heat, or make large prints of any category, seems like a viable option.
My film room is a true clean room replete with electronic air cleaners and special cleanroom
clothing, and my carriers are cleaned and loaded there, as are tasks like loading filmholders
to begin with. If I do work with anything like ordinary black and white paper, the entire
room is swabbed down before I work with film again. Even the sponges are special from
a cleanroom supplier. But nothing is more tedious than spotting.

[gary mulder]

No problem if you do not like the glassless concept. I just share my experience. For the record I use a color head. Trying to make Cibachromes will be almost impossible. To my knowledge the stuff isn't made any more.

[Drew Wiley]

Actually any kind of advanced color printing, or even masked black and white work, and
you're dead in the water without a precise glass carrier. Might not apply at all to some
people here - to others of us, it's routine bread and butter. The nice thing about modular
systems like Durst, or if you have personal machining skills, is that you can use various
carrier types per relevant application.

[Neal Chaves]

I use the glassless carrier that came with my Beseler 810 and I think it's great. I've used glass carriers before, but this is better. No Newton rings ever and you can flop the neg if you want with no problem. A glass carrier would require ANR glass on both sides to do that unless it could be inserted upside down. The Beseler carrier expands in the heat of the head to pull the negative tight. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

[Jon Wilson]

Jon, since you have the Durst CLS2000 head, you won't be able to use a glassless carrier. The second fan blowing on the negative carrier, will, of course, blow right on the negative. The negative will likely flap around quite a bit as the fan is very strong

Did your enlarger come with a negative carrier? 8x10 negative carriers can be very difficult to find. I know of at least 2 people looking for DeVere 8x10 carriers for a few years now.

If you don't have a negative carrier, I'd recommend two pieces of glass (AN on top and clear on the bottom).

No, I do have the carrier which was made for the Durst CLS2000 head. I have received pros and cons on the glass vs no glass and thought I would inquire if the no glass approach would work with my enlarger. You are right about the strong fan blowing....that made me chuckle at the image of my negative flapping.

I do appreciate everyone's thoughts and sharing their experiences. I will keep using the holder that came with my enlarger.

Jon