Philips PCS-130 enlarger / Paterson PCS2500 - Neg carrier

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by bob, Mar 6, 2007.

  1. bob

    bob Guest

    Hi I have just bought a PCS-130 and the question is the neg supposed to be
    held with glass ? Mine appears to just have the 24x36 frame which is 'open'
    Thanks in advance
     
    bob, Mar 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. bob

    Rod Smith Guest

    Philips/Paterson made both glassless and glass negative carrier inserts.
    If you've got a metal frame that's got a 24x36 opening, then it sounds
    like you've got a glassless carrier. You can use that, or if you prefer a
    glass carrier, you can go to a glass shop to have them make one. (They may
    have to special-order some anti-Newton glass, though.)
     
    Rod Smith, Mar 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. bob

    bob Guest

    so which is better glass or glassless ?
    with glassless the film may not always be flat ?can that be corrected with
    a small aperture such as F11 or f16
     
    bob, Mar 7, 2007
    #3
  4. Yes. Without a doubt.
    f5.6 to f8.0 is the best aperture range for a 50mm f2.8
    enlarging lens. If you stop down to f16 the diffraction
    fuzzies will be worse than the film-[not]flatness fuzzies.

    How sharp is 'good enough' is a decision you have to make
    for yourself. Take a grainy negative and make a print at
    f5.6. Examine the grain in the corners and in the center,
    if they look the same to you then all is OK. Be sure the
    enlarger is aligned and all 4 corners are equally fuzzy/sharp.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Mar 7, 2007
    #4
  5. bob spake thus:
    For a small format like 35mm, glassless is fine. The film will be plenty
    flat enough, and you won't have to worry about 1) keeping the glass
    clean and 2) Newton's rings forming.

    And yes, stopping down is also a Good Thing to increase depth of focus.


    --
    Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
    forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
    time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
    like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
    variorum text that would be put up on that site.

    It is a WASTE OF TIME.

    - Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan_Ellison)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Mar 7, 2007
    #5
  6. bob

    Rod Smith Guest

    Your first question is one of "those" questions -- the ones that have no
    clear answer. With a glass carrier, you get better film flatness, but you
    also increase the number of surfaces to which dust can adhere, and you've
    got to be careful to use the right sort of glass to avoid Newton rings. A
    glassless carrier has the opposite benefits and problems. My impression is
    that the balance of advantages and disadvantages favors glassless for
    smaller formats and glass for larger formats, but where the line is drawn
    is a matter of personal preference and equipment specifics (including
    non-enlarger equipment, like any dust-abatement equipment you've got in
    your darkroom).
     
    Rod Smith, Mar 8, 2007
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.