Experiences printing B&W using color head filter conversion chart

[Fragomeni]

Wondering if anyone can speak to this directly. Extra points if you’re using an Saunders/LPL color head.

Wondering how accurate the data is on this page: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/printing-with-variable-grade-paper---darkoom-guide-4709

Yes, I’ve read Butzi’s paper as well but that’s more of an involved process than I probably want to take on.

The above linked charts offer recommended filter combinations for color heads (using both single filter and combination filtration along with exposure factors you apply to deal with the change in light.

Is anyone using this chart who can speak to how accurate it is?

I’m aware of various VCCE heads and that may be a route that I go but for now let’s please try to keep the convo on topic and address the question rather than offering alternatives or loosely related anecdotal stories. Just trying to keep it on topic. Thanks.

 

[bdial]

I used the yellow + magenta settings Ilford documents when I was using a color head on my LPL. They worked well for me.

 

[Fragomeni]

I used the yellow + magenta settings Ilford documents when I was using a color head on my LPL. They worked well for me.

Thanks. The data in that link is apparently taken from the Ilford data I believe. Were you able to achieve a grade 5 equivalent? Also, were you using dual filtration or single filtration? I assume both are possible with any color head. Looking at that chart, using dual filtration maxes out at grade 4.5 equivalent whereas using single filtration looks to achieve grade 5 equivalent. Wondering about that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I used the yellow + magenta settings Ilford documents when I was using a color head on my LPL. They worked well for me.

I also use the yellow + magenta settings Ilford documents when I was using a color head on my Chromega Dichroic II enlarger. They worked well for me too.

 

[Fragomeni]

I also use the yellow + magenta settings Ilford documents when I was using a color head on my Chromega Dichroic II enlarger. They worked well for me too.

Thanks for chiming in. Do you have any insights about achieving the full filter grade range in my previous follow up above?

 

[MattKing]

for now let’s please try to keep the convo on topic and address the question rather than offering alternatives or loosely related anecdotal stories. Just trying to keep it on topic. Thanks.

If you have any hints about how you can make this happen, us moderators are keen to hear them .
I have an LPL VCCE head on one of my enlargers, but the grade numbers on it are keyed to the behavior of the Ilford MGIV papers, not the current versions, so I'm not sure they remain current.
The link you posted is more than 20 years old. But I note that the currently listed Ilford document is dated 2010.
Here is the link to that 2010 document, which you probably already have.
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1824/product/735/

 

[Fragomeni]

If you have any hints about how you can make this happen, us moderators are keen to hear them .
I have an LPL VCCE head on one of my enlargers, but the grade numbers on it are keyed to the behavior of the Ilford MGIV papers, not the current versions, so I'm not sure they remain current.
The link you posted is more than 20 years old. But I note that the currently listed Ilford document is dated 2010.
Here is the link to that 2010 document, which you probably already have.
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1824/product/735/

Yea, thats why I put that in there. Gotta set some ground rules because its way too easy for these threads to get hijacked and go off in every imaginable direction!

Thanks for your wisdom here. I hadn't considered the filter calibrations being for older paper emulsion formulas. Thats definitely food for thought. How do you find it performs with the current paper offering from Ilford? Do you find that the filters yield results noticeably different than what you would expect? I've only gone down this road with the color heads because I love the 4550 enlargers but have been unable to find one with the VCCE head at a price that I can swallow.

 

[MattKing]

I'm still using MGIV RC, so I'm not the one to ask about the most current papers.
Until about two years ago I was using an old Multigrade 400 head on an Omega D6, and was really happy with that. The grade numbers from that rather ancient system weren't particularly close to the more modern under the lens filters, but they were sufficiently flexible that I got the results I needed. For the tiny percentage of negatives that required even more contrast than the "4" offered by that system, I just supplemented it with a high contrast filter under the lens.
A required downsize meant my D6 had to go. I lucked into two LPL7700/670DXL enlargers (which have a sufficiently small footprints) to replace it. The one with the VCCE head is set up and I'm using it a bit in the more awkward small space I have available. The one with the colour head is in storage.
I long ago stopped paying a lot of attention to the grade numbering, and I do use a fair amount of split grade printing techniques to deal with contrast, so my use of the grade information in the datasheets and on the filter dials doesn't easily permit sharing usable information with others. My experience with the LPL VCCE head does indicate though that there is lots of contrast control available, and that high contrast is certainly achievable.
I've never put much reliance on the speed matching capabilities of the filter system, but it does tend to give you a good place to start with your re-testing when you change filter settings.
Hope this is some help.

 

[koraks]

Is anyone using this chart who can speak to how accurate it is?

I don't think so, if only for the simple observation that there's no solid standardization of ISO-R of each grade. Put differently: grade 2 of one manufacturer can just be the same contrast as grade 3 of another manufacturer. Sometimes, paper datasheets give some clues; it's for instance interesting to compare let's say the datasheets of Fomabrom and MGWT. Spot the differences; it takes some analysis, but they are there alright. Things get even more confusing if you factor in actual curve shape/linearity of each grade of each paper. Lacking an objective, agreed-upon benchmark, everything of course becomes a moving target...

By the time you've gone through all this, you would probably start asking questions like "how relevant is it to know how accurate filter settings for various grades are, and under which conditions could I even answer that question?"

So I think it boils down ultimately to the age-old question: what is it that you actually want to achieve?
If it's just to have a starting point to get to use the full contrast range that your paper of choice has to offer, then the kind of list you linked to is perfectly usable. Alternatively, you could work out for yourself, by making some (actually, many) step wedges, which filter combinations between pure magenta and pure yellow give equi-distant ISO-R spacings. Those might not relate perfectly to the manufacturer's grades, but in a way this would perhaps be even more useful since the relationships between your self-defined grades will actually be more intuitive to use.
If this is to make exposures consistent across several enlargers, perhaps even some with VC or cold light / LED heads and others with dichroic filter heads, then you probably have no choice but to make step wedges on all enlargers involved and work out which filter settings on the dichroic head(s) correspond to which grade settings on the other enlarger(s).

If the above sounds like gibberish/Chinese and you just want to get some printing done, the kind of list you linked to is perfectly usable and there's no need to worry about all the intricacies

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Wondering if anyone can speak to this directly. Extra points if you’re using an Saunders/LPL color head.

Wondering how accurate the data is on this page: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/printing-with-variable-grade-paper---darkoom-guide-4709

Yes, I’ve read Butzi’s paper as well but that’s more of an involved process than I probably want to take on.

The above linked charts offer recommended filter combinations for color heads (using both single filter and combination filtration along with exposure factors you apply to deal with the change in light.

Is anyone using this chart who can speak to how accurate it is?

I’m aware of various VCCE heads and that may be a route that I go but for now let’s please try to keep the convo on topic and address the question rather than offering alternatives or loosely related anecdotal stories. Just trying to keep it on topic. Thanks.

It doesn't matter much how accurate any of these charts are:
1st. there aren't any paper grades anyway and
2nd Just add Yellow if you need less contrast and magenta if you want more.

 

[bdial]

Thanks. The data in that link is apparently taken from the Ilford data I believe. Were you able to achieve a grade 5 equivalent? Also, were you using dual filtration or single filtration? I assume both are possible with any color head. Looking at that chart, using dual filtration maxes out at grade 4.5 equivalent whereas using single filtration looks to achieve grade 5 equivalent. Wondering about that.

Ralph's point is well taken. Using continuously variable filtration frees one from thinking in traditional graded paper numbers. Though using the combination settings is nice for maintaining exposures between "grades".

When I first got my color enlarger, I did some comparisons between the color head filtration and Ilford discrete filters. I found that at the low and high end, i.e. max yellow or max magenta, the color head didn't quite match what was possible with ilford filters. So I kept my set of Ilford filters around "just in case" but have not ever found a need to use them instead of the enlarger's built-in filtration.

I did not bother to make the same comparison when I got the VCCE head I use now. I've also not repeated the test using the newer Ilford papers, there may not be any difference using the currently available papers.

 

[koraks]

Though using the combination settings is nice for maintaining exposures between "grades".

Based on what? Something is to be kept the same across the grades; would it be Zone I, IX, 18% grey, something else...?
It sounds so obvious, until you start to think about it.

 

[MattKing]

Based on what? Something is to be kept the same across the grades; would it be Zone I, IX, 18% grey, something else...?
It sounds so obvious, until you start to think about it.

IIRC, the speed matching is done on a high midtone/low highlight tone that would be similar to how untanned Caucasian skin is often rendered in people pictures.
Which makes sense, because one tends to want to match the tone of the detailed highlights when one changes contrast.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks for chiming in. Do you have any insights about achieving the full filter grade range in my previous follow up above?

I just follow the recommendations.

 

[koraks]

IIRC, the speed matching is done on a high midtone/low highlight tone that would be similar to how untanned Caucasian skin is often rendered in people pictures.
Which makes sense, because one tends to want to match the tone of the detailed highlights when one changes contrast.

Well, if 'one' means 'anyone', then I guess you're right, but I wouldn't be part of that selection. For me, it really depends on what I'm doing and working with if I'll try to match the first hint of separation in the shadows when switching grades, or the first separation in the highlights, or the tone of some object which may or may not be Caucasian or any other kind of skin, or garment, or...
So...no, thinking about it some more, it still doesn't make all that much sense to me, other than a fairly random choice out of a variety of options each of which has its merits.

 

[MattKing]

koraks,
I understand what you are saying.
I expect that you are correct to say that the speed matching is rarely appropriate for your use. It seems to be oriented to photos of people of lighter skin tone, which is as good a choice as anything I guess, if one needs to make a choice.
It suits me, because I do tend to target those upper midtones and lower highlights when I print - I'm much more comfortable with the other tones falling close to where they may in a lot of prints.

 

[koraks]

Yes, that's sensible. I guess for me, it's different indeed. That doesn't matter all that much; I just ran into this kind of stuff when I was thinking through the design of my LED light source and I had to start making decisions like this one from an engineering viewpoint. In that process it occurred to me that a choice like this one boils down to something that happens to be quite arbitrary. As are the grade denominations themselves, at least to an extent. What I took from it is basically what @RalphLambrecht also said: don't worry about it too much; as long as you have sufficient room to move up or down in contrast by adding magenta/removing green and removing yellow/adding blue etc, you can get where you need to be. Trying to chase The Right Grade, The Perfect Negative, The True Film Speed, Equal Exposures Across Grades etc. can and all too often seem to become goals in and of themselves, and as a result, they in fact become distractions that lead away from a meaningful image instead of being conducive of it. Anyway, I digress, I'm sorry.

 

[MattKing]

There actually are ISO specifications for contrast grades. You can glean some of that from the ISO range figures listed in the Ilford datasheets - here is the one for the most recently introduced MG RC papers: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1956/product/2049/

 

[koraks]

I know, Matt. Have you compared those Ilford data to other manufacturers' data and also compared curve shapes? The problem with standards like these is that it seems everyone has their own

 

[MattKing]

I know, Matt. Have you compared those Ilford data to other manufacturers' data and also compared curve shapes? The problem with standards like these is that it seems everyone has their own

I read that sort of stuff to improve my understanding, and satisfy my curiosity. It is difficult to apply that sort of really detailed information in a world of temporary darkrooms!

 

[mshchem]

My Beseler controller for Agfa, Kodak, and Ilford papers.

When I was using an ordinary dichro color head I used the Ilford datasheet. The yellow and magenta mix for constant exposure worked well.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Based on what? Something is to be kept the same across the grades; would it be Zone I, IX, 18% grey, something else...?
It sounds so obvious, until you start to think about it.

Correct something has to be kept the same across the grades and it is usually a light gray around zoneVII to VIII.

 

[BMbikerider]

Were you able to achieve a grade 5 equivalent? Also, were you using dual filtration or single filtration?

No it is not possible to get a grade 5 with an LPL head. But honestly you don't or very rarely need to. The new Ilford MG5 is about a grade harder than the MG4 and I never needed G5 then. If push came to shove I have a set of below the lens filters which I could use in an emergency

 

[pentaxuser]

My Beseler controller for Agfa, Kodak, and Ilford papers.

When I was using an ordinary dichro color head I used the Ilford datasheet. The yellow and magenta mix for constant exposure worked well.

I only found it to work only OK rather than well between about grades 2-3 but beyond that in either direction a constant time was not really possible and when you look at Ilford's Y and M mix it looks impossible to stay with constant exposure

pentaxuser

 

[ic-racer]

Components of a Good Multigrade chart, in my opinion:

1) Specified gray value is constant between all the grades
2) The change in contrast is similar between the steps. That is, they are not all bunched up on one end of the scale.

Here is how I made mine (though for Ilford Multigrade, I use the chart supplied with the paper).