Negative carriers size for black borders

[Aryel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

After seeing some beautiful images with black border in this forum I have decided to give it a try. As far as I understood, the easiest way is to get a slightly larger negative carrier.

Am I right to think that I will need: 25x37mm?

Does the same method works with 6x6? In this case 57x57mm?

Thanks a lot!

Aryel

Edited November 13, 2021 by Aryel

[stray cat]

Hi Aryel,

The way I did it was to just take a normal negative carrier and slightly file the edges. This gives you a nice black border and of course you can file to taste. If you don't want light reflecting back into the black areas of the negative rebate you can of course put some black paint where your filing has exposed the metal. I didn't - I kept the metal as filed because I like that slight bleeding of light.

You might want to ensure you have access to a spare negative carrier in case you get too enthusiastic with the filing.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Aryel]

3 minutes ago, stray cat said:

Hi Aryel,

The way I did it was to just take a normal negative carrier and slightly file the edges. This gives you a nice black border and of course you can file to taste. If you don't want light reflecting back into the black areas of the negative rebate you can of course put some black paint where your filing has exposed the metal. I didn't - I kept the metal as filed because I like that slight bleeding of light.

You might want to ensure you have access to a spare negative carrier in case you get too enthusiastic with the filing.

Thanks a lot for the tips. I am planning to order them and have two sets.  Kienzle still manufactures them for my enlarger. Just want to make sure I have the sizes right 😊

Edited November 13, 2021 by Aryel

[M.Hilo]

It first depends on which enlarger(s) you have. The Leitz Valoy II and Focomat Ic use the same negative holders and these already show a fine border, which is slightly fuzzy on the outsides. Each camera gives it's own size negative.

As Stray Cat says it is a matter of filing out . . .

[Aryel]

I use a Kienzle t69. Currently planning to order a new negative carrier with:

(1) 25x37mm (2) 57x57mm

i want to make sure that I understood the dimensions correctly.  

Hoping that this way, it comes with the correct sizes without me destroying a few in the process 🙈
 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Aryel

[250swb]

You may also have to factor in negatives made with a wide angle lens are bigger because of the light spread than with a 50mm, not by much but possibly enough to throw out calculations. 

[Pyrogallol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There  has been another thread on the same subject recently.

I usually print the whole negative with a black border showing. I filed out a spare bottom carrier panel and made a cardboard top one for my Durst enlarger. You have to be careful with the filing as any errors will be magnified by the act of enlarging the picture.

i made another top panel with a smaller window to suit a 24x24mm Robot negative.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Pyrogallol]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Pyrogallol]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Aryel]

Thanks, most of my photos are with 50mm for now so maybe I will keep it simple for my first trial. I can always try filing it later I guess. 

Thanks a lot. 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Aryel

[Aryel]

15 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

This looks very neat. Will try filing out gently if adding 1mm isn’t enough. 
 

thanks 🙏 

[Ornello]

On 11/13/2021 at 4:31 AM, Aryel said:

Hello,

After seeing some beautiful images with black border in this forum I have decided to give it a try. As far as I understood, the easiest way is to get a slightly larger negative carrier.

Am I right to think that I will need: 25x37mm?

Does the same method works with 6x6? In this case 57x57mm?

Thanks a lot!

Aryel

The carriers are slightly smaller than the negative image area for a reason. (Also, most camera viewfinders give you a little more on the negative than is shown in the finder, except the Nikon F series, for some idiotic reason.) It increases flare if light comes around the sides of the image area. It's best simply to mount your prints with a black board if you want a black border.

Who started this fad, and why?

Edited November 15, 2021 by Ornello

[Pyrogallol]

Blame Cartier Bresson.

[Ornello]

22 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

Blame Cartier Bresson.

Bresson, get thee behind me!

Edited November 15, 2021 by Ornello

[250swb]

13 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

Blame Cartier Bresson.

Worst influencer ever 😄

Yes there's a lot of flare in Bresson prints, or should that be 'flair'?

There's perfectly good reasons for the convention of using black borders. In Bresson's case his printer was banging out prints to be sent to magazines, and picture editors like to know if the image has been previously cropped, just so they can make a quick assessment on how much they can crop and keep quality when filling a space on the page. The second is a well known visual phenomena that up against a white border the edge tones in a B&W photo can appear lighter so it looks like a mild inverted vignette is happening. This should be remedied in a print on white paper by gently burning the edges of the print to visually counter the lighter vignette effect, or just print the black border so the image area isn't adjacent to white. And in Bresson's, and many other photographers cases, the final reason would be to show they stand by whatever is included in the negative, warts and all. There is an argument black borders show the accuracy of vision, but on the other hand we all know there is a no-mans-land around the edge of the Barnack or M Leica's viewfinder where feet, elbows, twigs, etc. can magically appear in the negative. If you want accuracy and don't want to waste negative area by cropping back down to what you hoped you'd framed use a Nikon with 100% view.

If flare is a problem from the bevelled edge of a printing easel tape a strip of black card onto the easel to mask the bevel, it's not rocket science. And if flare comes from very long exposures of the negative you've got other things to worry about.

 

[Pyrogallol]

I understand that HCB did not allow editors to crop his pictures, so he had the black rebates on the negative printed so that it was obvious if the picture when published had been cropped. The only well known exception was the man hopping over the puddle where half the picture was obscured by a fence, which is cropped out in the published version.

[Ornello]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

Worst influencer ever 😄

Yes there's a lot of flare in Bresson prints, or should that be 'flair'?

There's perfectly good reasons for the convention of using black borders. In Bresson's case his printer was banging out prints to be sent to magazines, and picture editors like to know if the image has been previously cropped, just so they can make a quick assessment on how much they can crop and keep quality when filling a space on the page. The second is a well known visual phenomena that up against a white border the edge tones in a B&W photo can appear lighter so it looks like a mild inverted vignette is happening. This should be remedied in a print on white paper by gently burning the edges of the print to visually counter the lighter vignette effect, or just print the black border so the image area isn't adjacent to white. And in Bresson's, and many other photographers cases, the final reason would be to show they stand by whatever is included in the negative, warts and all. There is an argument black borders show the accuracy of vision, but on the other hand we all know there is a no-mans-land around the edge of the Barnack or M Leica's viewfinder where feet, elbows, twigs, etc. can magically appear in the negative. If you want accuracy and don't want to waste negative area by cropping back down to what you hoped you'd framed use a Nikon with 100% view.

If flare is a problem from the bevelled edge of a printing easel tape a strip of black card onto the easel to mask the bevel, it's not rocket science. And if flare comes from very long exposures of the negative you've got other things to worry about.

 

The flare I am referring to is not from the easel, but from light coming around the blank edges of the negative. Bresson perhaps didn't know (or care) about this. There is flare in every optical system, but there is no reason to encourage it!

There are two different purposes for the black border: 1. Confirming that the image is not cropped. 2. Surrounding the image with a black edge.

Perhaps it should be pointed out that an affidavit (that the image had not been cropped) would work as well for the first, and mounting with a double mat would do well for the second. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Ornello

[aesop]

On 11/13/2021 at 9:31 AM, Aryel said:

Hello,

After seeing some beautiful images with black border in this forum I have decided to give it a try. As far as I understood, the easiest way is to get a slightly larger negative carrier.

Am I right to think that I will need: 25x37mm?

Does the same method works with 6x6? In this case 57x57mm?

Thanks a lot!

Aryel

 

   ...I use a 25 x 37 negative holder (Leica cat. # 17012) on my Focomat V35 - it has AN glass on both sides and produces a well-defined black border. Very easy to work with and no issues (flare or otherwise) with wide or ultra-wide shots.

 

 

[Ornello]

1 hour ago, aesop said:

 

   ...I use a 25 x 37 negative holder (Leica cat. # 17012) on my Focomat V35 - it has AN glass on both sides and produces a well-defined black border. Very easy to work with and no issues (flare or otherwise) with wide or ultra-wide shots.

 

 

You may not notice the flare increase except in direct comparison with a print from a smaller carrier. All lenses suffer from flare to some extent. The areas of thinnest density in properly exposed negative have more density than the 'rebate' area (the 'blank' areas surrounding the exposed portion); thus, allowing additional light from those areas to pass through the lens will increase flare above that generated from the image area alone.

The result may resemble the slight 'fogging' from excessive safelight exposure. There is also the possibility of this light reflecting from the easel.

It seems absurd to me to use the finest equipment and lenses (I use a Focotar-2 50mm enlarging lens) only to degrade the image in this way. Delicate and subtle tonal differences are what we pay for with Leica lenses. Why throw that away? The Focotar-2, by the way, is the best enlarging lens that I know of.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Ornello

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[aesop]

15 hours ago, Ornello said:

You may not notice the flare increase except in direct comparison with a print from a smaller carrier. All lenses suffer from flare to some extent. The areas of thinnest density in properly exposed negative have more density than the 'rebate' area (the 'blank' areas surrounding the exposed portion); thus, allowing additional light from those areas to pass through the lens will increase flare above that generated from the image area alone.

The result may resemble the slight 'fogging' from excessive safelight exposure. There is also the possibility of this light reflecting from the easel.

It seems absurd to me to use the finest equipment and lenses (I use a Focotar-2 50mm enlarging lens) only to degrade the image in this way. Delicate and subtle tonal differences are what we pay for with Leica lenses. Why throw that away? The Focotar-2, by the way, is the best enlarging lens that I know of.

 

          …thanks for the treatise, Ornello.

Alas, I have not had any real-world issues using the 17012, probably because my day-to-day rarely involves direct comparisons between carriers. For context, I've enjoyed shooting and printing using Leitz/Leica hardware since last century. That notwithstanding, you may be on to something here - the corollary being that the boffins at Leica knowingly manufactured and sold oodles of ‘defective’ negative carriers. Yikes.

Re: the Focotar-2 50mm, I still own one of these superb lenses but, without theorising or generalising too much (what light source, anyone?🙄), regularly pick Schneider’s APO-Componon 40mm ahead of it.

Another equally absurd choice, non? YMMV. Of course.