Color head (CLS66) on the Durst M601, why don't I see the max 130???

Hello,

This is a question for all users of a Durst M601 with a color head (CLS 66). If you use the color head to dial in your preferred filters what do you do with filter 4.5 and 5??? On the color head I don't see number 130? The last number I see is 100??

I am using the single filter settings as provided by ilford:
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Contrast-control-for-Ilford-Multigrade.pdf
and I am curious which color heads has a max of 130??

From memory I don't think the CLS66 went as high as later Dursts on the Magenta filtration, I still have mine tucked away stored in my Darkroom. They pre0date modern Multigrade and similar papers. You need to get a set of Multigrade below the lens filters for the higher contrasts.

Ian

I have both a colour head and a set of under the lens Ilford MG filters and now use the latter for b&w printing. The grade 5 gets you grade 5 and using them is something I find to be simpler than using the colour filters

pentaxuser

Ian Grant said:

From memory I don't think the CLS66 went as high as later Dursts on the Magenta filtration, I still have mine tucked away stored in my Darkroom. They pre0date modern Multigrade and similar papers. You need to get a set of Multigrade below the lens filters for the higher contrasts.

Ian

Click to expand...

Ah, ok I also have the below the lens filter set. But just turning 1 knob seemed to be very easy. I just didn't realize filters 4-5 couldn't be reached with the color head and just using a single setting.
But with the combo Y/M it seems filter 4.5 can be reached by the setting 6Y + 89M or is this not correct as the maximum M doesn't correspond with the durst paper manual???

pentaxuser said:

I have both a colour head and a set of under the lens Ilford MG filters and now use the latter for b&w printing. The grade 5 gets you grade 5 and using them is something I find to be simpler than using the colour filters

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Hello,
Tx and yes I also have the below the lens filters. It surprises me that the maximum number doesn't correspond to the color head as I think the CLS66 is the most used color head back in the days (my bad to assume ilford made paper based on Durst enlarger).

Thanks again for your time

I used the same head on whatever the 6x9 enlarger is.

Turning magenta to 100 got contrast up to about grade 3.5 to 4 using stepwedge and you are probably losing a stop with a diffusion enlarger vs condenser and i dont think ive ever reached grade 5 with ilford filters so you can just use the head and develop longer.

You can calibrate the head with a stepwedge and from memory i never used any yellow at all. No filtration was grade 0 then keep adding magenta moved it through the grades.

Craig75 said:

I used the same head on whatever the 6x9 enlarger is.

Turning magenta to 100 got contrast up to about grade 3.5 to 4 using stepwedge and you are probably losing a stop with a diffusion enlarger vs condenser and i dont think ive ever reached grade 5 with ilford filters so you can just use the head and develop longer.

You can calibrate the head with a stepwedge and from memory i never used any yellow at all. No filtration was grade 0 then keep adding magenta moved it through the grades.

Click to expand...

I can speak for all b&w papers but for Ilford MG paper no filter is the equivalent of grade 2 and the lower filters for less than grade 2 do work. If no filtration was 0 then why would Ilford in its filter sets or in its figures for Y and M settings for different makes of enlargers give the user Y and M settings?

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

I can speak for all b&w papers but for Ilford MG paper no filter is the equivalent of grade and the lower filters for less than grade 2 do work. If no filtration was 0 then why would Ilford in its filter sets or in its figures for Y and M settings for different makes of enlargers give the user Y and M settings?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Thats what this head gave when i tested it with stepwedge.

IIRC, Durst used there are two different Durst filter scales - one to 130, and the other to 170.
The actual filtration wasn't different between the two options, just the scales.
If your dials stop at 100, either there is a problem with them, or the head has been modified.

MattKing said:

IIRC, Durst used there are two different Durst filter scales - one to 130, and the other to 170.
The actual filtration wasn't different between the two options, just the scales.
If your dials stop at 100, either there is a problem with them, or the head has been modified.

Click to expand...

no the head is right - mine stopped at 100 too - these heads were before the 130 and 170 scales came in

Craig75 said:

no the head is right - mine stopped at 100 too - these heads were before the 130 and 170 scales came in

Click to expand...

Good to know.
Of course this means that the table in the Ilford reference linked to above doesn't apply to that version of the head.

MattKing said:

Good to know.
Of course this means that the table in the Ilford reference linked to above doesn't apply to that version of the head.

Click to expand...

exactly.

i found the quickest way to work out what the head was doing was just print a stepwedge at 100y, no filtration, and 100m and from memory
100y was way beyond 00 grade soft
no filtration was about grade 0
10m was grade 1
100m was grade 3.5 / 4

basically it starts off super soft with no filtration and you just keep adding magenta to increase contrast. no need to even go near the yellow filtration dial ever.

this is long time ago but I dont think grade 5 filter under lens made any difference. it still maxed out around grade 4. in fact i'd be very surprised if any diffusion enlarger ever approached true grade 5 with ilford filters.

pentaxuser said:

I can speak for all b&w papers but for Ilford MG paper no filter is the equivalent of grade and the lower filters for less than grade 2 do work. If no filtration was 0 then why would Ilford in its filter sets or in its figures for Y and M settings for different makes of enlargers give the user Y and M settings?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

here you go

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

"The suggested filtration in the following tables can only be a guide, because individual enlargers vary. The actual filtration for a particular enlarger must be determined by trial"

and

"MULTIGRADE papers are designed for use with both diffuser and condenser enlargers. However, because of the different types of illumination there can be a contrast difference between the two types. In practical terms with most negatives, condenser enlargers give about an extra grade of contrast compared with a diffuser enlarger"

My post, Craig75, was attempting to point out that an Ilford MGIV sheet without any filtration of either the Ilford fllter kind or of the dichroic head filtration kind of Y and M is about grade 2

This seems to be borne out by Ilford's chart for Ilford MGIV paper as follows: Multigrade filter 2 is the equivalent of all zeros on the dichroic head settings and I'd have thought that no matter what the enlarger head is a zero is a zero so to speak. So that suggests that intrinsically MGIV paper without any filter is grade 2 but yes I do accept that with a 100 Y or M max head you settings both above and below grade 2 will be different. With MG Ilford filters MGIV achieves grades lower than grade 2 by use of the lower grade filters. It was these filters I was suggesting that the OP might want to get to make life simpler.

If you say that with the CLS 66 colour head gives grade 0 with no filtration then I will not argue but it just seems strange that with the 130 M head that I have got Ilford claims grade 5 at the max of 130M with that head and then goes on to say:*Some enlargers in this group have a maximum magenta setting higher or lower than 170M. For these enlargers, set the highest possible magenta value as an approximate equivalent to filter 5 but if that is not your experience then fine. It would also seem that on the 605 head that grade 0 needs 70Y but on the CLS66 head 5 this drops to no Y filtration at all. However if that is your findings then fine.

Given that the best the CLS head can give in the higher grades is 3.5/4 but can go way beyond OO at the lower end this again points to the benefits of Ilford MG filters which as I said was my point to the OP

Just as a matter of interest can I ask that you try MGIV paper with no filtration and then try your grade 1 10M filtration to see what the difference is. If you are correct then a 10M print should exhibit a lower grade than the same sheet with no filtration assuming that I have got the intrinsic grade of MGIV paper wrong.

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

My post, Craig75, was attempting to point out that an Ilford MGIV sheet without any filtration of either the Ilford fllter kind or of the dichroic head filtration kind of Y and M is about grade 2

This seems to be borne out by Ilford's chart for Ilford MGIV paper as follows: Multigrade filter 2 is the equivalent of all zeros on the dichroic head settings and I'd have thought that no matter what the enlarger head is a zero is a zero so to speak. So that suggests that intrinsically MGIV paper without any filter is grade 2 but yes I do accept that with a 100 Y or M max head you settings both above and below grade 2 will be different. With MG Ilford filters MGIV achieves grades lower than grade 2 by use of the lower grade filters. It was these filters I was suggesting that the OP might want to get to make life simpler.

If you say that with the CLS 66 colour head gives grade 0 with no filtration then I will not argue but it just seems strange that with the 130 M head that I have got Ilford claims grade 5 at the max of 130M with that head and then goes on to say:*Some enlargers in this group have a maximum magenta setting higher or lower than 170M. For these enlargers, set the highest possible magenta value as an approximate equivalent to filter 5 but if that is not your experience then fine. It would also seem that on the 605 head that grade 0 needs 70Y but on the CLS66 head 5 this drops to no Y filtration at all. However if that is your findings then fine.

Given that the best the CLS head can give in the higher grades is 3.5/4 but can go way beyond OO at the lower end this again points to the benefits of Ilford MG filters which as I said was my point to the OP

Just as a matter of interest can I ask that you try MGIV paper with no filtration and then try your grade 1 10M filtration to see what the difference is. If you are correct then a 10M print should exhibit a lower grade than the same sheet with no filtration assuming that I have got the intrinsic grade of MGIV paper wrong.

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

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

MG filters dont transform a diffusion enlarger into a condenser enlarger. Ilford are quite clear in the contrast control document that you most likely will not get grade 5 with a diffusion enlarger. In fact they say that you could lose a stop of contrast.

test it yourself with your enlarger and a wedge.

So a colour head enlarger might only get grade 4 max? Is grade 5 achievable by developing longer which I note you mention? Presumably if only a condenser enlarger can achieve grade 5 this extra grade v a diffuser enlarger applies throughout the range. Does Ilford make it clear that for each of their MG filter or Y and M a diffuser needs the next grade up to achieve the same grade i.e. a MG filter 2 is only 2 for a condenser enlarger and the user needs a grade 3 filter for the same grade of print?

So an unfiltered MGIV sheet is grade 1 with a diffuser with MG filter 2 and no filtration with a colour head is also grade 1 given that all colour head enlargers are diffuser?

On those occasions I have exposed a sheet of MGIV with no filtration and then done the same with a grade 2 filter the contrast seems to be the same but you would presumably say that this is true but the actual contrast is nearer grade1?

Do you know if Ilford anywhere mention that if the user has a diffuser then he needs to develop film longer to achieve grade 5 and that unless he does so the Ilford MG filters will give lower grades than the filters say?

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

So a colour head enlarger might only get grade 4 max?

Thats what ilfords contrast control document says. I am loyal ilford buyer but the leaflet in the paper box bears no relation to what they say in the contrast control document.

Is grade 5 achievable by developing longer which I note you mention?

Sure. Develop longer and raise contrast of the film. This combined with max magenta will give you grade 5

Presumably if only a condenser enlarger can achieve grade 5 this extra grade v a diffuser enlarger applies throughout the range.

Whether any condenser can actually reach grade 5 i dont know. I only use colour heads. It should get closer than diffusion head tho. To know if it applies throughout the range i dont think you could say without testing enlarger which is what ilford say too in contrast control document.

Does Ilford make it clear that for each of their MG filter or Y and M a diffuser needs the next grade up to achieve the same grade i.e. a MG filter 2 is only 2 for a condenser enlarger and the user needs a grade 3 filter for the same grade of print?

I dont think its clear! The box says one thing the contrast control another

So an unfiltered MGIV sheet is grade 1 with a diffuser with MG filter 2 and no filtration with a colour head is also grade 1 given that all colour head enlargers are diffuser?

I dont think you could say that. Youd need to test the individual enlarger to know exactly whats happening.

On those occasions I have exposed a sheet of MGIV with no filtration and then done the same with a grade 2 filter the contrast seems to be the same but you would presumably say that this is true but the actual contrast is nearer grade1?

I couldnt say. Ilford say a few very contradictory things. Use setting xyz for grade 2, oh you might not get quite the same contrast with diffusion, oh you might actually lose a whole stop of contrast with diffusion. To be fair there seems to be so many different heads they cant say anything definitive.

Do you know if Ilford anywhere mention that if the user has a diffuser then he needs to develop film longer to achieve grade 5 and that unless he does so the Ilford MG filters will give lower grades than the filters say?

Not that i know of. I only know the contrast control document and jack cookes official ilford book (is that the author?) But ive lost that so i cant check.

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I answered in bold in your quote as my multi quote game is weak.

My info comes from using multigrade iv and trying to work out just what a 100 unit durst head was doing. I believe the new paper has more contrast though so that info will be out of date. Def looking forward to using their new paper though. Looks really good.

This was the problem i had. I was following box instructions as best i could when i got enlarger but nothing seemed to bare any relation in printing to what the box leaflet was saying. Personally i think they should have just include the contrast control pdf and make it more accessible with multigrade iv rather than the leaflet actually in the box.

I'm going to differ about how to interpret what Ilford is saying here about the different types of enlargers.
I believe that they are saying that the paper plus the filters will give the same results with both types of enlargers.
However, a condenser enlarger adds additional potential contrast - above grade 5, if you will.

MattKing said:

I'm going to differ about how to interpret what Ilford is saying here about the different types of enlargers.
I believe that they are saying that the paper plus the filters will give the same results with both types of enlargers.
However, a condenser enlarger adds additional potential contrast - above grade 5, if you will.

Click to expand...

there is multiple things at play according to the contrast document - colour filters dont necessarily work as well as ilfords own filters

"However, the maximum contrast will be slightly lower as the filters used in colour heads are optimised for use with colour paper and not with variable contrast paper. The suggested filtration in the following tables can only be a guide, because individual enlargers vary. The actual filtration for a particular enlarger must be determined by trial."

and secondly

"MULTIGRADE papers are designed for use with both diffuser and condenser enlargers. However, because of the different types of illumination there can be a contrast difference between the two types"

similarly with cold light heads

"However, although a full contrast range may be available, it might not be evenly spaced. Also, in some cases, a full contrast range may not be available – it depends on the cold cathode lamp used."

I note in particular this part:
"In practical terms with most negatives, condenser enlargers give about an extra grade of contrast compared with a diffuser enlarger. This contrast difference, though, depends on the amount of silver left in the negative. Thus there is little change of contrast between the enlarger types for very pale, flat negatives and also for the dye image of ILFORD XP2 SUPER negatives."

P

MattKing said:

I note in particular this part:
"In practical terms with most negatives, condenser enlargers give about an extra grade of contrast compared with a diffuser enlarger. This contrast difference, though, depends on the amount of silver left in the negative. Thus there is little change of contrast between the enlarger types for very pale, flat negatives and also for the dye image of ILFORD XP2 SUPER negatives."

Click to expand...

Exactly the difference in contrast between the two types of light is not an absolute value but based on light source + density of the negative. The light from a diffuser isnt the same as a condenser.Something something Callier Effect (as i waft my mind hand over that as if i understand it).

If you are enlarging colour negatives the difference might be negligible but if you are enlarging black and white negatives the difference could be far more pronounced based on exposure or number of stops in the scene.

Theres multiple factors at play - the filtration, the light source, the negative density.

But you can run a basic test of max contrast from a diffusion enlarger by printing a stepwedge and counting the visible squares.

Craig75 said:

Theres multiple factors at play - the filtration, the light source, the negative density.
But you can run a basic test of max contrast from a diffusion enlarger by printing a stepwedge and counting the visible squares.

Click to expand...

No disagreement here.
But I thought we were talking about the capabilities of the colour head plus the filters, vs. the contrast range that (used to be) available from fixed grade papers.

MattKing said:

No disagreement here.
But I thought we were talking about the capabilities of the colour head plus the filters, vs. the contrast range that (used to be) available from fixed grade papers.

Click to expand...

Ah no we shouldnt be. It should just be about diffusion + filtration vs condenser + ilford filters with multigrade and the far more elastic concept of say grade 5 (as in iso paper standards for paper contrast) in the contrast control document vs the info that comes with the paper itself.

(Unless ive hopelessly misread a certain detail...)

But for OP in my experience with this head run it from 10m to 100m to increase contrast from around 1 to 3.5 but just dont expect to get more out of it.

This is turning out to be a useful conversation although it is one straying from the OP's thread. What it brings to mind is the question of what constitutes a condenser enlarger. The very old ones looked like the ladies hairdresser's bulbous hairdryers often with two condensers and light from a simple bulb and nothing else. I assume these are the genuine condensers that may have the ability to give extra contrast? Later models seemed to have a mirror arrangement such as the Durst 605 b&w head. Does this system constitute a pure condenser system as all the 605 has if I recall correctly is one condenser for each format i.e. 35mm and MF (6x6 in the case of the 605 ) and there is a box underneath so the light is diffused. Don't these constitute diffuser-condenser enlargers so in terms of contrast does that reduce it to two types only. Pure diffusers such as is found in colour enlargers and pure condensers whose illumination does produce greater contrast or does that mean that in terms of contrast there is a range of three levels of contrast, those being in descending order of contrast condensers( the bulb shining straight down on the condenser such as the old Gnomes) the diffuser condenser such as the Durst 605 b&w enlarger and finally at the bottom for contrast the Durst 605 colour head enlarger.

I suspect that unless someone has the Gnome type of enlarger then a condenser-diffuser and a colour head diffuser produce the same level of contrast

How many of the pure condenser enlargers still exist? If such enlargers were out of production many years ago and nearly all existing b&w enlargers are condenser-diffuser then this might explain why Ilford does not make it clear that its MG filters need rating upwards if pure condenser enlargers are used nor make another column for Y and M filtration for condensers?

Finally back to Craig75's experience. If he has a pure condenser enlarger whose illumination path does result on higher contrast then what this leads me to is that unfiltered MGIV paper will produce a higher grade than it will with a condenser-diffuser enlarger. Let's say for argument's sake that with such an enlarger unfiltered paper produces a contrast grade of 2.5 instead of 2. Surely this means that the application of a MG grade 3 filter with such an enlarger produces a grade of 3.5 so as Matt has pointed out a grade 5 filter with such an enlarger should produce an even higher contrast of say 5.5. However conversely in the downward direction a 00 filter will not reduce the contrast to 00. The same presumably holds for Y and M so more Y is needed to reduce contrast and yet Craig's experience seems to be the opposite. He needs no Y anywhere but needs some M even for grade 1 and cannot get above 3.5-4

I cannot reconcile this with what I understand should be the case. The CLS66 with a colour head and Y and M should be no different other colour heads such as my Durst 605 colour head in terms of what the illumination path produces in terms of contrast and Ilford quotes a setting of M that achieves grade 5.

I remain puzzled

pentaxuser

Most modern condenser enlargers use frosted bulbs, so are actually mixed systems.

pentaxuser said:

I remain puzzled

Click to expand...

You are probably puzzled because you are thinking of paper grades as being defined in some sort of specific and universal way, when in fact they are actually a relative measure.
Speaking generally, I ask the rhetorical question "what is grade 5?".
I think you will find that contrast grades are not defined objectively in a universal way.
They are merely an indication of the contrast response of a paper (or a paper in conjunction with filtration) in relation to the response of other versions of that paper (or that paper in conjunction with filtration).
If you change the light source, you will change the contrast, and that change has nothing to do with grades.
To give one example, if you take two pieces of fixed grade grade 3 paper and, using two identical negatives, expose one piece of paper using a condenser enlarger and the other with a diffusion enlarger both prints will be grade 3 prints, despite the fact that the condenser enlarger print will have more contrast.
To give another example, there are variable contrast light sources that allow you to mount them in multiple ways on certain enlargers - some with condensers, and some without. The contrast from those variations will be different, but that is irrelevant to any discussion of contrast grades.
The grade numbers within any table that you might see (such as the Ilford tables) are internally consistent, but you cannot equate them reliably with contrast grades using other materials and other equipment.
After all, just changing the paper surface - say from glossy to satin - will change the contrast behaviour.
Grade numbers in variable contrast systems are in many ways holdovers from the days when fixed grade papers were the norm, and variable contrast papers were new and exceptional.