Aristo D-2 + Variable Contrast Papers... too contrasty ?

I recently upgraded my Aristo D-2 Cold Light Head by replacing the 20-year-old lamp with a new one recommended by Aristo. I notice that my prints are rather contrasty, even though I am using Ilford VC paper and Ilford VC filters.

In the short-term. I have had to dilute my Ansco 130 paper developer quite a bit, or use Selctol Soft, or make Number 1 my default filter.

Has anyone else encountered the same problem ? Is there a remedy, other than changing my film development times ?

Sounds sort of familiar...you might find an answer here;

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Did you use VC papers before you got the new lamp, or did you try VC paper after? Did the folks at Aristo know you were using, or intended on using VC papers?

Murray

MurrayMinchin said:

Did you use VC papers before you got the new lamp, or did you try VC paper after? Did the folks at Aristo know you were using, or intended on using VC papers?
Murray

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. Very helpful !!

The last time I used my lamp was over 20 years ago, when different papers were in common use. Prior to that, over 30 years ago, when still another set of papers were available.

I'll get a filter right away.

Thanks for all the info.

I contacted Aristo, and told them about the information on the Ilford site, which details their use of an Aristo W45 lamp and a CC40Y filter (recommended by Aristo).

Aristo told me that the W45 is an older lamp, which due to limitations of the art at that time (20 years ago) emitted a small amount outside the blue/green portion of the spectrum.

Due to advances, their current lamp (the one to which I recently upgraded), the V54, emits light only in the blue/green portion of the spectrum (no Red), and thus requires no compensation.

Aristo asked me about the age of my Ilford Filters, suggesting that my filters (aquired used) might have been made to match the older W45 lamp, rather than the newer V45 lamp. Aristo also pointed out that over time, filters can become discolored.

So here's another question: How to contact Ilford (whose datasheet seems to be obsolete) and ask them about compatibility with modern lamps ?

I wouldn't really worry about what Ilford or Aristo says and would just run my own tests. You just need to establish where "normal" is for your negs (why not just make #1 the default?) and work from there, or add yellow filtration so that "normal" is where you want it. Try 20Y, 30Y, and 40Y, with a #2 filter and that should put you in the ballpark.

David A. Goldfarb said:

Try 20Y, 30Y, and 40Y, with a #2 filter and that should put you in the ballpark.

Click to expand...

David - Will a variety of Yellow filters work, when the light itself is in the blue/green area of the spectrum - or will it just darken the light source ?

Sorry, I'm not clear if you have printed your negs in the last 20 years. If so, and if it was on a diffusion enlarger, that might account for the difference in paper grades. If not, you may have gotten used to developing harder negs with the W45's odd output spectrum.

Other than that, printing on G1 is not so bad, you can still go two grades softer if needed and you can always target your new negs to print on G2.

Cheers, Bob.

David is offline at the mo, so I will take the liberty...

A yellow filter will block blue light. The high contrast emulsion in the VC paper is sensitive to blue light so putting a low value yellow filter in the path acts to reduce the overall contrast as the filter does not block any of the green light to which the low contrast emulsion is sensitive. Effectively, it selectively "darkens" the blue light from the lamp.

That was why the old lamp needed a CC40Y - presumably it emitted more in the blue than the green. The CC40Y evened up the spectrum of the light hitting the paper. This should not be necessary with the new lamp if Aristo are correct about it's even output.


Cheers, Bob.

Bob - Your advice is sound. It's probably best to run some new tests and get my negatives to print nicely with my setup.

I just want to make sure that there isn't some known issue with my lamp, or with Ilford papers in particular.

I have used a cold light head since the early 1970's, and my tests throughout the years have given me film speed and developing times that matched those used by other practitioners.

In recent years, I had been developing my B&W negatives for scanning - but now I see the light, and have gone back to Analog Silver prints.

Ken - I had your exact experience, replacing a 20 year old V45 (high intensity) lamp with the V54, at the same time moving from graded Seagull to Forte VC Fiber. I had the same experience with contrast, and had discussions with Rick Mehta (Aristo engineer) and Steve Anchill, who both assured me that there was no need of a yellow cc compensator. I kept working, made lots of prints. My eventual feeling is that, there may be a slightly higher contrast to the system. I find myself using filters in the 1/2 to 2 range for most work that would have been grade 2 before. However, the paper and filter combination articulates so much more detail in the shadows, that I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what "normal" is. If I wanted to, I could reduce film exposure, but I want to optimize tonal separation in the negs, so I don't want to do that. I have never needed a filter below 00 (I use the Ilford filters, in a Omega D-2, the Aristo head with the filter drawer above the neg stage-it's brighter than the dual bulb version, Aristo will tell you that). Most of my prints are made splitting the exposure between a 0 - 1 filter and a 4 - 5 filter, anyway. If I ever need lower than 00, I'll go out and buy a 40ccy.