Ilford Multigrade Filters

[jlbruyelle]

Calm down Richard, I was not attacking you, just making a point, and I'm sorry that you missed it. Of course I was not advocating using a densitometer, I thought I had made this clear enough. Neither was I trying to lecture you in engine oil, what do I care, it was an analogy. I was just explaining two things: (1) That any plastic or gel filter is bound to fade in time, at a rate that is pretty unpredictable in real life. In any case, decades-old filters are an unsafe bet. (2) That, given the absence of practical ways to check the condition of your filters, it is reasonable to change them periodically. Now you have a known-good set to compare, and found that your old set had fared well. Then you conclude that it must the be the same for everyone (and apparently resent other people's advising to buy that new set). I did the same comparison, and found otherwise. Your personal experience is just as valid as anyone else's, no one denies it, but it does not set the rule - and neither does mine for that matter. No need for hard feelings.

Also, please try to understand how discussions work on a public forum. This is not a person to person conversation: when I say that colour head filters don't fade, it doesn't mean I want you to change how you make your filtering - what do I care, I don't even have a colour head to sell you. I say it because it is interesting information for all those reading the thread.

 

[trendland]

Why keep posting? You're worse than Trump...

OK ...?
But much better than Hillary ?

with regards

 

[trendland]

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!).

That's indeed true jlbruelle (let me short state altough I'm absolue not amused about the whole multigrate workflow with filters - that means I realy don't like it).
You have to change your filters after some time and you have to buy new filter sets.
To awoid the costs (so if your filter set is just ok) there seams to be no other way than to compare with brand new stuff.
But how would it be if your best homie
is also using multigrade and you would ask him : " If you will buy a new multigrate filter set please call me because I have to compare with my filters"

with regards

PS : With good- and trained eyes you also might avoid a densiometer then - believe me...

 

[jlbruyelle]

OK, this thread triggered my curiosity, and I've just had a little time for a more exhaustive look at both my filter kits. Conclusions:

(1) Both sets are affected now, although of course the newer set is less badly affected than the older one. No need to confirm by printing, the discoloration is well visible to the naked eye. I thought I had one aging kit, now I see that I have 2.

(2) The fading starts with grade 3.5 or 4, and gets worse with the grade increases. The visual impression is that the dye that forms the hard contrast is fading heavily, leaving some kind of orange colour instead of the original purple, whereas the soft filters (00 to 3) don't seem to be affected, or far less.

I won't take the time for a full test with a contrast wedge, I've seen enough to confirm that my two filter kits died while in storage. Not that it comes as a big surprise, since chemistry predicts that all dyes will fade in time, but I've just seen that it can happen in a decade or two. Whether or not it is a common problem is not the question: it happened (twice) so it is definitely possible, and thus this possibility is to be taken into account. I have my experimental confirmation, which concludes this topic as far as I am concerned.

 

[R.Gould]

Yes, colour filters fade, I used to use square filters for my photography, great, just a new ring for each lens, and one set of filters, but that one set turned into several, they fsde,scratch, mark, no matter how carefully you use them, and a cheaper option soon becomes expensive, these days I still only have one set of filters, round glass, and some blu tak and one set fits all mi=y lenses, plus a set of B1 for my Tlr's, I have advocated replacing filters to many people, just did'nt get around to doing it my self and thought I had better, and I admit to my surprise the old ones were as good as the new ones, although my set had been used and abused over the many years, maybe Jersey air this side of the pond is kinder to MG filters
Richard

 

[trendland]

OK, this thread triggered my curiosity, and I've just had a little time for a more exhaustive look at both my filter kits. Conclusions:

(1) Both sets are affected now, although of course the newer set is less badly affected than the older one. No need to confirm by printing, the discoloration is well visible to the naked eye. I thought I had one aging kit, now I see that I have 2.

(2) The fading starts with grade 3.5 or 4, and gets worse with the grade increases. The visual impression is that the dye that forms the hard contrast is fading heavily, leaving some kind of orange colour instead of the original purple, whereas the soft filters (00 to 3) don't seem to be affected, or far less.

I won't take the time for a full test with a contrast wedge, I've seen enough to confirm that my two filter kits died while in storage. Not that it comes as a big surprise, since chemistry predicts that all dyes will fade in time, but I've just seen that it can happen in a decade or two. Whether or not it is a common problem is not the question: it happened (twice) so it is definitely possible, and thus this possibility is to be taken into account. I have my experimental confirmation, which concludes this topic as far as I am concerned.

Thats amazing - so I have learned (as a no multigrade user) you have to buy new filters every few years ?
Thats a little expensive - but nothing to do against.
To explain my postion again (as short as possible) I have had my first darkroom complete and noticed a short time later
(half a year?) there are new papers from Ilford named Multigrade??...
Fine - then I can try out ? ....was my first thought. BUT soon I realized - it was a complete new system.
So I haven't the intention to buy complete new equipment (and papers).
During the 80th I asked some friends about multigrade : "Do you also (like others I 've known) have this multigrade papers from Ilford now ?"
The answer I got was : " No - because I don't like this multigrade hocuspocus"
Me too - so I was up to date with my
decision (that stands to the 90th).
How could this change from knowing more of advantages today ???
NEVER CHANGE A WINNING TEAM
(that means me and my graded papers)

with regards

PS : I remember quite well that Ilford was in a first crisis (that time) because bw darkrooms have been most popular in the 70th. From this top it went downwards also from demand on Ilford papers.
And suddenly "Multigrade" appeared on the sceene. Sure Ilford intended to reach sales from filters in addition.
"HONNI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE" like the sibirian sailor would say.....

 

[trendland]

Yes, colour filters fade, I used to use square filters for my photography, great, just a new ring for each lens, and one set of filters, but that one set turned into several, they fsde,scratch, mark, no matter how carefully you use them, and a cheaper option soon becomes expensive, these days I still only have one set of filters, round glass, and some blu tak and one set fits all mi=y lenses, plus a set of B1 for my Tlr's, I have advocated replacing filters to many people, just did'nt get around to doing it my self and thought I had better, and I admit to my surprise the old ones were as good as the new ones, although my set had been used and abused over the many years, maybe Jersey air this side of the pond is kinder to MG filters
Richard

Yes - R.Gould color filters fade. Let's avoid this for camera use ?
There are no multigrade filters made from glass avaible I guess !
As you mentioned square filters - right choice you made - I would advice you to think about, before spent to much money to different filters wich let you not feel fine - look at this here :
https://tiffen.com
But let me warn you - expensive stuff - the glass is (a little) against scratches from the manufacturing with the use of
hardened glass.

with regards

 

[paul ron]

aside from all the trsh talk.....

using mgiv fb vc paper.... and the warm as well.

i have been using the kodak 6x6 vc filters for many years with a cold light. ive always had great results with tgem. the main one for bringing up highlight details is my #1, a very pale yellow filter.

recently i bought a new set of illford 6x6 vc filters and noticed my #1 or even the 00 doesnt give me the same control, both are much harder than a number 1 grade.

comparing the filter colors, Kodak's start as pale yellows, getting rosey by #2 or so.

the illfords softest starts out orangy rosey, almost a #3kodak, and gets deeper as it goes up.

im not sure why or know what this means but im not happy with the illford set at all. i wish i knew more about the exact colors vc papers react to and how these filters work.

i do know in general its about blues n greens but no real detailed info other than that. i have been searching for more quantitatve data, but i cant find it.

 

[jlbruyelle]

Hi Paul,

First off, you may want to read Ralph Lambrecht's "Way Beyond Monochrome" book. It doesn't give all the information on how well different filter and paper brands work together (I doubt if anyone ever cared to study this), but it does give a lot of practical and theorical information in the chapter entitled "Measuring paper contrast", pages 302-308 in the 2nd edition.

Among other things, you will find there a chart showing that the various manufacturers of VC paper have defined their grades all over the scale - for instance, Kodak filter 4 roughly matches Ilford filter 3.5. Moreover, given that Kodak and Ilford didn't have to give their papers the same spectral sensitivity, there is no reason to believe that the paper of one make would react the same way to its own filters and to those of of the other make - all the less so since, as you noticed, they also chose different wavelengths for their filters. As a result, Kodak and Ilford filters had very little chance to give the same contrast grades. All we can say is that with an halogen bulb the Ilford filters give you the grade that Ilford wanted their paper to have. With Kodak filters you get neither the Ilford grade (wrong filter) nor the Kodak grade (wrong paper).

Another important point is that VC filters were never designed to work with just any cold light source, which is a fluorescent tube with a discontinuous spectrum, totally different from an halogen or tungsten bulb. In such conditions, they may give you a very different contrast from the halogen bulbs used in colour enlargers (which is what these filters were designed for), or from the tungsten bulbs used in conventional condenser enlargers - that is, unless the manufacturer specifically says that of your cold light source is designed for variable contrast paper. The difference is unpredictable, since it entirely depends on the exact spectrum of your specific tube. I strongly suspect that cold light is a big issue in your case, since there shouldn't be a "softer than 00" grade" as you noticed: the most likely explanation is that the Ilford 00 filter doesn't attenuate enough the tube's spectrum in the "hard contrast" sensitivity curve, and your resulting "grade 00" is actually a "grade 1.5". Try them with a conventional light source and surely your contrasts will be better.

In other words, the Ilford paper / Kodak filter/ cold light combination that you like, as well as the Ilford paper / Ilford filter/ cold light combination that you dislike, don't give any predictable grade. Apart from switching to halogen (which, if I get it right, you don't want to do), the only thing you can do is either to find a new set of Kodak filter, or to measure the contrasts you get (Way Beyond Monochrome explains how to do it - but you will need a densitometer and lots of trials) and try to reproduce them with currently available filters. Note that you may have to do it all over again if you need to change your cold light tube, as they don't all have the same spectrum.

 

[paul ron]

thanks, i still have a few close grades in good condition so kodak 1/2 is close enough to a 00.

im going to break out my color anylizer and do some measurements to see what i have and maybe compensate with a rosco gel to balance the illfords to match?

yeah i gave up on the tungstens.

im not doing anything large, mostly 11x14 and a few 16x20s from 4x5s. i found the 60watt bulbs to be way too much. i tried using a 40, but still not as nice as the results ive enjoyed over the years with my cold head. to use tungsten again would mean changing how i do my negs. i cant start all that again.

btw i did see illfords color chart for setting up a color head equivelent. ill use that as my baseline for comparison.

btw i have a spare cold light as a back up.

 

[jlbruyelle]

I don't know what lamp you have on your enlarger, but the problem of cold light compensation for the Ilford MG filters was addressed in this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?56284-Aristo-W45-lamp-CC40Y-correction. You may find it useful for your case.

 

[paul ron]

oh thanks, i was looking for that.

 

[Pat Erson]

Thx jlbruyelle for the info! I could read your posts all day!

 

[Craig]

Is there an ISO ( or other) standard for paper contrast? I was just wondering if "grade 3" has a specific definition, much like film speed does, or if can be somewhat arbitrarily defined by the manufacturer?

The post about Kodak and Ilford filters being different made me wonder if they were both working toward the same endpoint.

 

[jlbruyelle]

Is there an ISO ( or other) standard for paper contrast? I was just wondering if "grade 3" has a specific definition, much like film speed does, or if can be somewhat arbitrarily defined by the manufacturer?

The post about Kodak and Ilford filters being different made me wonder if they were both working toward the same endpoint.

Yes, there is an ISO standard for paper contrast It's usually referred to as ISO(R), and it is described in "Way Beyond Monochrome", in the "Measuring paper contrast" chapter. Unfortunately the grades of the various manufacturers are not defined at the same value on the ISO(R) scale, as shown in the chapter. Ilford's grades span a wider contrast range than Kodak's, which is wider than Agfa's. ISO has proposed its own grading system, which doesn't match any manufacturer unfortunately.

 

[jlbruyelle]

Thx jlbruyelle for the info! I could read your posts all day!

Oh thanks!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

After decades, I am getting back into black and white developing and am trying to determine how much of my old equipment is still working/useful. I have the old 1982 Ilford Ilfospeed Mulyigrade II filters which suited the paper available at the time.

My question is: Will these filters work with the newest Ilford MG IV paper? or do I need to invest in newer filters?

Thanks

I'm sure, they'll work but I'd get new filters ora colored nevertheless.

 

[paul ron]

While searching for cold light specs I found something interesting.. not as specific as Id like but its the same info circulating in the forums....

Seems getting technical information on these lamps is classified. No one states wattage or color spectrum in any detail.
I have the zone vi light with the v54 but prior years it had the arista w45. Both gave me very good results with the Kodak (yellowish) filters using the Illford MGIV FB paper was no problem.

The new (rosey) illford set doesn't seem to give me the softer values i enjoyed with the kodak filters. So im back to the kodak filters.

SOooooooo For now its the zone head and kodak filters Ive been using for years still giving me great results.

Upgrading just seemed to cause more headaches than its was worth.
If it doesn't itch, don't scratch!