Anti-Newton-Ring glass

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

I am just setting up my darkroom, I have a Besler 45. None of the negative carriers have any glass at all. I really think glass would be a good idea on 4x5 and probably 6x6, and I can't see where it would hurt on 35. Can plain window glass work? Is ANR glass really necessary/worth it? Where do you get it?
Thanks,
Bill

[ROL]

ANR is not necessary unless you're having problems with rings. Since they are frosted, they can have other consequences to your enlarging. I have them and don't use them.

Cletus?

[vinny]

Focal point sells it.

[Drew Wiley]

Real AN glass is NOT frosted! I sometimes use it on BOTH sides of a color chrome or neg,
and I'll bet my enlargments are as sharp as they come. But which AN glass to choose is a
more involved subject. Generally you only need it above the negative, on the non-emulsion
side which is smoother and more subject to Newton rings. I personally sometimes need greater AN control because I work with various film mask sandwiches, involving more than one sheet stacked and registered in the carrier at a time. Focal Point has an excellent selection of it, and can even custom-cut sizes if necessary.

[Bob Salomon]

ANR is not necessary unless you're having problems with rings. Since they are frosted, they can have other consequences to your enlarging. I have them and don't use them.

Cletus?
You only need AN glass on the base side of the film so plain glass can be used on the emulsion side. Since you focus on the emulsion side the AN should not create a problem.
And Drew is correct. It should be acid etched.

[Drew Wiley]

PS - plain window float glass is not ideal, though it can be made to work in a pinch. If you
don't need AN, then a thin optically flat or even coated glass can be obtained. Again,
Focal Point is a convenient source.

[ROL]

Real AN glass is NOT frosted!

I should of known I would get blow back on that term...

But my "acid-etched" do come from Focal Point, who I thought was no longer in business.

[ROL]

You only need AN glass on the base side of the film so plain glass can be used on the emulsion side. Since you focus on the emulsion side the AN should not create a problem.
And Drew is correct. It should be acid etched.

True, I was casually and inarticulately referring to using glass in the carriers at all unless absolutely necessary to keep film flat, particularly with smaller than sheet film varieties.

[vinny]

I bought a piece of "frosted" glass from the local framer to try in my 10x10. It works great until you have an area like open sky, then the texture shows up. Bummer. I have a bunch of 10x10 AN glass but two of the corners are clipped off all of them so far that enlarging an entire 8x10 neg isn't possible.

[Bob Salomon]

True, I was casually and inarticulately referring to using glass in the carriers at all unless absolutely necessary to keep film flat, particularly with smaller than sheet film varieties.

All quality enlarging lenses require a flat negative as well as a propely aligned enlarger. There is no instance where a glassless carrier is to be preferred if optimal print quality is the desired result. Even large format sheet films will not be flat enough when using a glassless carrier and all film sizes can pop during the exposure.

[Cletus]

I have glass carriers for 4x5 (Omega) and I can't tell whether the top is AN glass or not. I don't think I've ever had any problem with Newton rings, but I'm not altogether sure I'd recognize one(s?) if I saw it/them...or whatever. Someone once showed me a glass scanner mount that was apparently AN glass and the one side does have a slightly matte-ish surface, but it was far from 'frosted'. Couldn't distinguish it from regular glass unless held at just the right angle in just the right light. I'm sure there's some value to using this type of glass, I just haven't had a bunch of experience with problems associated with plain optical glass. Which isn't the same as window type float glass.

I guess I can understand the idea of the shiny, glossy emulsion side of the film directly against a shiny, glossy glass surface and how that could result in Newton rings. I use the glass carriers for 4x5 and glassless carriers for all smaller formats. I figure my Durst Sixneg (if that's the right name) holds my small format negs pretty flat and I haven't seen the need to use the glass inserts.

[ROL]

All quality enlarging lenses require a flat negative as well as a propely aligned enlarger. There is no instance where a glassless carrier is to be preferred if optimal print quality is the desired result. Even large format sheet films will not be flat enough when using a glassless carrier and all film sizes can pop during the exposure.

I usually do OK without glass in less than LF sheet sizes, 120 and under, even in great enlargements, but then I'm using a cold light. I will avoid excess foreign matter collecting sources unless focus is affected. With sheet film, I use one piece of glass, a clear FP carrier on the bottom to prevent gravity from sagging the negative down, with a cut-out carrier to stabilize the top. Normally, the film lies more than flat enough on the bottom glass, without being squished down by another piece of glass (and thus avoiding NR entirely) to retain sharp focus within the lens's depth of focus on an imperfectly flat sheet of enlarging paper, held by a quality easel. Only two glass surfaces to be concerned about, only one between the negative and the glass. If alignment were to be enhanced anywhere in my present system, it would be at the easel itself. It turns out the "instance" is that I'm actually more interested in quality printmaking than scientifically optimal physics.

[Gem Singer]

Bill,

No need to purchase expensive AN glass. Beseler makes a glassless carrier that solves the problem with 4x5 negatives.

There's a Beseler 4x5 Negaflat Carrier #8340 listed on eBay at a buy it now price of $75.

Stretches a negative extremely flat, and you don't need worry about cleaning finger prints and dust off of four surfaces of a glass carrier.

MF and 35mm negatives are held pretty flat in glassless negative carriers.

[Cletus]

It turns out the "instance" is that I'm actually more interested in quality printmaking than scientifically optimal physics.

+1 on that. One of the nice differences between traditional photography and...that other kind....is the fact that is IS a somewhat imperfect craft. Just like anything else made totally by hand. We use quality tools and strive for quality in our methods and practices to try to produce beautiful work. Art.

IMHO, "perfection" isn't one of the attributes that makes a great photographic print something we can be proud of. If perfection were the goal, I would suggest going out and getting one of the latest offerings from Canikon, or Fujilympus and an inkjet printer. (That comment isn't directed at you Bill, or anyone else specifically - just to the forum at large.) ...where I suspect at least a few people might agree. :) :) :)

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

Gem,
I looked on ebay and you are right that looks like a very nice item. How do you lock the negative down initially without scratching or putting fingerprints on the negative? O assume that once it is locked down the lever pulls in all 4 directions and keeps it tight/flat. I like that, but how do you load it initially without touching/smearing the negative? I gusee cotton gloves might work but then you'll have dust.

Another question, how do you guys handle dust on your negatives?

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

Gem,
I looked on ebay and you are right that looks like a very nice item. How do you lock the negative down initially without scratching or putting fingerprints on the negative? O assume that once it is locked down the lever pulls in all 4 directions and keeps it tight/flat. I like that, but how do you load it initially without touching/smearing the negative? I gusee cotton gloves might work but then you'll have dust.

Another question, how do you guys handle dust on your negatives?

[Gem Singer]

Bill,

When I owned a Beseler enlarger, I used a Negaflat carrier for 4x5 negatives. Never had a problem with fingerprints.

Handled the negative by the notched corner with thumb and forefinger. Same as when I loaded film holders.

I bought my Negaflat from a forum member. At that time used ones were selling for twice the price as the one listed on eBay.

Don't know if Beseler still makes them. New Negaflats sold for more than $200.

As for dust, blow it off with a hand blower or canned air.

[Leigh]

Bill,

You might want to research the NegaFlat carrier before investing in one.

I have one, and don't use it because it damages the film.

It does its job by pulling on the edges with tiny teeth spaced 0.25" apart.

Admittedly the effects are minimal, but they are noticeable, and they're scratches, not holes, because the gripper pulls on the film.

- Leigh

[Gem Singer]

Leigh,

The Negaflat carrier that I owned, gripped the film at the rebate areas.

Grippers did not reach the exposed areas of the negative.

When used properly, a Negaflat will not damage film.

Since you no longer use your Negaflat, why not donate it to Bill?

[Leigh]

Gem,

Of course it doesn't damage the image area. But it does damage the film, as I said.

As I was writing that post I had the NegaFlat in my hands, checking it with a sheet of unexposed 4x5 film.
You can see the scratches along both long edges.

I can take pix of the damage and post them if necessary.

- Leigh

[Kirk Gittings]

However I agree with you Gem about the Negaflat. I've been using one for 30 years-particularly on flimsy old pack film. It does damage the negative but outside the image area, so it doesn't bother me-much easier way to get a flat negative that way without adding more surfaces to collect dust IMO.

[Drew Wiley]

Amazes me how some folks will spend hundreds maybe thousands of dollars on some extra
lens they seldom use but then refuse to invest in even basic darkroom needs. Just get some real enlarger glass and be done with it. Glassless carriers should be classified as a
crime against humanity.

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

I went to ebay and I found the glassless negative carrier. It does look promising. I could not find a negative carrier that had ANR glass. DO they show up often?

[Bob Farr]

Hi,

I use AR glass o top and plain glass on the bottom, both are made from Schott glass for 5x7.

[ic-racer]

I went to ebay and I found the glassless negative carrier. It does look promising. I could not find a negative carrier that had ANR glass. DO they show up often?

http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/product/beseler_45m_4x5_standard_glass_film_carrier/bs3241

[Michael Jones]

http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/product/beseler_45m_4x5_standard_glass_film_carrier/bs3241

Nope: its this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4677-REG/Beseler_8343_Universal_Anti_Newton_Glass_4x5.html

Mike

[Kodachrome25]

Amazes me how some folks will spend hundreds maybe thousands of dollars on some extra
lens they seldom use but then refuse to invest in even basic darkroom needs. Just get some real enlarger glass and be done with it. Glassless carriers should be classified as a
crime against humanity.

I prefer to have the option to print full frame on 35mm, 24mm x 65mm, 120 and 4x5. So I had to forgo the glassless carriers and make a special set of anti newton ones. For a modest investment of funds and time, I have a great set of carriers in which to do this. All my glass came from Focal Point, even the larger than 4x5 sized one for that carrier.

I tried the negaflat on one shot and found it scratched the rebate and cropped into the image area too much, so it is collecting dust.

[Drew Wiley]

The ultimate system would be to fluid mount between glass using scanner fluid or something similar. This kind of carrier has been made by Carlwen long ago; but I find the
idea to messy for my own needs. The same folks who supply scanner fluids also offer anti-
Newton sprays, convenient in a pinch. I have the good fate to live here on the coast where it's generally very temperate and comfortable in the darkroom, but also Newton ring
hell due to the fog. Some films like TMX and old Tech Pan are downright slippery even on
the emulsion side, so become chronic with rings. In dryer climates, there are times optically
coated glass will work instead of AN. The glass actually suppresses dust (once you thorougly clean it), because any dust falling onto the top of the glass will be essentially out of focus
if you are using shallow depth of field.

[Corran]

Amazes me how some folks will spend hundreds maybe thousands of dollars on some extra
lens they seldom use but then refuse to invest in even basic darkroom needs. Just get some real enlarger glass and be done with it. Glassless carriers should be classified as a
crime against humanity.

To put the opposite opinion out there, I don't know why so many people obsess over minutiae. After fooling with a glass negative carrier and rigorously testing, the only difference I could find between my prints made in glassless (Beseler) vs. glass carrier was more dust problems with the glass. I don't know what everyone else uses but with my Beseler 45, glassless holder, and cold light, I've never, ever had a problem with a negative sagging or popping.

Guess it's just me.

Caveat: 16x20 prints max.

[Drew Wiley]

Try color printing, Corran, or even working with registered masks in ordinary silver printing.
These kinds of things might not apply to everyone making good prints; but in the relevant
circumstances, one becomes a convert to glass pretty fast. I learned color first, actually
making big Cibachromes - long exposures, always masked, extremely difficult to retouch.
But even now my film work, and where I clean and load any carrier, is an actual cleanroom.
If I happen to print anything fiberbased in there, I sponge down everything afterwards,
using an appropriate non-cellulose cleanroom sponge! My philosophy is, every little thing
might be nitpicky viewed in isolation, but these all add up, and you're only as good as your
weakest link. That end result can be the difference between an OK print and a superlative
one.

[Kirk Gittings]

Amazes me how some folks will spend hundreds maybe thousands of dollars on some extra
lens they seldom use but then refuse to invest in even basic darkroom needs. Just get some real enlarger glass and be done with it. Glassless carriers should be classified as a
crime against humanity.

Drew this is a load of hyperbolic excrement :). If all your trying to solve is negative flatness and avoiding negative popping, this works like a charm.

[Corran]

Try color printing, Corran, or even working with registered masks in ordinary silver printing.
These kinds of things might not apply to everyone making good prints; but in the relevant
circumstances, one becomes a convert to glass pretty fast. I learned color first, actually
making big Cibachromes - long exposures, always masked, extremely difficult to retouch.
But even now my film work, and where I clean and load any carrier, is an actual cleanroom.
If I happen to print anything fiberbased in there, I sponge down everything afterwards,
using an appropriate non-cellulose cleanroom sponge! My philosophy is, every little thing
might be nitpicky viewed in isolation, but these all add up, and you're only as good as your
weakest link. That end result can be the difference between an OK print and a superlative
one.

I will defer to you about color printing. I am speaking about silver prints on fiber, no masking.

However, a truly great print is great because of the subject matter!

[Gem Singer]

Bryan,

A great print begins with great subject matter.

However, if not perfectly rendered in that print, that subject matter will fail miserably.

[Drew Wiley]

Kirk - that hypoerbole consists of real prints on the wall, which woudn't even exist is that
fashion without distinct technical protocol. Why don't you ask Chris Burkett if he's open to
trying a glassless carrier? Same game. And his site has a good set of pictures of the real
deal in use. Sure, if you just want to print it plain and small in basic black and white with
a fast cold light, then a negaflat whatever will probably be just fine. But what if you want
to go somewhere else with it later? Putting a glassless carrier in a Durst would be equivalent to putting bicycle tires on a truck.

[Drew Wiley]

Corran - you might have a truly great tune in your head, but if you can't sing on key or
play a specific musical instrument, it will remain in your imagination alone. Even Jackson
Pollock had real technique - and if you don't believe me, you try spattering paint and see
if anyone admires it! Subject matter??? Maybe if you are a photojournalist and got the world's only shot of Bigfoot. Grand scenery can be nothing but another stereotypical postcard; and the most mundane of things can be magnificent when visualized and printed
in a refined enough manner to communicate that personal vision. I'm sure glad Edward Weston didn't post his pictures on the web!

[Kirk Gittings]

Later he can get a glass carrier. In the meantime he can get flat negatives and sharp prints without having to deal with 6 surfaces instead of 2 to collect dust.

[Drew Wiley]

Ha Kirk - you don't bother me. Now trying hiking on a hot dusty trail for about fourteen hours, after you've already walked for two weeks with a heavy pack loaded with LF gear -
exactly what happened on the last day when I'm starting to move uphill kinda slow. Glass
versus glassless - and the poor third guy on the trip, a non-photographer - probably couldn't figure out what kind of esoteric nonsense either of us were speaking!

[Corran]

Corran - you might have a truly great tune in your head, but if you can't sing on key or
play a specific musical instrument, it will remain in your imagination alone.

This is sooooo far in left field. A better analogy would be if you didn't know one note on the instrument that was only used in 3 pieces in the history of literature (I can give you examples of this in flute literature). Or alternatively, someone who can't sing would be equivalent to someone not knowing how to properly expose. Comparing that to not using a specific piece of equipment that is pretty much just as good as the alternative in most situations is ludicrous.

Are you simply implying that every print done with a glassless carrier has poor technique? Because that is what I think is objectionable. There is surely a time where a glassless carrier is 100% necessary, and plenty of times where it is beneficial, but it's not a requirement.

I'm sure you're a much more accomplished printer than I am. I'm just making a point here. I'm not advocating sloppy technique, I'm saying a specific piece of gear designed to do something very slightly better, with its own drawbacks, is not necessarily the only right way to do something.

[Drew Wiley]

No, Corran ... it's assessing the relevant variables: size of film, how much it might expand,
contract or buckle; length of exposure, hot versus cold light source, general cleanliness of
surrounding area when holder is loaded - and often overlooked: what is the condition of the enlarger head inside, whether there's dust going to blow around in there or not. Like
Kirk just mentioned (and you know I hate it when he is correct), various kinds of carriers can be tested for individual preference provided they don't involve a one-way street, like
having to cement in some matching component. Also, some films are stiffer and more dimensionally stable than others. Fortunately, most (not all) b&w sheet films are on polyester base.

[Corran]

Fair enough. This is of course the great advantage and disadvantage about discussing these kinda things on the internet. It's mostly about personal experience with XYZ and one's opinions. For me, on a Beseler 45, glassless carrier, T-Max 100 film (usually), cold light head, generally clean area, I have absolutely no issues and have no need for a glass carrier to make a better print. That's all I can attest, that using the glassless carrier does NOT hinder my printing in any way, shape, or form.

[Bob Salomon]

Fair enough. This is of course the great advantage and disadvantage about discussing these kinda things on the internet. It's mostly about personal experience with XYZ and one's opinions. For me, on a Beseler 45, glassless carrier, T-Max 100 film (usually), cold light head, generally clean area, I have absolutely no issues and have no need for a glass carrier to make a better print. That's all I can attest, that using the glassless carrier does NOT hinder my printing in any way, shape, or form.

Have you made head to head prints, same neg., same lens, same exposure, one with and one without glass and compared the prints at the same magnification? If not then you don't know what your lens can really do.

[Corran]

Yes, I have.

After struggling with some things and thinking it was the carrier, I tried the glass. Figured out it was a slight alignment issue, front to back, on the lens plane. Fixed that, prints were fine, glass carrier was not better.

[Bob Salomon]

Yes, I have.

After struggling with some things and thinking it was the carrier, I tried the glass. Figured out it was a slight alignment issue, front to back, on the lens plane. Fixed that, prints were fine, glassless carrier was not better.

It wouldn't be. If the negative was good, you were printing within the optimization range of the lens and at optimal aperture the glass carrier will always be better. Especially with fine detail at the edges and corners.

This assumes, of course, that you are using a high performance lens and not one of the budget 3 or 4 element lenses or the basic 6 element lenses.

[Drew Wiley]

It's analogous to the debate over vacuum vs traditional easels. For ordinary b&w work I
generally ignore vacuum. But it really depends on the size and brand of paper; and from
time to time I regret the shortcut, because what I intended as a keeper will show some
focus misdemeanor, and I just lost a little time and money. With Cibachrome toward the
end of its era, I would never dream of neglecting vacuum - not for something like a hundred bucks going down the drain for a sheet of 30x40! But I have been in the presence of a couple of very well known older generation b&w printers who were contemplating upgrading to very expensive enlarging lenses to improve their results; but it would have been a complete waste of money because they weren't willing to use glass carriers. I could see it in their prints: "So-and-so doesn't use one, so why should I" - well, should I
carry my camera on a mule and wear a beard and cowbody hat lens shade just because...

[Corran]

Sorry, meant the glass carrier was not better.

Sorry, but it wasn't better. I'm stating a fact. Not an opinion. In my test, so you can take it or leave it.

Yes, it was a nice EL-Nikkor at optimum aperture.

[Kirk Gittings]

Me too. I own a glass carrier just don't bother with it.

[Drew Wiley]

Minor addn to what Bob said ... often in typical fiber-based printing you can't even achieve the resolution on a modest print size to distinguish such things. Trying printing on
polyester medium. But again ... might be relevent for some folks, not for others. People
like my prints for their extreme clarity, not just for the subject matter. That will not hold
true as I begin more dye transfer printing ... which is not the sharpest of media ... but is
impossible to do without registered glass carriers!

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

Hey folks, I have 2 Beseler 4x5 negative carriers. First is Beseler 8322, that is a completely flat carrier with the 4 guide pins sticking up on 1 side.

The other is more interesting, does not say Beseler on it, it is stamped 1645UN. It is similar to the other one except it has a hinge that allows a small space between the 2 plates of about 1/8 inch or about 2.5mm. Inside it has 8 spacing pins that touch each other when it closes, 1 at each corner.
At each of the interior 4 inch sides there is a 1.5 inch, 38mm adjustable bracket.
I am curious could this be a glass carrier with the glass missing? It would have to be really skinny glass, at most 1/16 inch would probably have to be a little less.

Anyone know about this unusual negative carrier. Am I just 2 pieces of glass from having a ANR glass carrier?

Always optimistic, Bill

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

I finally found it on line, 1645 is a glass negative carrier. Now will the companies mentioned earlier in this thread have the glass cut to fit and all I have to do is slide them in place?
Glass that thin will be really fragile, how do you handle cleaning glass 4x5 inch but less than 1/16 thick?

Thanks, Bill

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

Just placed an order at Focal Point for ANR and clear glass, both for Beseler 4x5. $38 and $20.
I also picked up that glass free negative carrier that was on ebay for $75.
I'll have to do some tests to see which is better.
Thanks everyone,
Now how do I tell which side is ANR when I go to mount it?
Bill

[Peter De Smidt]

The AN side will have a slight texture. It's not hard to see.

Make sure your enlarger is aligned well, or none of this matters.

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

Thanks Pete, now just how fragile is this glass, can it take a good washing/drying? Or do you treat it like Christmas ornaments?

[Peter De Smidt]

It's fairly sturdy.

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

Now before I screw this up... the ANR glass goes on top with the coated/treated side up, right?
I placed my order and it should be here soon. $58 for the 2 pieces of glass.
Bill

[Peter De Smidt]

Clear glass goes on the bottom of the carrier, i.e. side nearest the lens. Next, comes the film, emulsion side down, which means that the shiny base side is up. Next comes the textured side of the AN glass. In other words, the AN glass is the top sheet in the carrier, but it's textured side is facing down towards the film base. The whole idea is to eliminate interference patterns cause be the shiny base side of the film being pressed against another shiny surface.

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

Thanks Peter, You made it clear enough I WILL NOT screw it up.
Now if only I can get the Dichro 45 Color Computer to cycle like it should. Any one have any experience with Dichro 45??? Need help!!!
Bill