I am considering buying a Meopta 6x6 enlarger and notice they offer glass neg carriers standard. Are these advisable for medium to small format? I can see the advantages, such as elimination of negative "pop", but are there any disadvantages besides the need to keep clean? What about sharpness? Any comments on the Meoptas (Opemus vs. Magnifax) would be appreciated also.

-- Michael Heath (mheath333@aol.com), January 14, 1999

Answers

The disadvantages of glass negative carriers are, as I see them: 1) Four surfaces that collect dust, grit and grease 2) Four surfaces that may get scratched -permanently - or dented (both glass carriers I use have small, unremovable dents that show up as white spots on the prints, always in the same place) 3) The glass carriers are especially difficult to clean in the corners (therefore I suggest to use a glass-carrier for one negative size larger than your largest neg size, 6x6 for 35 mm film, 6x7 for 6x6, but for 6x7, 6x9 and larger negatives it may be difficult) 4)When dust marks show up on the print, it is not clear if the dust belongs to the carrier or to the negative 5) Maybe only phsycologically but it feels as if the glass might degrade the picture quality by scattering light back into the negative since no glass is totally transparent. Perhaps it also affects color in color printing? 6) Newton rings may appear

Advantages of glass-carriers:

7) The entire negative area including the borders may be printed 8) The negative is flat 9) The negative may be left in the carrier by mistake for a longer time period without collecting further dust (but the other ends of the film strip will collect dust of course) 10) Glass carriers usually contain a movable mask so the negative can be masked and decrease the unnecessary light reaching the enlarger lens 11) I suspect the glass protects the negative from excessive heat from the enlarger light, unless there is moist on the negative or the glass

All in all, I prefer glass carriers (mainly because of point 7). But I hate that white spot that appears on all prints! (see point 2)

-- Peter Olsson (Peter.Olsson@sb.luth.se), January 15, 1999.

Peter - Thanks for that informative response. Your point on carrier size is well taken. I should probably consider the 6x7 enlarger instead.

Mike

-- Michael Heath (MHeath@aol.com), January 15, 1999.

I use a Rollie-Nikor enlarger (sanders clone) that uses a single piece of glass above the negative. So it's only two more dust collecting surfaces and no glass between the neg and lens to degrade the image. I use it for prints larger than 8x10 with 35mm and 6x6.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), January 16, 1999.

I switched to an Anti-Newton Glass Negative Carrier AND I WILL NEVER GO BACK to a glassless carrier. Yes, dust is a factor, especially at first, before you get your system down. But soon after, you'll spot and remove dust quickly and easily (most of the time) and you'll never have to worry about negative pop again!!!!!!!

-- Regina Hugo (vhugo@earthlink.net), February 16, 1999.

I recently purchased an antinewton glass carrier and also would not go back. I have much sharper prints and am not constantly refocusing. I developed a compressed air system to help with the problem. I purchased a air storage tank along with a electric air compressor which I use to recharge the system every week or 2.I purchased an air nozzle to use also. The entire set-up was about $100 at a local auto parts store.

-- art sands (sands@msn.com), June 09, 1999.

Also in this case 4*5 is less irritant than 6*6. Never experienced pop with glassless carriers with 4*5. MF (120 films) turns out to be a weak concept as a whole, imho.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), June 09, 1999.