Negative carriers size for black borders

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Aryel said:

One thing that I never noticed before doing it and really enjoy is how the borders differ from negative to negative. They are really part of the image.

This being said, on most of my images, the left and right borders do not come up black but bleed.  Is it related to the lens and aperture used whilst shooting?

Almost certainly, probably overexposed or overdeveloped.

Could be flare from a light source too.

Edited January 13 by Ornello

[Aryel]

10 hours ago, M.Hilo said:

You mean the left and right borders look white-ish, right?

Yes, top and bottom are always black, left and right sometimes yes, sometimes no. 
 

10 hours ago, Ornello said:

Almost certainly, probably overexposed or overdeveloped.

Thanks a lot, I’ll add this to the list of things to look at. I don’t think the issue lies with development: it should have impacted all borders.

I am compiling a small list of things to check and compare in order to try to narrow it down. I have photos with black borders and some with the greyish border so trying to work it out this way first.  I’ll try to take some photos of the negative in the holder next time I print. Just to confirm the basics first. 

In any case, it is definitely not a show stopper, I like it most of the time and I can still mask it with the easel anytime.

Thanks a lot 😊
 

edit: Forgot to say, I did not play with weird films yet

Edited January 14 by Aryel

[M.Hilo]

I would look closely (with a loupe) at the negatives. Between images it should be transparent. When it isn't this could be about film developing and agitation in particular.

Your image in post 55 does not show this whitening! Why? Did someone else develop this film? Different camera?

I agree it looks fun sometimes, but you should understand where this comes from

[Pyrogallol]

Did you hold back the bottom left hand corner when you printed it? That could account for the black border being lighter there.

[stray cat]

It looks to me a lot like it's a simple matter of not filing enough off the left and right ends - you're hardly exposing any of the rebate area of the negative. The lighter bits (which I like) are the actual filed bits of the negative carrier itself - in effect, you've printed a photo of them. Again, I personally really like that look, and the fact that each time it produces something that is slightly different, although that look might not be for everyone.

[Aryel]

8 hours ago, M.Hilo said:

I would look closely (with a loupe) at the negatives. Between images it should be transparent. When it isn't this could be about film developing and agitation in particular.

Your image in post 55 does not show this whitening! Why? Did someone else develop this film? Different camera?

I agree it looks fun sometimes, but you should understand where this comes from

The negatives look clean in between… Yes, the image from 55 was developed by a lab. It was also a different camera and lens as well.  

 

6 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

Did you hold back the bottom left hand corner when you printed it? That could account for the black border being lighter there.

Yes, indeed but the issue is a bit different I think.  You can see other examples, initially, I thought this was due to the 35mm lens:

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
Hallo Gast!
Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!

 

5 hours ago, stray cat said:

It looks to me a lot like it's a simple matter of not filing enough off the left and right ends - you're hardly exposing any of the rebate area of the negative. The lighter bits (which I like) are the actual filed bits of the negative carrier itself - in effect, you've printed a photo of them. Again, I personally really like that look, and the fact that each time it produces something that is slightly different, although that look might not be for everyone.

This sounds like it could be it. I will measure the mask to check it out. Thanks a lot for the suggestion. 
 

My next step is to measure the masks and continue to compare prints. It also works well sometimes (this was with the 50 rigid as well):

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
Hallo Gast!
Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!

 

Thanks a lot everyone 😊

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How are you developing the film? The images look very grainy. Which film?

[Pyrogallol]

Different cameras have slightly different frame sizes, even if they’re all called 24x36mm. When you are using a cut out negative carrier to print the rebates it’s more obvious, as is the difference when using wider angle lenses or tele’ lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Aryel]

24 minutes ago, Ornello said:

How are you developing the film? The images look very grainy. Which film?

The grainy one was ilford delta 3200. I expose at 1600 and develop it with dd-x at 3200. This last print is from a negative developed in ilfotec dd by a lab. 
 

 

5 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

Different cameras have slightly different frame sizes, even if they’re all called 24x36mm. When you are using a cut out negative carrier to print the rebates it’s more obvious, as is the difference when using wider angle lenses or tele’ lenses.

Thanks, this combined with @stray cat’s suggestion would explain why they came up black in some cases and grey in others.   I will check it out. Would the aperture used during shooting have an impact as well? 
 

Thank you 😊 

[Pyrogallol]

I don’t think the aperture will make any difference.

[Ornello]

38 minutes ago, Aryel said:

The grainy one was ilford delta 3200. I expose at 1600 and develop it with dd-x at 3200. This last print is from a negative developed in ilfotec dd by a lab. 
 

 

OK. Just so you know, an 8 x 10 print from Delta 3200 should show hardly any grain, when exposed at ISO speed (1000) and 'normally' developed. I did a test not long ago. That particular film is kind of tricky, and I doubt whether most commercial labs have the knowledge to process it optimally. It is about two stops faster than Tri-X.

 

Here's some info:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/getting-density-with-delta-3200-in-pyrocat-hd.179108/

https://fotoimport.no/filmDelta3200

Edited January 14 by Ornello

[250swb]

On 1/14/2022 at 3:34 PM, Aryel said:

The grainy one was ilford delta 3200. I expose at 1600 and develop it with dd-x at 3200. This last print is from a negative developed in ilfotec dd by a lab. 
 

The grain looks very good, it's something you should expect when using a faster film and something you can use for emotional effect. 

[Aryel]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

The grain looks very good, it's something you should expect when using a faster film and something you can use for emotional effect. 

Yes, I fully agree. I particularly love delta 3200 and use it a lot both in 35 and 120. 

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
Hallo Gast!
Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!

Edited January 21 by Aryel

[Aryel]

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
Hallo Gast!
Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
Hallo Gast!
Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!

I thought the top border would show up… Do you think it is because the negative wasn’t centered? 

I suspect that I am doing something silly somewhere (it was not the easel’s blade). 
Any ideas?

[otto.f]

Could the paper have been exposed from left above? The doors at the left are even grey on the negative, on the print they become lighter towards the top

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[M.Hilo]

Probably your negative strip (?) just moved when you slipped the carrier into the enlarger. Or you moved the strip while it was already in there . . .

 

 

 

Edited January 22 by M.Hilo

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stray cat]

I'm pretty sure what happens is the two pieces of the carrier which sandwich the negative move relative to each other when you slide the carrier into the enlarger eg the lower piece of metal moves to the left and the upper piece moves right or vice-versa. So that, while the sides of the frame (the longer edge of the photo) remain constant (they appear to be exactly the same in the picture  of the carrier as they have printed on your print) the top and bottom have moved relative to each other in opposite directions so that the light has a smaller area to shine through. You'll find that your negative carrier has some play - not side to side, but top to bottom.

The solution is to ensure you grip the negative carrier tightly as you slide it into position in the enlarger, ensuring that the two metal plates don't move relative to one another.

No-one said it would necessarily be easy 😒. Anyway, there is a lot to be said for the random border as in your picture above.

Edited January 22 by stray cat

[otto.f]

1 hour ago, M.Hilo said:

Probably your negative strip (?) just moved when you slipped the carrier into the enlarger. Or you moved the strip while it was already in there . . .

 

 

 

That’s what I thought too, but the whole top is overexposed

[Aryel]

6 hours ago, otto.f said:

Could the paper have been exposed from left above? The doors at the left are even grey on the negative, on the print they become lighter towards the top

I checked on the scan and yes, maybe there is something strange  below is the scan from the lab:

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.
Hallo Gast!
Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!

Only thing I did is slightly dodge the top part (above the brick wall) and the face…  I did not touch the doors. Sorry, I should have shared this information about the top earlier.

 

5 hours ago, M.Hilo said:

Probably your negative strip (?) just moved when you slipped the carrier into the enlarger. Or you moved the strip while it was already in there . . .

 

5 hours ago, stray cat said:

I'm pretty sure what happens is the two pieces of the carrier which sandwich the negative move relative to each other when you slide the carrier into the enlarger eg the lower piece of metal moves to the left and the upper piece moves right or vice-versa. So that, while the sides of the frame (the longer edge of the photo) remain constant (they appear to be exactly the same in the picture  of the carrier as they have printed on your print) the top and bottom have moved relative to each other in opposite directions so that the light has a smaller area to shine through. You'll find that your negative carrier has some play - not side to side, but top to bottom.

The solution is to ensure you grip the negative carrier tightly as you slide it into position in the enlarger, ensuring that the two metal plates don't move relative to one another.

No-one said it would necessarily be easy 😒. Anyway, there is a lot to be said for the random border as in your picture above.

Just finished printing and yes, looks like this is what happened for the borders. Same roll, and same lens, this time the borders on the left and right are really thin but they are here. I just made sure it did not move. Will scan the print tomorrow. 

Thank you so much once again. I am learning new things with each print. 

[M.Hilo]

I don't know this Kienzle enlarger. A question: Once you slide in the negative carrier is there still a way to slightly raise the top glass? If there is that's when you position the negative correctly. While projecting the image in the dark.

This is what some enlargers allow for and others not.

I also want to compliment you with this last picture, it's very nice. Worth getting right in printing. I would use the border on the top and burn the top slightly. I would also print it without any border because that will teach you how to get the right balance. Your black border, even while nice, is not helping you in that respect. I prefer the first version, because of the beautiful light, you could have just given the top slightly more. If your exposure time it short, consider closing a bit more. It may help.