Does anyone else not use mulitgrade filters?

[Ektagraphic]

Hi Guys- Since I have been working with diffrent variable contrast papers and tri-x film, I have found that I get the best results when I don't use any variable contrast filters. I bought them and have never had success with them once. They are just sitting....I have not been so pleased with other films the first time around making a print so maybe other films do require some filtering but Tri-X always looks better to me when streight up.....I am going to pick up some graded paper and see how I like that. In the few situations that I have tried out the filters, I have not been able to get a result that I was happy with so I ended up settling for the streight print......I am sure plenty may say that I am wasting the purpose of variable contrast paper. I do most of my printing on Ilford's Mulitgrade Glossy RC and Adox MC110 FB....

Patrick

 

[Tim Gray]

Sometimes I split grade print, but most of the time I just leave the #2 filter in there. It's about the same as no filter but makes my printing times a bit longer which is nice since I do a lot of small prints.

 

[Alan W]

Give split grade printing a bash,you might like it.Do a search on the forums for more info.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I should add that I have a smaller set of Ilford filters that I hold under the lens. I have not yet invested in the set that goes right into the filter drawer as they are around $70 and I wansn't sure if I wanted them quite yet.

 

[ic-racer]

The last graded paper I bought was Kodabromide in 1973.
The contrast of MG paper is a continuous spectrum. So, not really such thing as a 'straight print.' Maybe you like the contrast from no filter because if falls, for example, between 2 and 2.5 with your light source, or something like that.

 

[Dan Henderson]

You must be dead on with exposure and developing to get negatives that always print well with no filter, which as someone else wrote, is the same as printing with a 2 or 2.5 filter.

I agree with other posters suggesting you explore split grade printing if printing with multigrade filters are not working for you. I feel that my prints improved when I learned how to split grade print. At one time there was a long post by Les McLean explaining the process, but I dont' know if it is still here.

 

[Rick A]

Freestyle sells Fotokemika brand 6x6 MG filters for thirty buckaroos. I find when using MG paper that a #2 filter in place gives the most consistant print results. Most MG paper specs #2 w/o any filters, so it should look the same with or without a filter in place, but it doesn't. Once you get used to using a filter, you will start noticing the subtle nuances of the 1/2 step gradation and can then use it to your benefit.

Under lens filters are not the best way to go, only convenient. Any time you introduce another surface in the focused light path, you diminish the clarity. If the filters aren't super clean, they will diffuse the image slightly. Filters used ahead of the focused light is the best way to use them.

If you want to try some incredible graded paper, try some Emaks. Stay to the lower numbers, 'cause this paper is razor sharp. IMHO, it beats the old Kodabrom papers hands down.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Emaks...I must say I haven't heard of that one. The ADOX MCC-110 is a totally stunning paper...That is what I have been using for things that count.....I guess I should get a real filter set and try again.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Kodak Polymax Filters are $33 so I am going to pick some up now...

 

[2F/2F]

There is no reason that a person would always get "best results" from using no filters on variable contrast paper, and that this person would not also get them by using whatever filter equally exposes the two emulsions that are used with variable contrast paper (usually a 2 or 2-1/2 filter). Perhaps you simply tend to like photographs that closely represent the SBR at the scene of the composition...however, even then, the characteristics of film do not allow it to perfectly capture this in all compositions (and, in fact, do so in very few). Using a VC paper without filters makes about as much sense as keeping a transmission in only one gear all the time. It makes no sense. If you are not going to use filters, just go ahead and use a graded paper.

Before you buy it, be aware that the Fotokemika filter set does not include half grades.

Given that the Ilford filters are pricey, a dichroic or color head for your enlarger might be a more wise investment in the long run. It may not cost much more than a filter set, and will also let you print color.

There is also a deal every now and then in which you get the full set of eleven 150x150 MG filters (sans box, but with dividers) and 50 sheets of paper for what a box of 100 sheets of paper normally costs.

 

[DanielStone]

or I have some small "under the lens" ones for sale. also has the frame for holding them

$20 and they're yours, shipped.

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

-Dan

 

[DanielStone]

oh...

if you contact print(generally LF negs), I've found that I, personally, get the best results from using graded papers. Emaks(for contact work or enlargements) is a very nice paper, and seeing that its slightly cheaper than Ilford, I really like it. It also seems to have more "tones" in it than the ilford, even though I've spent close to 5 years printing on Ilford MGIV papers, both rc and fiber. I just keep coming back to the emaks G2/G3 glossy. And throw it in the selenium toner, oooh..... beauty in a tray, man . I haven't had the chance to try out the new lodima(newer version of azo, kodak's former contact printing paper), its just really, realllllllllyyyyy expensive.

but multigrade papers are nice though, especially when you start with multigrade printing. the MC110, from what I hear, is a very fine paper!

-Dan

 

[Ektagraphic]

Thanks anyways Dan. I am ordering a set of Polymax filters. I am also going to try working with graded papers.

 

[DanielStone]

sure thing.

-Dan

 

[Steve Roberts]

Using a VC paper without filters makes about as much sense as keeping a transmission in only one gear all the time.

Ah - but what if you only ever drive up steep hills????

I'm less inclined than just about every other poster to hop up and down and say that you should be using filters. IMHO it depends on your subject matter, working method and what you're trying to achieve. If you get the results you want, good on you, whether you use filters, no filters or develop your prints in beer! I use multigrade filters most of the time, but there are occasions when things just seem to come right without any.

Steve

 

[perkeleellinen]

I use a colour head rather than the actual filters, but the outcome is the same - variable contrasts.

But I'm the same as the OP in that I never print on different grades. Whereas no filter is around grade 2 or so, I always print on grade 3.5 (maximum hardness on this enlarger, it was grade 4 on my old enlarger with multigrade head). I tailor my compositions, exposures, developing etc to how I imagine the image will look at grade 3.5 - same film, same paper, always. I'm keen on uniformity like this.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Although no filtration is close, but not identical, to a #2 filter. The deviation is a 1/4 grade and the shape of the curve is a wee bit different. The differences should be irrelevant in practical terms.

We are very good at seeing what we want to see, even if it isn't there. To see if the difference is real you need to make a 'blind' test: Make as identical a set of prints as you can with and without filtration; Mark which is which on the back of each print in light pencil; A few days later see if you can tell which is which without looking at the backs.

VC filters aren't universal. Using Kodak filters with Agfa materials will result in a very uneven set of contrast grades and even results in a contrast reversal at grade 2 1/2 -> 3 (I don't know if this behavior holds with the resurrected MCC).

 

[Dave in Kansas]

I wasn't aware that under the lens filters were not as good as the larger ones that go in the filter drawer. All I currently have is an older set of Kodak Polycontrast Filters that go under the lens.

Is the difference really noticeable if the filters are clean?

Dave

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Is the difference really noticeable [lamphouse V. under lens] if the filters are clean?

No.

 

[Ian Grant]

I wasn't aware that under the lens filters were not as good as the larger ones that go in the filter drawer. All I currently have is an older set of Kodak Polycontrast Filters that go under the lens.

Is the difference really noticeable if the filters are clean?

Dave

I think he's talking about the difference in terms of contrast, between No filter and a Gd 2 filter.

I used both the below the lens and filter draw IlfoRd filters , as well as a colour head and there's no detectable differences in image quality.

In addition I've used Ilford filter with Agfa, Kodak & Forte papers with perfect results.

Ian

 

[Dave in Kansas]

Thanks guys.

Dave

 

[Steve Roberts]

Surely there must be some penalty for putting the filter under the lens rather than under the lamp housing?
I look at it in basic terms (and I'm open to correction here!) that supposing you have stumped up for a top-notch enlarging lens (Schneider, Nikon, etc.) - are you not then negating a certain amount of its quality by taking the image it projects and passing it through what amounts to a piece of coloured gelatine or plastic?
On the other hand, putting the filter between the lamphouse and the negative is only changing the spectrum of the light source before it passes through the negative and lens and cannot degrade the image projected on to the baseboard?
To reiterate, this is a layman's view and I'm sure someone with a knowledge of optical matters can explain why it either doesn't make a difference or why the difference is so small as to be unnoticeable, as per Ian's observations.

Best wishes,

Steve

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Surely there must be some penalty for putting the filter under the lens rather than under the lamp housing?

Well, do you use filters when you take pictures? Any problems with sharpness?

A thick glass filter introduces much more 'aberration' than a thin gelatin filter. In any case, the amount of extra aberration introduced is less than the intrinsic aberrations of the lens.

Try an experiment: make one print without a filter and one with a clear (UV) filter under the lens. Mark which is which on the back. Can you tell the prints apart the next day?

Fingerprints are a problem with under lens gelatin filters - they really can't be cleaned without scratching, wrinkling or dissolving the gelatin.

 

[Steve Roberts]

Well, do you use filters when you take pictures? Any problems with sharpness?.

Yes, I do use filters some of the time when taking pictures and as you say, there's no issue with sharpness that I'm aware of but the quality of a photograph taken with a high quality Nikon/Pentax/Leica lens is surely going to be limited if it's looking through some other slightly inferior piece of glass. Hence, as has been said on APUG before, the need to use good quality filters.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that use of multigrade filters below the lens will result in terrible prints, only that the results should technically be better without the image having to pass through that extra material between leaving the lens and hitting the paper!

Cheers,

Steve

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Hence, as has been said on APUG before, the need to use good quality filters.

The cheapest filters one can find work just as well as the most expensive. That filters can be sold at the price of a good prime lens is an example of ... well, fill in the blank with the appropriate phrase.

only that the results should technically be better without the image having to pass through that extra material between leaving the lens and hitting the paper!

Technically there is no difference. If one can not demonstrate a difference then there is no difference. If 'theory' says there should be a difference then the theory used is simplistic. If 'theory' says bumblebees can't fly then it is obvious the theory is bad, I think we can all agree on that.