• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Ilford Multigrade Filters

Let me state it exclusive to you a little more clear : Mission acomplished means - I did it right in the past (for example to use Ilordspeed RC deluce)
- fine I never try Multigrade means - this was a good choice to avoid Multigrade
- what a nonsence means : Multigrade is nonsence to me.

with regards

PS : This has nothing to say to the OP
therefore I mentioned it above.
And of cause it has nothing to say to all others who may like "Multigrade Workflow"
Just to me it Is UNBELIEVABLE (INCREDIBLE) Frank .......!
 
Let me state it exclusive to you a little more clear : Mission acomplished means - I did it right in the past (for example to use Ilordspeed RC deluce)
- fine I never try Multigrade means - this was a good choice to avoid Multigrade
- what a nonsence means : Multigrade is nonsence to me.

with regards

PS : This has nothing to say to the OP
therefore I mentioned it above.
And of cause it has nothing to say to all others who may like "Multigrade Workflow"
Just to me it Is UNBELIEVABLE (INCREDIBLE) Frank .......!
 
bernard_L said:
Then why do you need to make noises in a thread whose topic is... multigrade?? To show off your emoticons?
Click to expand...

It began with a simple recommandation
to Ilford RC deluxe (less costs in comparison to a new multigrade filter set).
But you are right - it ended with a cohort
emoticons.

with regards
 
AgX said:
In what manner?
Click to expand...


Gelantine filters are changing colors as one effect of aging AgX - I would state in addition IF THEY ARE IN CONTACT WITH LIGHT. So you may know this from Lee filters (No gelantine basis - of course) but sometimes one have to change because lighting systems faded colors from Lee filters away.
I would suppose in darkroom you have to wait for years / decades to see this fading.
Stored filters (stored in the dark) may not have this fade out.
So we let this question open ?
with regards
 
I had the same question about a year ago, after inheriting a complete darkroom and filter set. As I understand it, the filter and paper color combinations have changed multiple times, with the latest in 1994, with the introduction of Multigrade IV paper. I can say that when I visually compared new filters to the same grades in my old set (certainly pre-‘94), they bore little resemblance to each other. I saw a major improvement in my own print contrast control with new filters.

Here’s a reference that may help:

https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Multigrade.html
 
AgX said:
In what manner?
Click to expand...

Chemical decay. The colours fade. This is particularly true with filters exposed to strong light, and the manufacturers recommend to change them after a while (see for instance there, page 130: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles..._en_motion_newsletters_filmEss_15_Filters.pdf). A gel filter on a 800W projector is typically thrown away after a couple of days at most. Even for typical below lens application where heat is not a problem, Kodak only states a life expectancy of at least 6 months for their newer Wratten 2 series... and advertises it as a major improvement over the older Wrattens (see https://www.kodak.com/motion/produc...n/kodak_filters/wratten_2_filters/default.htm). Of course, this is valid only in domestic storage conditions: humidity will cause fogging, dampness will destroy the filter immediately, and temperature above 50°C / 120°F will accelerate aging considerably. A cool, dry, dark place is where you must store gelatin filters to maximise its lifespan. Even then, a 35-odd years old gelatin filter is probably toast.
 
Last edited:

Ok - that's the answer. The issue of long time storage (without light) I have it in mind but I wasn't realy sure.
But it is logical - in the way you have explained.
Imagine the very smal lost of huminity from gelantine filters over the years.
Stored to 350 years they might have a dry consitence and may decay to dust if you be not extreme carefully.
Just lets wait a while then see.....!
So they might have a change of colors over the years - you are RIGHT ..

with regards
 
Bugs will give them the rest - I forget to say.
with regards
 


The OP stated that he had not used the filters for decades. So we can assume dark storage.
Dyes used in light filters are regarded as not dark fading. We should not mix-up theses dyes with the chromogenic dyes in films.
If someone has contrary evidence, please let me know.
(So far I only know of one contrary statement, here at Apug, but it was not substanciated.)

But I admit that gelatin as dye matrix is less stable and also yields less chemical protection to dyes than resin.
 
AgX said:
So we can assume dark storage.
Click to expand...
Darkness is not the only condition and, although light accelerates chemical reactions, they do happen without it. "Several decades" is the key word here.

AgX said:
Dyes used in light filters are regarded as not dark fading.
Click to expand...
By whom? A source would be most welcome.

AgX said:
We should not mix-up theses dyes with the chromogenic dyes in films.
Click to expand...
They aren't the same dyes, and I never said they were. Did I miss part of the conversation?

Also, please note that there are several types of Ilford MG filters. The below lens filters are made of gelatin for its optical qualities, and are very fragile. The above negative filters are made of a different material, and are more robust according to my own experience (I'm not saying that they can last several decades, though).
 
Last edited:
I change my filters about every two years, they are cheap and I always want fresh,, most of the damage I see is from handling, but if the filter gets too close to the bulb bad things can happen.
 
My last set of MG filters I bought around 1992/1993, and I was still using them until about April last year and they were still working fine, but I was placing a large order last April and thought, after reading here and elsewhere that they should be replaced every 2 or 3 years that I better get a new set, waste of money, trying to see the difference I printed various negatives one with the new filters and same negative old filter, couldn't see any difference, so I put aside my new set and am still using my old set, and still working fine, getting gppd prints, and I tend to be fussy about my prints, so to the OP I say try them and if you are happy with the results then use them, if you are not happy then get a new set, they aren't that expensive, then try what I did, if you can see a difference then toss the old ones and use the new, of you can't see the difference then put the new set aside, you may need a filter in the future, and continue to use your old set
Richard
 
I fear the 150W bulb in my Ic will fry my precious (new) filters... :lol:
 

Are these below lens (gelatin) or above negative (resin) filters?
 
R.Gould said:
Above the lens, which are gelatin, the below the lens are resin
Richard
Click to expand...

[Edit to my previous answer] - I happen to have both versions of the Ilford filters, above and below the lens. I finally found some time tonight to check them both for material, and to my surprise they both turn out to be made of resin - which is interesting, since resin filters have a bad reputation for optical quality. Either Ilford find them good enough, or they have found a better manufacturing process. Interesting - the Kodak CC filters for colour printing have always been gelatin AFAIK, and very fragile.

The interesting point here is that I had already measured with a densitometer the action of my below-the-lens filters, bought in the '90s if memory serves (I remember MG IV was a novelty when I bought them), and found them to be completely shot: the grade 5 filter did not even reach a grade 3. The red filter from that kit was even heavily fogged, showing that it was made of gelatin and had suffered from the ambient humidity. As a result I had discarded this kit and replaced it with the above-the-lens kit. Side-by-side comparison shows considerable colour differences between the filters of both kits, with the older ones being quite washed out. So my conclusions stand: long-time storage alone can seriously degrade multigrade filters over time, even resin-made ones, even in the dark. And gelatin is worse.
 
Last edited:
I never checked anything in such a a way, simply by putting prints side by side,new v old, and I could not see any difference in the prints grade for grade, but I say if it works it works, if it ain't broke why fix it,
Richard
 
R.Gould said:
I never checked anything in such a a way, simply by putting prints side by side,new v old, and I could not see any difference in the prints grade for grade, but I say if it works it works, if it ain't broke why fix it,
Richard
Click to expand...

This is where the problem lies: how do you know whether or not it's broke? You cannot make side by side comparisons unless you have already bought a second set of filters - which you advise not to do - and since the problem appears very gradually you cannot detect it before it has become a real nuisance - in my case, until it was 2 grades off (wow!). But even then it still works, sort of.

It's a situation similar to the oil in your engine that goes bad gradually and not always at the same pace, and problems remain unnoticed for a long time before you notice them, You can't just rely on the current state to say that everything is OK. That's exactly why periodic changes were invented. Now if you were able to test continuously (which is what I could have done with my densitometer) things would different (and that's why predictive maintenance was invented, but it's another story), but periodic changes are usually far cheaper & easier.

But of course I have now found a better solution in a technology change, by using a colour head instead. Dichroic filters don't fade in time.
 
Last edited:
I don't own, or would know how to use, a desitometer, I am old fashioned, if it works for you then fine, as regards oil in cars, very little you could teach me, for fun and for many years I have restored used and shown classic cars, which take a lot more looking after than new cars, For half of my working life I made my living out of Traditional, old fashioned professional photography, printing everything in the darkroom, and never had a customer complain about the quality, and that was using my old filters, I don't use a colour head because I don't like using a diffuser, I prefer to use a condenser head, a personal choice as I prefer the results, I only bought a second set of filters because everybody here and elsewhere said filters should be replaced,every so often, I had had this set for a very long time, and just maybe, now I am semi retired, and they are not that much, I bought a set, and out of curiosty I thought I would find out if there was any difference, so I made prints from known negatives at all grades one on new set, then same negative on new set, and there was,to my eyes, no difference whatsoever with either filter, new or old, the prints were made on Ilford MG classic at 10/8, and I stated that the filters were not that expensive, so if the OP wanted to get a set of filters then go ahead, but it would be worth making a set of prints as I said above, and if happy with the results from the older filters then use them, and keep the new set as spares in case you need them, filters do get damaged, which is what I have done I use the old filters, keeping the new set in reserve, so as far as I can see it ain't broke for me so I wasted my money by fixing it,the main thing is, as with anything else in photography, if your are happy with the results then carry on doing what you are doing, as a hobbyiset then you are the only person that you have to please,I would prefer to make photos than use a densitometer to check whether I need new filters, or any other testing, but if that is what you want to do, enjoy it,
 
The question of Ilford filters having age-related problems has been asked of Simon Galley, formerly of Ilford, and whenever he answered this question and he did on several occasions, his statement about changing filters was always use related and not simply age related. I can never recall him warning about filters that were say 5 years old but had only been used on say two occasions.

If there were problems with simply age but not use then I cannot conceive of it being in Ilford's interest to conceal this anymore than it would be in its interest's to claim developer X can be diluted 1:20 for economy when all the tests and thereafter user experience demonstrated that 1:4 was the correct dilution.

I fear that the scent of my last paragraph will be carried at least a 1000 yards downwind to someone with a rapid fire cell phone who occasionally runs out of power in the middle of transmission. Can I suggest that you save your power on this occasion.

pentaxuser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register