I agree, I cut them from thin black plastic. Regards Ralph W. Lambrecht http://www.darkroomagic.com On 2006-01-31 19:53, "Sandor Mathe" <sandorm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I am lucky to have a Durst 138. I have the mixing chambers for 5x7" (13x8cm) > and 6x9 cm. I've never used the 6x9 chamber, though if I were to print 35mm > with this enlarger I may try it. > > I agree with Lloyd that the glass carrier for your largest negative is all you > need. You can make a mask from a sheet of waste film or black paper for all > the smaller formats. > > Sandor > > > > Gianni Rondinini <bugbarbeq@xxxxxxx> > Sent by: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 01/31/2006 12:48 PM > Please respond to > pure-silver > To > pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > cc > Subject > [pure-silver] Re: help with finding an 4x5" enlarger > > > > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:09:22 -0500, you (Lloyd Erlick > <lloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>) wrote: > >> >I've been using an L1200 for a decade. I bought it brand new, and I went a >> >little overboard on the trimmings. I bought all the little doodads that > [...] >> >work the price down. I think it's still possible to buy anti-Newton >> >negative carrier glasses from Durst if a new one seems in order. > > this is a very good suggestion. thanks lloyd. > since you've used it longly with all the accessories, i trust in the > fact longer/shorter exposures don't make that difference. > > and i'd like to say once more, since i know some friends of a similar > italian list are subscribed to this one, too, that i'm quite a newbie > in darkroom, then i probably wouldn't able to notice any difference. > > i fell a little bit ashamed saying this, but i have 2 different > condensers for my agfa enlarger and can't find *any* difference > between them. i know one is for 135 and one is for 120->6x9, but i > can't figure out which. > >> >But if I had to use condenser, I'd definitely see if the 4x5 condenser set >> >did the trick for smaller formats. The added brightness just isn't worth >> >the huge money. > > ok, thank you once more. > > regards,