Filters and chems for enlarging

[M-88]

Hello,

I just can't stop creating more and more problems for my own self, so this time I intend to start printing the traditional way, which employs enlarger and all the corresponding gear. However, as someone who has never done this before, I'm still fumbling in the dark. I found answers to most questions online, while some remained unanswered, so I hope for your assistance. Here goes:

1. I usually use a fixer which contains Hypo + Sodium Sulfite for fixing my negatives. Will this solution work for RC paper as well, or do I have to invest in an actual fixer with some fancy name on it?

2. Printing on variable contrast paper. Let's say, I'm using Multigrade IV (or V if you wish) paper without filters. Will contrast grade in that case be 2? Did I get it right?

3. Multigrade filters - do I need them at all? If yes, then there are several options on the market, some are ancient with yellow-only filters, probably for earlier generation of paper. Others are newer, with purple and red-ish. There's even an "educational set" by Ilford which looks more red than any other filter set. Surely not all will be suitable for me, so which one to get, if any at all?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Alan9940]

1. Any of the commercially available fixers will work for all film and paper. That said, though, most folks don't use a hardening fixer (like Kodak Fixer, for example) for paper; it's really not needed for film, either, unless you're dealing with a "soft emulsion" film. For example, I like to use a hardening fixer for Fomapan films. Anyway, I mix my own Kodak F-24 formula and use it for everything.

2. Generally, no filter will give you about a grade 2 - 2.5 contrast on VC paper. This is somewhat dependent on the color of the source light, but close enough.

3. Yes, you need MG filters, a color light head, or a specific VC printing light source to print on MG papers. If going the filter route, I'd highly recommend sticking with the Ilford set.

 

[Rick A]

1. I usually use a fixer which contains Hypo + Sodium Sulfite for fixing my negatives. Will this solution work for RC paper as well, or do I have to invest in an actual fixer with some fancy name on it?
Any fixer will work.

2. Printing on variable contrast paper. Let's say, I'm using Multigrade IV (or V if you wish) paper without filters. Will contrast grade in that case be 2? Did I get it right?
The default contrast grade of most Multigrade papers is grade #2. You will need filters to change contrast grades, also they help lengthen exposure times for the paper so you don't have super short times.

3. Multigrade filters - do I need them at all? If yes, then there are several options on the market, some are ancient with yellow-only filters, probably for earlier generation of paper. Others are newer, with purple and red-ish. There's even an "educational set" by Ilford which looks more red than any other filter set. Surely not all will be suitable for me, so which one to get, if any at all?
Full sets of MG filters are not that expensive, make the investment.

 

[pentaxuser]

Q1 I'd buy a Rapid Fixer - quicker and better for fixing
Q2 You got it right
Q3 I'd get a full and new set but Ilford do sell a "Student's Set " as you mention which misses out the 1/2 grade filters I can't say if these are for sale in the U.S. but presumably so if you mention them I would not buy a secondhand set unless you can be sure of its history i.e. how much usage they have seen. A nearly new set of only as few months might be OK if you can believe what the seller tells you

You cannot buy filters individually -only in sets from dealers.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

What do you mean by "Hypo".
A very long time ago, what is now known as sodium thiosulfate was often referred to as sodium hyposulfate - thus the nickname "hypo".
In more recent years, I've seen "hypo" used confusingly when the writer meant Kodak's washaid, Hypo Clearing Agent, which itself is mostly Sodium Sulfite.
You don't need a washaid for RC paper. You really benefit from it with fibre paper, and it is useful with film.

 

[M-88]

So, a general consensus is more or less the same from everybody. Thank you all!

[As a side note, I didn't think super short exposure times would be a thing when using an enlarger]

What do you mean by "Hypo".
A very long time ago, what is now known as sodium thiosulfate was often referred to as sodium hyposulfate - thus the nickname "hypo".
In more recent years, I've seen "hypo" used confusingly when the writer meant Kodak's washaid, Hypo Clearing Agent, which itself is mostly Sodium Sulfite.
You don't need a washaid for RC paper. You really benefit from it with fibre paper, and it is useful with film.

As for this, I probably should have been more specific. The fixer I usually use for film contains 220-250 grams of Sodium Thiosulfate and 25-30 grams of Sodium Sulfite per 1 liter of solution. I mix it on my own. I hope this makes more sense.

 

[MattKing]

I expect that that fixer will be fine, but as I don't mix my own, I'll let others comment on the recipe, if necessary.
One of the advantages of "store bought" fixer is that it comes with reliable guidance respecting fixing time and capacity. You will need to figure out what times to use for RC prints and how many prints per litre you can reliably and safely fix before the fixer is exhausted.
A clip test used for film might very well give good information for RC prints as well.
A plain sodium thiosulfate based fixer would be a good candidate for two bath fixing.

 

[M-88]

I expect that that fixer will be fine, but as I don't mix my own, I'll let others comment on the recipe, if necessary.

I actually found a recipe on here and it works well for the film.

A plain sodium thiosulfate based fixer would be a good candidate for two bath fixing.

If I recall correctly, it means using two baths with the same solution and while first bath exhausts, the second one is preserve for a much longer time. Is that right, or am I lost in translation again?

 

[MattKing]

If I recall correctly, it means using two baths with the same solution and while first bath exhausts, the second one is preserve for a much longer time. Is that right, or am I lost in translation again?

You use both baths to fix each print.
If you determine that each print requires 3 minutes of total fixing time, you divide that in two - 1.5 minutes in the first bath, and 1.5 minutes in the second.
The first bath does almost all the fixing, and the second finishes it up.
After a certain number of prints (you will have to determine the number) the first bath will need to be discarded, you can switch the second bath into its place, and you mix up a new second bath.
After the switch, you will be able to use the (new) first bath for almost the same number of prints as the first first bath.
There are probably others here who can give you guidance on the fix times and capacities, although you may find that a lot of people who mix their own fixer use more fibre paper than RC.
I would post that thread (about the fixer) in the general Black and White film and chemistry sub-forum.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Two-bath fixation is not really needed for RC prints. Since you are using a "plain hypo" fixing bath, do keep an eye out for exhaustion and keep track of throughput. Capacity should be similar to other "conventional" (sodium-thiosulfate-based fixers), but I'd test with ST-1 or the selenium test for residual silver and establish my own parameters. Search here for more information on the tests.

If you want any kind of contrast control (outside of tailoring each negative for grade 2), then filtration will be necessary. If you get an enlarger with a color head, you can use that for filtration. Color heads are convenient and allow continuous contrast control between the limits. A set of multigrade filters like the Ilford ones are intuitive and easy to use. Do get the full set with the half-grade steps; you'll be glad you did.

Another alternative, however, is split-grade printing. The idea here is to use two filters, and vary the exposure through each to achieve intermediate contrast grades. Many people use this printing method. For this, you only need the #00 and the #5 filter or, alternately a sharp-cut blue and green filter.

If you use filters below the lens, or between the negative and the lens, they need to be of optical quality (like the Ilford MG filters or Kodak Wratten gel filters). If between the light source and the negative, optical quality is not needed.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Paul Howell]

If you live in the county of Georgia and not in the state of Georgia in the U.S you can see if you buy Salvich paper, I think they are still in business, Russian or Ukraine? Last time I was able to buy, Salvich had a nice line of graded paper, grade 2, 3, and 4, matt and glossy, fiber based and maybe RC. I liked their fiber based papers. With graded papers no need for filters, but you might to keep all three grades on hand to match a negative to the contrast grade you think best matches for given print.

 

[MattKing]

I believe that it is Slavich paper, not Salvich.
Of course, that might be a name used in our area, and not yours.

 

[M-88]

There are probably others here who can give you guidance on the fix times and capacities, although you may find that a lot of people who mix their own fixer use more fibre paper than RC.
I would post that thread (about the fixer) in the general Black and White film and chemistry sub-forum.

FB is substantially more expensive than RC and for me it would be irrational to straight up start with that paper. It seems to me that there's a lot of trial and error in traditional printing, all of which takes resources. Surely it's better to accumulate at least some sort of practical knowledge before spending more money.

Another alternative, however, is split-grade printing. The idea here is to use two filters, and vary the exposure through each to achieve intermediate contrast grades. Many people use this printing method. For this, you only need the #00 and the #5 filter or, alternately a sharp-cut blue and green filter.

I still can't wrap my head around split-grade printing, maybe it's something "for later", but I will regardless invest in filters.

If you use filters below the lens, or between the negative and the lens, they need to be of optical quality (like the Ilford MG filters or Kodak Wratten gel filters). If between the light source and the negative, optical quality is not needed.

And thank you, I didn't know that much! Ilford is pretty much the only option over here, so I'll just go with its Multigrade filter set.

If you live in the county of Georgia and not in the state of Georgia in the U.S you can see if you buy Salvich paper, I think they are still in business, Russian or Ukraine? Last time I was able to buy, Salvich had a nice line of graded paper, grade 2, 3, and 4, matt and glossy, fiber based and maybe RC. I liked their fiber based papers. With graded papers no need for filters, but you might to keep all three grades on hand to match a negative to the contrast grade you think best matches for given print.

I'm aware of Slavich paper, actually the first thing I looked up was European (Russian, Czech) options, but since my country has complicated relation with Russia, it's somewhat challenging to order things from there. I looked at the prices and seems like their barite paper costs less than Ilford's resin coated, which is impressive. Right now I have enough Multigrade RC of various sizes to get me started, but I'll try to get some of Slavich too, if I get a chance. As for Foma, regrettably, it isn't as cheap as I thought it would be.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello,

I just can't stop creating more and more problems for my own self, so this time I intend to start printing the traditional way, which employs enlarger and all the corresponding gear. However, as someone who has never done this before, I'm still fumbling in the dark. I found answers to most questions online, while some remained unanswered, so I hope for your assistance. Here goes:

1. I usually use a fixer which contains Hypo + Sodium Sulfite for fixing my negatives. Will this solution work for RC paper as well, or do I have to invest in an actual fixer with some fancy name on it?

2. Printing on variable contrast paper. Let's say, I'm using Multigrade IV (or V if you wish) paper without filters. Will contrast grade in that case be 2? Did I get it right?

3. Multigrade filters - do I need them at all? If yes, then there are several options on the market, some are ancient with yellow-only filters, probably for earlier generation of paper. Others are newer, with purple and red-ish. There's even an "educational set" by Ilford which looks more red than any other filter set. Surely not all will be suitable for me, so which one to get, if any at all?

Thank you in advance.

any rapid non-hardening fixer will work for both, films and paper but, it is wise to keep separate baths for film and paper to keep the baths clean. any filter set will probably work but, I would get the set from the paper manufacturer whose paper I use.

 

[M-88]

any rapid non-hardening fixer will work for both, films and paper but, it is wise to keep separate baths for film and paper to keep the baths clean. any filter set will probably work but, I would get the set from the paper manufacturer whose paper I use.

Thank you,

Sodium Thio fixers don't seem to be hardening, but on the other hand, they're not exactly rapid either. I will surely have separate baths for everything (I wash my film in developing tank anyway). And yes, I will definitely go for Ilford option with filters, because it's the only one available for a reasonable price, locally.

 

[AgX]

What do you mean by "Hypo".
A very long time ago, what is now known as sodium thiosulfate was often referred to as sodium hyposulfate - thus the nickname "hypo".
In more recent years, I've seen "hypo" used confusingly when the writer meant Kodak's washaid, Hypo Clearing Agent, which itself is mostly Sodium Sulfite.

Also "Hypo" may be used for a Fixer, whereas a fixer contains more than just sodium thiosulfate.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Thank you,

Sodium Thio fixers don't seem to be hardening, but on the other hand, they're not exactly rapid either. I will surely have separate baths for everything (I wash my film in developing tank anyway). And yes, I will definitely go for Ilford option with filters, because it's the only one available for a reasonable price, locally.

Ilford filters our a good choice.

 

[MattKing]

FB is substantially more expensive than RC and for me it would be irrational to straight up start with that paper. It seems to me that there's a lot of trial and error in traditional printing, all of which takes resources. Surely it's better to accumulate at least some sort of practical knowledge before spending more money.

I think you may have misunderstood me.
My observation about those who mix their own fixer using fibre paper was intended to warn you that you need to be careful about recommendations from those who use similar fixer, because if their fixing time and capacity numbers are based on fibre paper, they will be incorrect for RC paper.

 

[M-88]

I think you may have misunderstood me.
My observation about those who mix their own fixer using fibre paper was intended to warn you that you need to be careful about recommendations from those who use similar fixer, because if their fixing time and capacity numbers are based on fibre paper, they will be incorrect for RC paper.

My apologies, I definitely misundersood the meaning of your previous post. There seems to be too many variables when it comes to the paper, so everyone does their own calculations based on their practice.

 

[removed account4]

Hi M-88
You might be able to find a USED variable contrast filter set for a discounted price through a European version of Ebay. I just searched "polycontrast filters"
and several came up for about 15-16 euro on the German Ebay site, on the American site there are several for $14. I do not worry about which brand you get,
I have use a Kodak set for all brands of variable contrast papers for decades and never had a problem.

Have fun with your new adventure!
John

 

[M-88]

Hello and thank you. I actually got NOS off of Ebay UK. It reads Ilfospeed, so must be fairly old, but looks adequate (unfaded).

Have fun with your new adventure!
John

I'll try to. I have a fair amount of second thoughts, but there's no way back.

 

[MattKing]

Hello and thank you. I actually got NOS off of Ebay UK. It reads Ilfospeed, so must be fairly old, but looks adequate (unfaded).

I don't want to disappoint you, but Ilfospeed filters may work very differently from Ilford multigrade filters.
They are probably different colours than what the papers are designed for.
Changing the filter will change the contrast of your prints, but the change may not be as predictable and sequential as current filters will give you.
It may be hard to apply advice received from people using the current filters to any questions you ask.

 

[M-88]

It means I'll have more motivation to try it out and see where it takes me. I'm sure I can figure it out, at least partially.

 

[Rick A]

Hello and thank you. I actually got NOS off of Ebay UK. It reads Ilfospeed, so must be fairly old, but looks adequate (unfaded).

A new current set of MG filters is not that expensive, you should have spent more wisely. Buying outdated anything is false economy, it will nearly always cost more in the long run.

 

[AgX]

I don't want to disappoint you, but Ilfospeed filters may work very differently from Ilford multigrade filters.
They are probably different colours than what the papers are designed for.

I think (that weird fading issue aside) the filter sets can be distinguished this way:

Ilford Ilfospeed Multigrade filters:
11ps : 0 - 5

Ilford Multigrade filters:
12ps : 00 - 5