Above vs Below the lens filters

[Doremus Scudder]

Drew,

Where do you get your coated glass Multigrade filters? Or are you using Tiffen uncoated blue #47 and Green #58 filters?

Doremus

 

[hiroh]

I ordered both above and below the lens ILFORD MG filters, so I'll compare them to see which works better for me.

In the meantime, since the filters won't arrive until the end of next week, can I use the color head dials as filters? How can I find the exact settings that are equivalent or close to the ILFORD grades I've used before? I checked the enlarger manual, but it doesn't mention anything about using these settings.

 

[Mark J]

I'm not aware of there being two types of Ilford multigrade filter - have I missed something ?
There are certainly different sizes.

Hiroh - yes , you can use the colour head dials for Multigrade - it's a shame you've ordered the filters now !
I had assumed you were using a condenser head.
The paper manufacturers ( eg,. Ilford ) give the grade settings for various types of enlarger head in their info leaflets.

 

[Milpool]

Although the Ilford MG filters will give you the widest contrast range (not the biggest deal) dichroic colour (or B&W VC) heads are more convenient.

I don’t think it helps to try to match colour head settings with filter numbers but if you want some starting points I suggest using the following Ilford document in conjunction with the documentation for whichever paper you are using.

Note this exercise will be approximate since it depends on the spectral output of the light source, but plenty good enough for ballparking starting points.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Contrast-control-for-Ilford-Multigrade.pdf

I ordered both above and below the lens ILFORD MG filters, so I'll compare them to see which works better for me.

In the meantime, since the filters won't arrive until the end of next week, can I use the color head dials as filters? How can I find the exact settings that are equivalent or close to the ILFORD grades I've used before? I checked the enlarger manual, but it doesn't mention anything about using these settings.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The widest contrast range would be the difference between a deep blue 47B filter and deep green 61, or, for all practical purposes, a med deep 47 blue and 58 green. Any of these will give a greater contrast effect than a Y versus M filter set, although the extra wiggle room might not actually be needed.

I also have a sharp cutting RGB additive colorhead.

But I totally ignore this or that alleged "grade" equivalents. Even when graded papers were dominant, they differed from one another in specific grade spacing. Simple test strips tell me everything I need to know.

As far as colorhead dial or button settings go, these too differ between brands, and can even be affected by the age and condition of the dichroic filters, or how clean they might or might not be.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Doremus - I did have a number of old Tiffen color sep filters laying around in good condition. They get hazy and need to be cleaned more frequently than coated filters; but it's not like working outdoors with them, and I'm typically working with 8X10 negs anyway with the 12X12 blue-green cold light, so the magnification ratio is modest. My smaller 5X7 enlarger is equipped with an RGB additive head, so I just use its internal filtration selectively in that case if I wish to split print.

But lots of the time I don't need to go to the extremes, and can select from any number of medium blue or medium green multicoated glass filters I have on hand from various makers like Hoya or B&W.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You can find coated blue/green filters but they are pretty rare. I keep a couple around since I used to print everything that way. I’ve switched back to Ilford filters these days for my Focomat and Minox enlargers. My Saunders 4550 has a VCCE which is the nicest way to go.

 

[Don_ih]

There are certainly different sizes

I think that's the only difference. The filters in the plastic frames are 2x2 cut-outs of the larger filters. There seems to be no difference in material.

 

[hiroh]

While waiting for my brand new filters to arrive, I bought some cheap, old ILFORD MG filters from a local classifieds website. However, they are quite worn out, and I think this is significantly affecting the result. Last night, I wasted a lot of paper trying to achieve the right contrast but couldn't figure out what was wrong. The G5 filter didn’t give me any higher contrast than a G2, just a darker image. I think I should either learn how to adjust the color head dials or wait for the new filters to arrive.

 

[MattKing]

Use the colour head.
Were the MG filters Multigrade III filters? If so, they need to be replaced.

 

[pentaxuser]

I ordered both above and below the lens ILFORD MG filters, so I'll compare them to see which works better for me.

The above the lens filters will be filters only as they lie in a filter drawer that is already there. The below the lens will have a filter holder with the means to be attached to the lens and be in a plastic frame for each filter

The difference in price will be substantial as you need the parts described above for the below the lens filters but the filters are the same

You will have 2 sets, both identical so there is no difference in their efficiency but I and others have said this already. If you find that the above the lens filters for your filter drawer less convenient and I cannot work out why this should be then it would have been cheaper to get a secondhand set of below the lens filters comprising of a filter holder and individual plastic filter frames from the likes of e-bay. Then open each plastic frame and take out what may be a worn filter and cutting the new individual filters for the drawer to the same size and inserting them into the plastic frames

It isn't difficult to do as I have done it and it saves a lot of money

Still I suppose you can always sell one set once you have decided which is easier to use

pentaxuser

 

[snusmumriken]

While waiting for my brand new filters to arrive, I bought some cheap, old ILFORD MG filters from a local classifieds website. However, they are quite worn out, and I think this is significantly affecting the result. Last night, I wasted a lot of paper trying to achieve the right contrast but couldn't figure out what was wrong. The G5 filter didn’t give me any higher contrast than a G2, just a darker image. I think I should either learn how to adjust the color head dials or wait for the new filters to arrive.

Yes, the filters do fade over time if exposed to light. Also Ilford changed the filter set a few years back, to match a change to MG paper itself. So used filters are not always a good buy, although if you get lucky you can save a lot of money. See here for all the detail.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

My understanding is that the actual filters are made of the same material so optically are the same in every respect except that below the lens ones need a platform to hold them under the lens and use a plastic frame

I believe Ilford has actually said this somewhere in its literature

pentaxuser

looking at the resulting prints, there is no difference, but below-the-lens filters are easier to hsndle and disturb the setup less when changing filters during printing.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ctein tested both above and below the lens, and he saw no difference in quality. Just make sure your filters are not all scratched up

 

[DREW WILEY]

Andrew, that level of testing was hardly definitive. I've seen the setup. But no doubt with respect to many people on this particular forum, the distinction isn't as relevant as pinning down other enlarging factors first. It also depends on one's personal expectations, degree of magnification, level of contrast, etc.

 

[hiroh]

A bit off-topic, but this relates to the enlarger's built-in red filter. I forgot to check the focus before placing the paper on the easel, so I did it with the paper and red filter in place. The aperture was set to f/4.5, and the total exposure time with the red filter was about 10s. When I developed the print, I could clearly see the circle from the focuser. My question is: Is this normal, or is my red filter too weak? I know that no safelight is completely safe for extended use or when too close to the paper, but I thought 10 seconds would be fine.

 

[Mark J]

I believe those red filters were conceived for use with graded papers that were just sensitive in the blue. There is probably enough orange or green light leaking through it to affect MG paper.

 

[MattKing]

A bit off-topic, but this relates to the enlarger's built-in red filter. I forgot to check the focus before placing the paper on the easel, so I did it with the paper and red filter in place. The aperture was set to f/4.5, and the total exposure time with the red filter was about 10s. When I developed the print, I could clearly see the circle from the focuser. My question is: Is this normal, or is my red filter too weak? I know that no safelight is completely safe for extended use or when too close to the paper, but I thought 10 seconds would be fine.

That may also be the result of some light stray spilling around the holder for the red filter, or reflections of other stray light from the enlarger reflecting off other surfaces nearby.
If the latter, it is important to deal with them, because they will have a deleterious effect on all your prints.

 

[hiroh]

No, there are no leaks because this is a built-in filter located between the lens and bellows. It's very well sealed. When all the lights are off, the only thing I can see is the red light projected onto the easel.

 

[MattKing]

No, there are no leaks because this is a built-in filter located between the lens and bellows. It's very well sealed. When all the lights are off, the only thing I can see is the red light projected onto the easel.

I was referring as well to other potential sources of stray light in your darkroom - things like light coming out from near the negative holder on the enlarger, light from your timer, a safelight that doesn't pass the Kodak safelight test (or something similar), light coming in through the door, etc.
Here is a link to the incredibly boring to do but still valuable Kodak safelight test: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/KODAK-A-Guide-to-Darkroom-Illumination-K-4.pdf

 

[hiroh]

It could be because I used an improvised safelight that day, but it was so far from the paper that I could barely see anything. Yesterday, I purchased proper safelights from Kaiser and Paterson, so I'll repeat the test tonight when I'm printing.

I'm open to any incredibly boring test because it's always beneficial in the long run.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... I think I should either learn how to adjust the color head dials or wait for the new filters to arrive.

Hiroh,

Use the values given in the Ilford document linked to in post #29 for your color head. Then just go from there. More contrast = more magenta or less yellow. Less contrast = less magenta or more yellow. EZPZ. You have downloaded and read that document, right?

And, just don't use that red filter; it makes it hard to see to focus anyway plus it's a longer wavelength that focuses in a different spot that the blue and green the paper is sensitive to. If you forget to focus, put your paper away and focus with white light or the filtration you're using to make the print. Focus wide open then stop down two stops to the lens' sharpest aperture to make the print.

Doremus

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Doremus - I did have a number of old Tiffen color sep filters laying around in good condition. They get hazy and need to be cleaned more frequently than coated filters; but it's not like working outdoors with them, and I'm typically working with 8X10 negs anyway with the 12X12 blue-green cold light, so the magnification ratio is modest. My smaller 5X7 enlarger is equipped with an RGB additive head, so I just use its internal filtration selectively in that case if I wish to split print.

But lots of the time I don't need to go to the extremes, and can select from any number of medium blue or medium green multicoated glass filters I have on hand from various makers like Hoya or B&W.

I've been getting along with my dichroic heads just fine for most of my work, with the occasional use of Wratten #47 and #58 gels when absolutely necessary (I think I've made one or two prints with the #47 only and none with the #58 alone). Really, if you're using the extreme contrast settings a lot, you're not exposing and developing well.

Best,

Doremus

 

[hiroh]

Hiroh,

Use the values given in the Ilford document linked to in post #29 for your color head. Then just go from there. More contrast = more magenta or less yellow. Less contrast = less magenta or more yellow. EZPZ. You have downloaded and read that document, right?

And, just don't use that red filter; it makes it hard to see to focus anyway plus it's a longer wavelength that focuses in a different spot that the blue and green the paper is sensitive to. If you forget to focus, put your paper away and focus with white light or the filtration you're using to make the print. Focus wide open then stop down two stops to the lens' sharpest aperture to make the print.

Doremus

Yes, I downloaded the document and I'm reading about calibration for contrast, and I'd prefer to wait until I get new MG filters so I have a good reference to compare with.

I happen to have a Stouffer 21-step wedge, so I may use it to get the exact values from my color head.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Doremus - most of the time my negs are well within range of straight yellow-green light from the VC54 Aristo head. Then if I wish to tweak more contrast, a moderate blue ordinary 82B cooling filter is ample; or the other direction, a medium green. Rarely do I do true split printing. There are instances where I deliberately want the effect of a thin negative combined with a hard 47 blue filter (47B is overkill).

But in fact, I can obtain nearly identical VC printing results with any of my enlarger heads : VC54 12X12 cold light, Durst CLS301 8X10 conventional colorhead, my 5X7 RGB additive head, or my custom 8X10 additive head. Rarely do I even think about it. It's all become second-nature.