Adhesive Holder Issues

[Brian C. Miller]

One thing that I've found useful for removing adhesive is ... adhesive! Take some tape and press it down on the recalcitrant adhesive, and then lift up. You may need to do this a few times. I've found it to be quite effective.

Another thing you can do is not use tape. I've found that a water-soluble temporary glue stick is just fine for temporarily fixing a sheet of film in place, and of course it comes right off.

Another thing I saw is one photographer modified one of his 8x10 holders to have a suction tube on the back. When he wants to make his exposure, he puts the tube in his mouth and inhales slightly, and the film stays flat for the exposure.

[Bob Salomon]

Nothing has changed. Custom is one thing. Doing things right is another. Kinda like someone buying a Technika then trying to use some sloppy off-brand roll film holder and then scratching their head wondering why they spent so much to begin with for so-so results. To me, most people's 8x10 enlargements look distinctly unsharp. That could just as well be lab sloppiness, but generally it's due to the fact the film was never fully on the correct plane to begin with. Popping during exposure is a different issue and even more blatant, though I've only had that happen to me once. Who ever heard of a process camera without a vac back?

We did a pretty good business with Vac. copy board holders from both Kaiser and Linhof for duplicating flat art. The trick with repro work was not just flat film and a hell of a lens. It was also keeping that copy flat.
Unfortunately most, if not all, of the manufacturers of the pumps used for this purpose either went out of business or discontinued the pumps. Although Tarsia may still offer a vac board.

As for the enlargements from 810. What do they enlarge with? Durst? Homerich? Fotar, etc.? or an old Elwood?
Besides a sharp negative that other requirements are a properly aligned enlarger, a glass carrier, a quality enlarging lens used within its optimized range of magnification, at an f stop within its optimized range and a flat piece of paper to enlarge on.
Any of these could easily result in a less then sharp print if the above are not followed.

[Ari]

What about trying scanner mounting fluid to get rid of the residue?
It's safe for film on a scanner, it should be safe for film in a non-scanner situation.

As to film flatness, I standardized on Toyos for all sheet film work, and found them to be the most reliable, consistent, and accurate.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - most of the pro labs back in the day used big Durst units, both vertical and horizontal. At an average cost of 75K apiece, you can be pretty sure they got
their paper plane right and knew how to align things. I'm inheriting one of those rigs just as soon as I can clear enough elbow room to get past my other gear to
station it. But my extant 810 color enlarger is even more solid. I cannibalized a huge precision pin-registered vac easel from a 22ft long process camera for that thing. Vac pumps are easy to improvise. You can even take one of these silly little household cordless vacs and stick a tube on it. It takes very little to draw down large sheet of paper or film. What is far more important is the pattern of channels in the easel. The most common mistake is for people to use far too much vac draw or use a peristaltic or diaphragm pump which can vibrate a platen. Good graphics equip is still readily available, but maybe not from photo houses. And old copy cameras in excellent condition can be found for very little to downright free, sometimes even with the lenses.

[Drew Wiley]

Ari - your Toyo holder might be very nice, but it does zero to solve the kinds of problems described here. You larger sizes of film will still not be flat.

[Drew Wiley]

Back to Bob - my mantra is that you're only as good as your weakest link. If you don't have a correct film plane to begin with, then don't have a precisely aligned
glass carrier and dependable paper printing plane, I don't even want to talk about lenses.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob - most of the pro labs back in the day used big Durst units, both vertical and horizontal. At an average cost of 75K apiece, you can be pretty sure they got
their paper plane right and knew how to align things. I'm inheriting one of those rigs just as soon as I can clear enough elbow room to get past my other gear to
station it. But my extant 810 color enlarger is even more solid. I cannibalized a huge precision pin-registered vac easel from a 22ft long process camera for that thing. Vac pumps are easy to improvise. You can even take one of these silly little household cordless vacs and stick a tube on it. It takes very little to draw down large sheet of paper or film. What is far more important is the pattern of channels in the easel. The most common mistake is for people to use far too much vac draw or use a peristaltic or diaphragm pump which can vibrate a platen. Good graphics equip is still readily available, but maybe not from photo houses. And old copy cameras in excellent condition can be found for very little to downright free, sometimes even with the lenses.

Agreed, but as a wholesaler the pump situation is a problem. We can't sell salvaged or cannabilized pumps. If the pump that we tell them to go get is too strong, too weak, spits or has other problems it is our problem because we recommended it. So the boards that we use to offer are all out of production now.
The vast majority of the boards that we did sell were used in copy work, not enlarging. So these have been replaced with magnetic hold down strips, spray adhesive, glass plates of clear (not green plate glass) glass and, in some cases, good enlarging easels.
Of course none of these will work for books and manuscripts but for those we have a range of book easels from Kaiser and Linhof ranging from about $400.00 retail for a fully manual, but functional one, to over $18,000.00 for a fairly automatic one. The Linhof one is between these two.

And for delicate originals most of the hold down methods, including vacuum boards will not work (imagine trying to put one of the Dead Sea Scrolls on an adhesive surface or under a glass plate).

[cdavis324]

What about trying scanner mounting fluid to get rid of the residue?
It's safe for film on a scanner, it should be safe for film in a non-scanner situation.

As to film flatness, I standardized on Toyos for all sheet film work, and found them to be the most reliable, consistent, and accurate.

An update on removal of the residue: I removed the residue very easily with PEC 12 today, and what I thought was residue after the initial cleaning is actually in the emulsion. Attached is a photograph of a contact sheet showing what's left after the cleaning. I want these to be darkroom prints, so I think my only option is to try to wetmount in the enlarger like I would for a scan. Otherwise, scan and make digital prints...

I agree that Toyo's are the best holder's I've used. I have a ton of 4x5 toyo's, but my 8x10 holders are plastic lisco or fidelity's. I can't bear the thought of spending so much on holders to cut the guides out!

Thanks for all the help! There are some really good suggestions for how to work with adhesive holders in the future. I guess I could also rub any excessively sticky sheets with PEC 12 after coming out of the holder, and before sending them to the lab.

[Jac@stafford.net]

As for the enlargements from 810. What do they enlarge with? Durst? Homerich? Fotar, etc.? or an old Elwood?

Besides a sharp negative that other requirements are a properly aligned enlarger, a glass carrier, a quality enlarging lens used within its optimized range of magnification, at an f stop within its optimized range and a flat piece of paper to enlarge on.

Saltzman. Even their single-post model is that good.

[cdavis324]