anti-newton glass - where to buy
sp77
neg's flat against the built-in glass holder). any suggestions?
RSD99
the web, but see Focal Point
http://www.fpointinc.com/web_store/Products/focal/fpnewt2.htm
Another potential supplier would be Doug Fisher, although he might not be
able to supply the 8" x 10" size:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/insert.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/usinginsert.html
"sp77" <splen...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105208597....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
mariobros
> I need a piece of 8x10 anti-newton glass to use in a scanner (to hold
> neg's flat against the built-in glass holder). any suggestions?
>
Tom Ellliott
During my searching I have found that POSSIBLY printing supply houses might
have that kind of glass. Also, if I understand correctly there is a flexable
mylar sheet of anti-newton ring material that the printing supply houses
sell. So, Monday I will be on the phones calling the local printing
supplyhouses here in Miami. The glass is NOT cheep. Well over a hundered
dollars. I will have to do a lot of scanning on my Epson 2450 and my CFO is
really tough...you married guys understand.
Yours,
Tom
"RSD99" <rsdwla...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:h4YDd.1160$C.697@trnddc05...
RSD99
"Tom Ellliott" <1st...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:x7dEd.23$tF...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
jjs
might surf B&H Photovideo for it. I know you can get it in 4x5, and maybe
you can get the smaller sizes as well, or have it cut down to your exact
size.
RSD99
find old negative carriers with Anti Newton Ring glass in the second-hand
piles at the larger photo stores, but that's only "sometimes."
I have a couple of pieces of 5" x 7" "Kodak ANR Glass" which serves for the
time being. However, when I move up to scanning 8" x 10" negatives and
transparencies I'll probably have to get a sheet at least that size.
"jjs" <j...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:10u3nhm...@news.supernews.com...
Gregory Blank
"RSD99" <rsdwla...@gte.net> wrote:
> So does Saunders ... but I'm looking for *larger* sizes. Sometimes you can
> find old negative carriers with Anti Newton Ring glass in the second-hand
> piles at the larger photo stores, but that's only "sometimes."
>
> I have a couple of pieces of 5" x 7" "Kodak ANR Glass" which serves for the
> time being. However, when I move up to scanning 8" x 10" negatives and
> transparencies I'll probably have to get a sheet at least that size.
You could try Edmond Scientific.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
jjs
> So does Saunders ... but I'm looking for *larger* sizes. Sometimes you can
> find old negative carriers with Anti Newton Ring glass in the second-hand
> piles at the larger photo stores, but that's only "sometimes."
>
> I have a couple of pieces of 5" x 7" "Kodak ANR Glass" which serves for
> the
> time being. However, when I move up to scanning 8" x 10" negatives and
> transparencies I'll probably have to get a sheet at least that size.
I'll bet B&H has 8x10, too. 24" square is a common distribution size, if you
want to go all the way.
RSD99
Edmund Industrial Optics does *not* catalog anything. I have checked
several times ... beginning about a year ago.
http://www.edmundoptics.com/US/
Edmund Scientific (Scientifics) also does *not* catalog anything. I have
also checked them several times ... beginning about a year ago.
http://www.edmundscientific.com/Default.asp?bhcd2=1105341535
"Gregory Blank" <bugst...@gregblankphoto.com> wrote in message
news:bugstopped_-E462...@news.verizon.net...
RSD99
Alparslan
> I don't know anything about the company, or if they are the "only" place
on
> the web, but see Focal Point
>
> http://www.fpointinc.com/web_store/Products/focal/fpnewt2.htm
>
> Another potential supplier would be Doug Fisher, although he might not be
> able to supply the 8" x 10" size:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/insert.html
> http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/usinginsert.html
I heartily recommend focal point. They cut A/N glass to my Durst negative
carriers (6X9 and 4X5) and shipped them to me. They fit well and Mike makes
sure every customer is satisfied.
Regards,
Al.
Richard Fateman
> I need a piece of 8x10 anti-newton glass to use in a scanner (to hold
> neg's flat against the built-in glass holder). any suggestions?
>
Tetenal makes a spray that will cut down on newton rings. It works
but is a little messy.
If your problem is the generation of newton rings between the
scanner glass and the negative, AN glass on the other side
will not cure the problem. TMax film is smooth enough, in
my experience, to get newton rings from either side. Most other
films are not so smooth on the emulsion side.
rjf
Robert M
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, splen...@excite.com says...
> I need a piece of 8x10 anti-newton glass to use in a scanner (to hold
> neg's flat against the built-in glass holder). any suggestions?
>
Do not use "antinewton" glass for serious job,
it leaves grainy structure on scans and also on prints when
used in enlarger...
use glassless mask for scanning...
every decent scanner comes with it, if not then you must use
"oil and foil" technique... a bit messy but functional
--
Robert M
rob...@zagreb.cc
http://www.fotoroberto.com
Bogdan Karasek
Am I correct in assuming that the placement of the Newtonian glass would
be on the top and plain glass on the bottom supporting the neg or do you
need NG on both sides? Besides my 4x5 negs, I would also like to use it
for 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 4x4, and maybe 35mm. Instead of six neg holders
laying around, I would just have that one that one. This would also
complement the 4 bladed cropping gizmo just below the bottom condensor
(using an Omega D2V) and above the neg holder. This way, I can crop the
light reaching the neg. Ideas, criticisms?
Bogdan
--
__________________________________________________________________
Bogdan Karasek
Montréal, Québec e-mail: bkar...@videotron.ca
Canada
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"
Ludwig Wittgenstein
________________________________________________________________
Alparslan
you.
Alparslan
"Robert M" <st...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c53b802e...@news.htnet.hr...
Alparslan
"Bogdan Karasek" <bkar...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:snKGd.4575$YI4.5...@wagner.videotron.net...
> Hi,
>
> Am I correct in assuming that the placement of the Newtonian glass would
> be on the top and plain glass on the bottom supporting the neg or do you
> need NG on both sides? Besides my 4x5 negs, I would also like to use it
> for 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 4x4, and maybe 35mm. Instead of six neg holders
> laying around, I would just have that one that one. This would also
> complement the 4 bladed cropping gizmo just below the bottom condensor
> (using an Omega D2V) and above the neg holder. This way, I can crop the
> light reaching the neg. Ideas, criticisms?
>
> Bogdan
>
This is how I use my A/N Glass. My n. carrier accomodates up to 6X9. My top
glass is A/N only since the shinny and upper part of the film creates newton
rings. I use masks below the bottom glass (non A/N) for smaller formats.
Regards,
Alparslan.
Robert M
sorry.tir...@mymailbox.com says...
> Could anyone confirm the enlarger part of this claim? I am concerned. Thank
> you.
> Alparslan
Well I can, from my practiacal work, once i discovered that
something is wrong with a smooth light grey sky on a print from
6x9 b/w negative, it stroke me like a thunder, that horrible
anti-newton glass, it left it's mark; the sky was all grainy...
so i removed it and all went just fine from then on...
So flatten your neg's as much as possible and use glassless
carriers...
jjs
"Alparslan" <sorry.tir...@mymailbox.com> wrote in message
news:351ljcF...@individual.net...
> Could anyone confirm the enlarger part of this claim? I am concerned.
I sure can't see any grainy effect.
Robert M
says...
I'll put the samples on my site in few days...
jjs
> In article <10 nep02t...@news.supernews.com>, j...@nospam.net
> says...
>>
>> "Alparslan" <sorry.tir...@mymailbox.com> wrote in message
>> news:351ljcF...@individual.net...
>> > Could anyone confirm the enlarger part of this claim? I am concerned.
>>
>> I sure can't see any grainy effect.
>>
>
> I'll put the samples on my site in few days...
Thank you, Robert. Much appreciated. I will scrutinize my setup in the
meantime.
at @the-wire.dotcom Lloyd usenet-Erlick
<sorry.tir...@mymailbox.com> wrote:
>Could anyone confirm the enlarger part of this claim? I am concerned. Thank
>you.
>Alparslan
>
>
...
>>
>> Do not use "antinewton" glass for serious job,
>> it leaves grainy structure on scans and also on prints when
>> used in enlarger...
>> use glassless mask for scanning...
...
jan2205 from Lloyd Erlick,
These remarks lead me to think there is a variation in
the quality of anti-Newton ring glass available on the
market. Think how large the audience would be for a
magazine article comparing all the brands of
anti-Newton ring glass! (Should I approach Time? Or
Newsweek?)
I worked with glassless negative carriers for many
years. Eventually in my old age I bought my first new
enlarger, a Durst L1200. Wish I'd bought one when they
first came out! I splurged and bought a set of
glassless inserts for the negative carrier, plus a set
of anti-Newton glasses.
I then proceeded to work glassless for several years,
until comments by Bob Saloman (another participant on
this newsgroup) goaded me into trying out the AN glass
inserts. (Bob's remarks have gone beyond dust. He
asserts there is no point carrying out exacting
alignment on an enlarger without glass carriers,
because negative curvature will swamp any improvement.
He also says there is no point improving the lens
beyond a strictly ordinary level for the same reason.)
I ended up very unhappy that I had waited so long. So
many prints to re-make ... impossible. I can only say
I'm glad I mainly work with a black background, so the
corners and extremities of most of my prints can be out
of focus and not show. Because once I put the glass
inserts in, my prints were suddenly pin sharp corner to
corner, edge to edge, and with next to no effort. The
glass really does make the negative flat, and it really
does matter. Why shouldn't it? Didn't I pay fancy money
for all those fancy enlarger lenses? Why would I expect
the curvature of a negative in a glassless carrier to
go without being noticed by the lens? I can see the
curvature at the edges perfectly clearly just by
looking! It's only logical that a really good
Rodenstock lens would see the same thing, so what was I
thinking?
Anyway, the improvement I've seen has not had any
downside at all in results. The Durst AN glass inserts
absolutely do not contribute grain or structure or
mottling or graying or texture or any other word to the
final prints. They are a distinct improvement, only,
with no tradeoff in the look of the final print.
The downside, if you can call it that, is that one must
keep the glass sheets clean. Much has been made of this
so-called difficulty, but in reality it is no more work
than keeping the enlarger lens clean. The solution is
simple: don't let it get dirty. I don't have to clean
my lens more often than quarterly, in fact probably
more like yearly. My AN glasses are a bit more likely
to get touched by my clumsy hands, and maybe a few
flakes of dead skin fall off my face onto them twice a
decade, but it's a small price to pay for *flat*
negatives above my expensive *flat* field optics.
I find three things used together are useful in
cleaning glass negative carriers, and keeping them
clean:
-a lens polishing cloth of the sort provided with new
eyeglasses. I have one reserved for my AN glasses, in a
clean container next to my enlarger. It is very rarely
used, but handy when needed.
-a compressed gas type of dust blower. I keep a tank of
nitrogen, because I use a lot. But the small hand held
size cans of refrigerant gas, or whatever they package
in them, do the job, too, as would a compressor and
tank setup or even a rubber squeeze bulb. I don't blow
on my negatives because it's just gambling with saliva.
I have taken to taping an extreme edge of my negative
to the outer edge of the negative carrier (not the
glass) to hold it relatively in position, and then
blasting the whole thing with nitrogen. Sometimes one
hears that this is not a wise procedure, because "all
you are doing is pushing the dust around" or some such.
It is a relatively true statement if static electricity
is a factor (see below) but as long as the tiny specks
of dust are pushed around onto the floor, I'm happy. A
clean darkroom is a happy darkroom, true, but really
only the light path *must* be clean.
-proper humidity in the darkroom so dust specks are not
attracted to or held onto the AN glasses by static
electricity. Electrostatic forces can drive you mad in
the darkroom. A relative humidity (RH) readout device
of some sort is an essential darkroom tool. The ones
sold at Radio Shack are more than good enough, because
we do not need exact correctness compared to objective
reality. We only need an approximation and consistency,
so we can adjust the humidifier, which is also an
absolute necessity (along with its sibling, the
dehumidifier, in the climate where I live...). As long
as RH is something like 50 per cent (say 45 to 60) dust
is not held or attracted, and humidity is not too high.
Controlling RH within a range that wide is easy and
cheap (as opposed to say a range of 49.5 to 50.5, which
would cost ...). Note that the appearance of Newton's
rings depends a lot on surface characteristics of
everything sandwiched in the carrier, plus the amount
of moisture in the air (RH again). Too high RH will
promote rings, so it's a balance. It's rather
convenient that the so-called human comfort range for
RH works out to be an appropriate balance for all these
factors (at least for the ordinary films I use,
everything could be different for specialized films).
To return to the original question, a source of
anti-Newton glass, I'd have to say get it from a source
known to be reliable. That's pretty vague, I know, but
crucial to the quality of final prints. There is no
need for AN glass to degrade prints. The statement, 'Do
not use "antinewton" glass for serious job', is the
reverse of the truth.
Regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: port...@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--
Robert M
usenet-Erlick <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> says...
>
> To return to the original question, a source of
> anti-Newton glass, I'd have to say get it from a source
> known to be reliable. That's pretty vague, I know, but
> crucial to the quality of final prints. There is no
> need for AN glass to degrade prints. The statement, 'Do
> not use "antinewton" glass for serious job', is the
> reverse of the truth.
>
> Regards,
> --le
O.K. so you say there are AN glass inserts of a better
quality... I am very interested to see some tests between
various versions of it... the one I used is of very fine
quality, an optical glass, if I could say so, aparature was
Durst Laborator 138 S with double condensors, and lens was
Rodenstock used with one or two stops down, the quality of
prints is not at a trial, and the dust is there because I like
it ;)
And yes, the test is on my site...
Another thing, why don't you stop you're enlarging lens down
few stops, it can help with a curvature of film...?
So I wait for those tests, until then AN glass is a snake oil
for me...
thing is that every AN glass has grainy surface, it's just the
way it works, that surface is very close to the emulsion, only
a base thickness away, and to my knowledge it is not enough...