Zone VI"Out Straight" 4x5 Negative Carrier

[Andre Noble]

Calumet is advetising in their current catalogue this really neat-looking 4x5 ne gative carrier that is suppose to slightly pull and make perfectly flat 4x5 negs . It is adjustable in size to accomodate slight larger Polaroid negatives. Soun ds like a good alternative to the annoying Newton rings I have been getting with my glass carrier despite use of ant-Newton top glass.

Does Anyone have experience with this negtaive carrier? If so, do you know if w ill work on an Omega 4x5 Prolab enlarger (ie, D5 negative stage compatible?) Th anks for any info. Andre

[Trevor Crone]

Andre my post may seem a little crazy but bear with me. Are you using film with a "shiney" emulsion like T-Max or Delta if so this could be the problem re.Newto n rings. I use Delta and was still getting N.rings despite the use of anti-Newto n ring top plate. I solved the problem by using another anti-N. ring as the bott om plate as well. However there is the risk of the pattern of the etch being pro jected, it depends on the type of etched glass. I use a DeVere enlarger and I've had no problems here. It certainly solved a headache.

It may be worth a go, at worse you'll have a spare anti-N.ring glass.

Good luck,

[David Willis]

From your description, it sounds simlar to a Beseler Negaflat.

I've used the Negaflats and like them quite a bit. I don't know whether the Calumet carrier will fit an Omega.

They could probably tell you. I've been pleased with my interactions with their customer service.

Dave

[Andre Noble]

Trevor, I will probably end up doing that as soon as B&H has the anti newton glass for omega d5 carriers back in stock.

Dave, I walked into Calumet here in Los Angeles today, and the darkroom guy didn't have the Zone VI "Out Straight" 4x5 Negative Carrier in stock to look at or an answer to this question one way or the other.

Anyone out there using this who could chime in? Thanks. Andre

[Sean Yates]

THe Negaflat by Besseler is actually different. Similar idea, and Besseler made a thorough and serious holder. IMHO I might invest in a used one of those first, assuming I could find a used one.

Despite Fred's, or maybe Calumets, clucking about how unique and amazing it is, I have one made for a 5 X 7 Elwood that has got to be 40 years old and have seen other versions for 8 X 10. I think I paud all of $10.00 for mine

[Alec Jones]

Sean, Fred NEVER said it was unique. He stated clearly when it came out that it was based on an example of an older one given him by someone. Get your facts straight.

It is based on rubber traction, not puncturing the negative like the Beseler one does. Seems like a better idea than the Beseler to me.

[Sean Yates]

Little touchy there Alec? Allow me to quote Mr. Picker, or whomever wrote using his name:

"He sent not only the suggestion, he sent the part itself! It's a marvelous negative carrier. It had obviously been a custom one-off, probably made in a machine shop, possibly in the 30's. It was for an 8 X 10 enlarger and it did something no carrier we had ever seen or heard of could do; it could stretch out the negative absolutely flat without ruining it."

Regardless of how the Zone VI incarnation works, or how well it works, my point is that the one sent by Mr. Houlihan is far from unique. If you visit great stores like the sadly defunct "Darkroom Aids" in Chicago often enough, you begin to realize that there really is very little that is new, under the sun.

[Pete Andrews]

Old editions of Jacobson's 'Enlarging' have a diagram of just such a carrier. Clearly showing, in a profile cutaway drawing, how a compressed rubber rib pushes outward on the sides of the negative to tension it.I really don't know what all the fuss is about for 5x4 though. Normal thickness 5x4 is fairly rigid stuff, and any glassless negative carrier that clamps down on the neg all round the edges does a perfectly good job of holding the film flat.I haven't worked in any commercial darkroom that uses glass carriers, they're just more trouble than they're worth.

[Andre Noble]

O.K. Mr. Andrews, you may be right afterall. I'll try your's (and Trevor's idea too). And out of one of those, a solution should be found. Thanks for bringing it up.

I use very long exposures, particularly for burning in (the flashed diffuse opal glass I use for diffusion necessitates long exposures, even with the 250 watt tungsten bulbs I'm using) I worry about possible negative shift.

Anyways, very sensible idea, worth a shot. Andre

[Alec Jones]

So you admit you were wrong, Sean? BTW, I note Calumet didn't use the language you stated either. So, calling an error of yours is now "touchy"? Just the facts, Sean. Just the facts please.