Analyser Pro

Could anybody who has worked with this B&W analyser manufactured by RHDesigns share his/her experiences with this machine? Thinking of buying this analyser but nagged by doubts: is it worth the dough and dies it deliver the goods.

Thanks

Clogz,

I've got one and I love it. It really works as promised and I can recommend it very much. It’s built-in 15 grades step-tablet allows you to make perfect guesses what negative densities will result in which paper densities. You can see how these values change while switching from one gradation to another. So perfect mid-tone separation is at your fingertips while burn-in calculations are just one other button press away, if necessary. No more trial and error printing.
You can even replace the 15 grades step-tablet with your own (i.e. to match warmtone or otherwise toned prints). Precise and quick calibration procedures help you to set up anything. I even use this device for color printing. There is no doubt: this device was built by a Practitioner and not by a Theorist.
The only wish that remains for me is an easier way to calculate and handle Splitgrades. It is possible, but it is sometimes hard to tell which tone values become which after switching to the second or even a third grade. And the necessary time difference calculations have to be done by hand, which seems to be computer irony to me.

Administrators: I would recommend to move this thread to "Darkroom"

I've used the Analyser Pro for a couple of years, and it works well for general subjects such as landscapes, group shots, etc. However, portraits require a bit of work to get skin tones and shadows where I want them. This is because the machine tends toward producing lighter shadows than I generally like. The Analyser Pro manual does point out that portraits are a special case. No doubt you can set up the AP to accomplish whatever tones you like, since the user calibrates the machine for each paper he uses, which allows going for any tones you want at the top and bottom of the scale. And you can set up different calibrations for the same paper to accommodate different subjects. Eight calibration schemes are stored, and I doubt that many of us print on eight different papers. Also, if you use variable-contrast paper and filters, at least Ilford, there's some sort of hiccup in the AP's program that makes the meter's reading for grade 3.5 filters wrong. The manual instructs you to subtract about a third or half a stop of printing time from whatever the meter tells you. This is done simply enough, though, by tapping the time button. (Why is that adjustment not built into the software?) I think the AP needs to be used very frequently, which I don't do, so that the combinations of buttons that must be tapped to invoke its various functions become more habitual and require less thumbing through the manual. I suggest you visit the RH Designs web site and read the AP manual before investing in the device. In general, if I were again shopping for an enlarging meter, I would look for something like the old Heathkit/Mitchell galvanometer device that served me for 30 years until dropping dead in the middle of a printing session. It was simple and totally intuitive to use, since all it did was show the contrast range of the negative.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lemastre @ Jan 4 2003, 02:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>there's some sort of hiccup in the AP's program that makes the meter's reading for grade 3.5 filters wrong. &nbsp;The manual instructs you to subtract about a third or half a stop of printing time from whatever the meter tells you. &nbsp;This is done simply enough, though, by tapping the time button. &nbsp;(Why is that adjustment not built into the software?) </td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Lemastre,

since the RHD-Analyzer allows calibration only to full paper grades. The half grades are interpolated. In the special case of grade 3.5, this interpolation has a little error on certain papers (e.g. Ilford MGIV). This has to do with the fact that the exposure transition from grade 3 to 4 is not linear. The same might happen to a Grade 0.5, but it is hardly visible at these soft grades. The only solution to this would be a calibration to half grades. But this would complicate calibrations otherwise. I prefer it the way it is.

comments to cloqz

I too have an analyzer pro and found it very good to use, for split grade I used to take readings and expose at grade "o" then change to grade "5" and let the analyzer set the new exposure, this method works reasonably well and give good results .

I then adjust the grade "5" to suit my own tastes.

the AP needs regular use to become familular with the controls

Well, I finally got round to buying myself an Analyser pro and after woking with it for some days I have to say it has surprised me with its ease of use and great accuracy. Worth considering, folks!

Hans

Is this available from anybody in North America or only from the UK?

Only thru the UK. I also recently bought one and have been very happy with it after I goofed around awhile trying to use a new used dichroic head that ended up having washed out filters. I switched to under the lens filtration and it performed flawlessly. I really like being able to use the gray scale and see the effects beforehand.

In a recent view camera magazing, I was stated that staining developers caused negatives that will not read properly with a analyser that doesnt read UV - does this analyser work ok with PMK or DiXactol?

With PMK I have no experience, I'm afraid, but you could ask the manufacturers.

www.rhdesigns.co.uk


Good luck

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (fhovie @ Apr 10 2003, 06:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>...does this analyser work ok with PMK or DiXactol?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It depends on whether you use stain to shift grades on VC paper. The Analyzer cannot determine such shifts, because it is not aware of the light color and has no information to determine grades according to light color. All measurements are done without filter. Filter corrections are applied automatically.
Since the Analyzer works basically as an ordinary B&W densitometer, it cannot determine the correct stain densities as most B&W densitometers or lab meters cannot do. All this does not mean that you cannot use the Analyzer with PMK negatives. But it requires some training/experience

I wonder whether it would be necessary to use a channel calibrated for PMK/Dixactol negatives? The reason I think this may be the case is because in the Zonemaster manual (basically an analyzer pro minus timer) states that this is necessary for chromogenic negatives. I found this out when trying to print someone else's XP2 negative.
Also, I think DiXactol negatives need a slightly harder grade than 'normal' with VC papers due to the staining.

HTH


Mark Pope

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Popey @ Apr 16 2003, 10:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>...that this is necessary for chromogenic negatives. I found this out when trying to print someone else's XP2 negative.
Also, I think DiXactol negatives need a slightly harder grade than 'normal' with VC papers due to the staining.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Mark,

don't confuse a mask and pyro stain. The mask of a CN or chromogenic B&W negative has overall the same density. The density of pyro stain depends on the base density of the silver grain.

You may need a little correction for chromogenic negatives, because of the special sepctral chrarcteristics of the sensor (of the Zone Master/Analyzer) and your paper. The sensor might not "see" the same brightness as your paper does. This is usually incorporated into the exposure offset values stored in the device. But as light varies (as it does in case of a colored mask), it may become necessary to adjust these values.

re analyzer pro with pyro and Dixactol developed negs.

I have used the AP with 5x4 pyro negs and have had to make a slight increase in the indicated exposure to get the best results using multigrade papers

I also use Dixactol developer with all my 35mm film, mainly Ilford Delta 100 and Delta 400 without any problems.

I am currently waiting one of these devices, and have been reading up on how I am going to calibrate it, with as little frustration as possible.

I have a Beseler 45, with an old dg dichro color head. I realize I can arbitrarily choose yellow/magenta combinations, and call them "grade 00, grade 1, grade 4", etc.

Can anyone, with a similar setup, post the yellow / magenta combinations they are using that will give approximate even spacing for the various grade numbers?

I can then calibrate the exposure offsets for these values, as well as what the actual ISO numbers are that they produce.

Also, how many different grades will the Analyzer Pro allow me to program? 5 or 6, or, preferably (given a dichro head) more?

JeffD said:

I have a Beseler 45, with an old dg dichro color head. I realize I can arbitrarily choose yellow/magenta combinations, and call them "grade 00, grade 1, grade 4", etc.

Can anyone, with a similar setup, post the yellow / magenta combinations they are using that will give approximate even spacing for the various grade numbers?

I can then calibrate the exposure offsets for these values, as well as what the actual ISO numbers are that they produce.

Also, how many different grades will the Analyzer Pro allow me to program? 5 or 6, or, preferably (given a dichro head) more?

Click to expand...

Hello,

I'm afraid I know nothing about Beseler enlargers/colour heads so forgive me if I'm completely wrong but is the dichro head calibrated to Kodak filter values? If so, you can start with those values recommended by your paper manufacturer for each grade.

The Analyser Pro allows you to enter values for grades 00 to 5, in full grade intervals. So, that's 7 steps. It then calculates the "correct" values for half grade values.

Mike

Table from Ilford documentation for MG-IV filtering - according to the doc, Beseler use Kodak values. These give (alleged) equal exposure times for each grade:


Cheers, Bob.

Count me as another happy customer. I've had it almost 2 years, and it's a pleasure to use. As stated above, regular use makes it a bit easier, particularly for some of the more advanced functions. One of things I like most about it is the test strip generator, as I can get to a proof print after one shot. I'm certain that it's paid for itself in saved paper. A review of the manual pre-purchase will give you a pretty good sense of it's capabilities.

I've already got the "Stop Clock" timer, which is great. I am acquiring an analyzer to use in conjunction with it.

I think that the Analyzer connects to the timer and somehow transfers it's values to the timer. Then, the timer appears to have the capability to add additional burn in "steps", after the initial base exposure.

I have already had pretty good luck using fstop thinking in my printing, usina a chart that someone published on the Internet. It will be nice to program the sequence into the timer!

Bob F. said:

Table from Ilford documentation for MG-IV filtering - according to the doc, Beseler use Kodak values. These give (alleged) equal exposure times for each grade:

Code:

[B] MG	Durst	Durst	Kodak	Leitz
FILTER	(max	(max		Focomat
GRADE	170M)	130M)		V35[/B]
00	115Y/0M	120Y/0M	162Y/0M	135Y/6M
0	100Y/5M	88Y/6M	90Y/0M	105Y/12M
1/2	88Y/7M	78Y/8M	78Y/5M	77Y/11M
1	75Y/10M	64Y/12M	68Y/10M	67Y/17M
11/2	65Y/15M	53Y/17M	49Y/23M	52Y/28M
2	52Y/20M	45Y/24M	41Y/32M	39Y/43M
21/2	42Y/28M	35Y/31M	32Y/42M	32Y/51M
3	34Y/45M	24Y/42M	23Y/56M	23Y/62M
31/2	27Y/60M	17Y/53M	15Y/75M	14Y/79M
4	17Y/76M	10Y/69M	6Y/102M	10Y/95M
41/2	10Y/105M6Y/89M	0Y/150M	15Y/154M
5	0Y/170M	0Y/130M	   –	0Y/200M

Cheers, Bob.

Click to expand...

Seeing Bob's reply quoting Ilford Multigrade dual filltration has given me to opportunity to ask a couple of questions relating to these filtrations.

My Durst 605 is 130M max but as there are Durst enlargers with 170M max and both produce grade 5 then am I correct in assuming that each M on a 170 is only a proportion( fixed or otherwise) of an M on a 130. Otherwise the 170 max would not be needed as this is 40 units more than is required for grade 5 which is presumably the max grade possible with Ilford Multigrade.

If this is the case then the ratio between 170M and 130M does not seem to produce the equivalents at less than grade 5 i.e. at grade 41/2 89M(130M max) has an equivalent at 116M(170M max) but the correct filtration is 105M So it would appear that less magenta is required than the fixed ratio would indicate.

On the Y range you'd at least expect the same level of Y would be needed to produce grade 00 on both ranges but in fact the 130Y range requires more Y than the 170Y range which seems contradictory.

It may be that there is not a fixed ratio between the Y's and M's on each range and in fact the Durst Colour Filter circular hand calculator would seem to indicate that higher Y and M content alter the exposure less than lower Y and M. So the first 10 units(0-10) of both M and Y increase exposure more than 10 units between 40 and 50.

I am not sure whether this explains the Ilford Multigrade dual filtration chart. Whether it does or not I cannot see what the explanation is. So there may be more to this than meets my eye.

Can any of you technical buffs explain it in layman's terms?

Of course I could just accept it as a given and it makes no practical difference to my printing skills EXCEPT that understanding the theory stops the distraction of my pondering this forever.

Pentaxuser