Meopta colour 3 filter grades.

[fidget]

Hi, I have recently bought a Meopta Magnifax 4a with the Color 3 head which I will use for B&W printing, mainly with Ilford RC papers. In the Ilford multigrade paper instructions, there is a table which gives the dial up filtration on the Meopta, needed for each grade. Will this keep the same exposure level for all grades or will significant compensation be needed?
I am using a Durst color enlarger at the moment, its combination filtration seems to keep the exposure constant, but the table for the Meopta gives only the single filter level. I have not got it ready to use just yet, I thought that I might get ahead by asking for your experience here.
Dave...

 

[haris]

Dave, my modus operandi with Magnifax4 (older model) and Colour 3 head is that, when I establish contrast, I make my test strips using M and Y for that contrast grade, and use time established with that filtering. I know people first establish exposure time, and after that contrast, but I do vice versa. In theory, if you use only one filter for contrast (only M or only Y), then you use same time for contrast 00 to 3 grade, and double that time for 3,5 to 5 grade. Same theory tells that is you use both filters in same time for contrast, that is if you don't establish contrast, let say 4, with only M, but with combination of M and Y, then you use same exposure time regardless of contrast.

So, theory say next: You establish exposure time, for example 20 sec, using non graded test strips (that is using not filtered light from enlarger head, that is bacis grade for that paper. Basic grade for variable contrast papers, when exposed using not filtered light, depending of manufacturer, are usually grade 2 or 3. I belive for Ilford MGRC IV basic grade is grade 3). If you use combination of M and Y and make let say five prints with contrast grades respectfuly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, for every print you will use 20 sec exposure. But if you use let say only Y for grades 1, 2, 3, and only M for 4, 5, then you will use 20 sec exposure time for grades 1, 2, 3, and 40 sec exposure time for grades 4, 5. But, this is theory, best for you is to test and find your way.

On Meopta's web site, http://www.meopta.cz/index.php?id=121&lang=en there is table for double filtering for newer colour head 4=ES and different papers including Ilford MGIVRC, but I belive fiter values are same as for Colour 3, or use them as starting point.

Exposure meters/contrast finders like RHdesigns ZoneMaster II or AnalyzerPro or Jobo ComTime, or others like those two, can make life easier.

 

[haris]

Oh, and there is Meograde head, that is head for variable contrast papers which use only one dial for contrast and preserve same exposure time regardless of contrast grade, so if you like to spend money, all filtering issues will be solved...

 

[fidget]

Thanks Haris,
I have the handbook for the Color 3 head, it has the table for the conversion of filtration levels to the Kodak and Agfa ranges. This table is identical to the one for the Color 4 head in the link you gave to me. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a table to use to look up Ilford paper grades.
I seem to remember reading about this somewhere.

 

[haris]

I just visited Meopta web site before I wrote that link. On bottom of page there is filtration table for Ilford paper, below tables for Kodak and Agfa papers. Those filtration tables are for Meopta Color 4-ES head, not for Color 3, but filters for both heads are I belive the same, 4-ES is newer and have integrated voltage stabilizer, as I knoe that is only difference from Color 3 head. So, for flitration use table on bottom of next page: http://www.meopta.cz/index.php?id=121&lang=en

I would copy table for you, but I don't know if that would violate copyright of that web site, so, please, look at bottom of page which link I just wrote, there is double filtration table of Ilford paper. I look at that table right now!

I use that table also, me to use Ilford papers.

Good luck,

 

[fidget]

Oh, I see!
I was looking at the PDF files and stuff.
Sorry!
This looks nice info. Not quite in agreement with the Ilford paper table for Meopta, but then it doesn't say which Meopta head. I will go and try these settings.
thanks haris,


Dave....

 

[maarten m]

i know, an old topic, but i'm trying to find info on filtration with the color 3 head.
it seems the links to the meopta-site don't show what they should.
any other sources?

thanks!
maarten.

 

[andrew.roos]

Ilford have a fact sheet on contrast control for multigrade papers at http://www.ilfordphoto.com/download.asp?n=782&f=2010628932591755.pdf. It includes suggested filtration for Meopta heads on p. 3 although it does not specify which model head this is for. I use it successfully with my Meochrom II head. Note that the settings in this table don't keep exposure constant across different grades - for example, moving from Grade II (white light) to Grade I (55Y) requires about a one-stop increase in exposure.

 

[maarten m]

thanks andrew.

i already read the "contrast control" sheet from ilford, and the problem was i din't find the exposure compensation guidelines.
so i went looking all over the web and i think i condensed some interesting information.

there are 2 ways of gradation control on the meopta color head: one that uses only one color, and another that combines the two.

if using only one color, these would be the values and according adjustments:

GR < II (Y = 55(I), 90(0), 150(00)): t=x1.25 (+1/4 stop)
GR II (Y & M = 0): t (standard setting)
GR III(M = 40): t x 1.50 (+1/2 stop)
GR IV(M = 85): t x 2 (+1 stop)
GR V(M = 200): t x 2.5 (+1 1/2 stop

also considering the density control takes two stops, and keeping "45" as standard setting,
which would allow us for 1/2 stop down and 1 1/2 stop up compensation,
this would give for a constant exposure time (set for GR II):

GR < II (Y = 55(I), 90(0), 150(00)): D = 37,5
GR II (Y & M = 0): D = 45
GR III(M = 40): D = 30
GR IV(M = 85): D = 15
GR V(M = 200): D = 00

if using two color filters to adjust gradation, there would be no need for exposure compensation.
the values i found for this are:

GR00: - 105 Y - 00 M
GR0: - 85 Y - 10 M
GRI: - 60 Y - 20 M
GRII: - 40 Y - 45 M
GRIII: - 20 Y - 60 M
GRIV: - 10 Y - 75 M
GR00: - 00 Y - 200 M

some settings seem to be contradictory (like the settings for grade 00 and 0), but i think it's a good guideline for further testing.

maarten.

 

[tih]

I wouldn't say contradictory. If you subtract the shared filtering
(the same amount of yellow and magenta won't change contrast; it'll
just increase exposure time), the Ilford scale becomes:

Gr Y M Real
00 105 0 105Y
0 85 10 75Y
1 60 20 40Y
2 40 45 5M
3 20 60 40M
4 10 75 65M
5 0 200 200M

My experience with the Color 3 head is slightly different, though. I
have an RH Designs Analyser Pro, and have carefully calibrated it and
the Color 3 head to each other. I'll post my report from that
exercise next...

-tih

 

[tih]

Calibrating RH Designs Analyser Pro for a Meopta color head.

Enlarger: Meopta Opemus 6 with a Color 3 head.
Paper: Ilford Multigrade IV RC, glossy.
Developer: Ilford Multigrade, concentrate diluted 1+9, 60s at 20C.

Target: to determine filter settings and calibration data that fully
utilize the available contrast range, with ideally spaced grades, a
reasonable trade-off between added ND (Y+M) in the middle of the scale
and added exposure time at the ends, and zones VIII½ and I½ at the
ends of the grey scale on the analyser (i.e. zones VIII and II at the
next to last diodes on either end).

Tools: Stouffer TP4x5-31 transmission step wedge and R2110 reflection
guide (as recommended in "Way Beyond Monochrome"), and RZ9 zone system
chart.

First, I determined the paper's response to the Meopta filters. I
contact printed the step wedge at 40 filter unit intervals from 200M
to 200Y, evaluated the densities of all steps on each using the
reflection guide, and made graphs of the results. From each of these
characteristic curves I could calculate the ISO grade resulting from
the use of that filter setting, using the density range from relative
0.09 to 0.9Dmax, as suggested in the book. A derived graph was made,
showing this relationship. This turned out quite smooth and not far
from linear for much of the range, although the graph levels off a
little bit at the extreme range of yellow filtering, and much more so
for magenta -- there is some increase in hardness to be gained beyond
120M, but not very much. My results also show that I'm able to
squeeze a range of grades out of this set-up that is very close to the
standard ISO range: I can't quite reach the softness of ISO 00, while
at the other end, 200M gives me a bit more contrast than ISO 5.

Next, I calculated the ideal exposure range of each half grade, from
00 to 5, where the ratio between successive pairs of grades is equal,
as for the ISO standard grades. Thus, my target grades are all a tiny
bit harder than the ISO ones, but are correctly spaced, and give me
the optimum utilization of the available range. These numbers were
entered into the Analyser.

I then estimated the needed filter settings, based on my graphs, with
added neutral density (i.e. overlapping Y and M filtering) taken from
Ilford's suggested filter settings. Since I'd previously done a
calibration using Ilford's suggestions, I interpolated initial offsets
to enter into the Analyser based on that experience.

Finally, three rounds of calibration and adjustment of filter settings
and exposure offsets, the first with 1/6th step test strips, the
subsequent two with 1/12th, allowed me to tweak everything to the
point where I now hit my idealized grades to within the limits given
by the imperfect repeatability of filter settings, the 1/12th step
resolution, and my own limited ability to evaluate the exact densities
at the dark end of the range by visual comparisons. Along the way,
the contrast settings in the Analyser were corrected slightly, but as
a set; they are still properly spaced.

Here's the resulting data set:

Grade:	00	00½	0	0½	1	1½	2	2½	3	3½	4	4½	5
Magenta:	0	0	0	5	10	25	50	50	55	65	80	110	200
Yellow:	200	140	110	85	65	50	40	30	20	10	0	0	0
Offset:	11	5	-1	-4	-8	-19	-21
Contrast:	172	140	114	93	75	61	50

Since I also use Ilford's warm tone version of this paper from time to
time, I've gone through the process of calibrating the Analyser for
that paper, using the same filter settings as shown above. (I could
have used separate filter settings especially tailored to this paper,
but the differences would have been very small.) My settings for MG
IV RC warm tone glossy and the above filtering are as follows:

Grade:	00	0	1	2	3	4	5
Offset:	29	22	14	11	7	-5	-9
Contrast:	199	161	129	102	85	72	62

I'm quite happy with my results, although a little bit disappointed
that Ilford's own developer for their MG IV paper doesn't give me
quite as deep blacks as I'd like to see. Increasing development time
doesn't help in this regard, so I plan to experiment with toning
(probably selenium?) to enrich the blacks without lowering the high
tones. Improved longevity of the print will be a bonus.

 

[andrew.roos]

Hi tih

Thanks for an impressive set of scientific testing on our behalf! I have a couple of questions in order to be able to make the most of your results.

1) Are these designed to provide equal exposures for different grades? Is any exposure compensation required for the highest and lowest grades, where one of the filters is set to 0 so there is no ND effect?

2) Possibly a related question: what is the meaning of the "offset" figures you provide?

3) Do you know offhand whether these same values will work with the Meochrom 2 head of the Opemus Va enlarger?

Many thanks
Andrew

 

[tih]

Andrew,

the "offset" and "contrast" numbers are for the Analyser Pro, so they
won't be useful unless you have one. And no, again because I let the
Analyser control the exposure time for me, these numbers will not give
equal exposure times at different grades. You'd have to dial in more
ND in the middle of the scale to achieve that. The amount I've got
there is just to smooth it out a bit.

When I'm next in the darkroom, I'll check how much the Analyser Pro
actually changes the exposure time when I switch between these
settings, and post the result.

-tih

 

[andrew.roos]

Thanks tih!

And thanks Maarten for your post #9, which I just saw now. I will try out the two-filter values with my Meochrom II head.

 

[maarten m]

pretty impressive study, tih!
i'm interested what ND settings you need to keep a constant exposure though.

mm

 

[tih]

OK, I've checked what the Analyser Pro does with my data, now. When I change grades, it corrects the exposure so that the highlights in the print stay the same, and the darker areas change their value. Thus, the change in exposure time is what's needed to keep the toe of the curve, where the paper just departs from pure white, in the same place, while letting the shadows burn out to black on the paper when contrast is increased. To achieve that, here's what it does with the exposure times for my filter settings:

Grade:	00	00½	0	0½	1	1½	2	2½	3	3½	4	4½	5
Magenta:	0	0	0	5	10	25	50	50	55	65	80	110	200
Yellow:	200	140	110	85	65	50	40	30	20	10	0	0	0
Multiplier:	1.95	1.72	1.52	1.35	1.20	1.13	1.06	1.00	1.00	1.13	1.27	1.52	1.84

The multiplier shows how much the required exposure time increases to keep the highlights in the final print at the same near-white level, compared to the grade 2½ exposure.

Now, based on this, it should be possible to create an estimate of how much ND (equal amounts of M and Y) to add in order to get the same exposure time throughout - but it might also be that someone who doesn't use the Analyser Pro would like a more central zone to stay constant with varying grades, and it's not impossible that my filter settings actually do something quite close to that with no correction of exposure. Perhaps someone with a Meopta color head would like to give it a shot, and let us know what happens?

I'm pretty sure that these filter settings squeeze the maximum contrast range out of Ilford MG4 paper, with even spacing along the ISO contrast scale, so they should be a really good starting point.

-tih

 

[tih]

It just struck me: it's easy to correct the exposure by adding real ND filtration in the Color 3 head. The scale there is: 30 units equals 1 step. So, let's just use the exposure correction calculated by the Analyser Pro, and convert those to Meopta ND filter values. This gives us the following:

Grade:	00	00½	0	0½	1	1½	2	2½	3	3½	4	4½	5
Magenta:	0	0	0	5	10	25	50	50	55	65	80	110	200
Yellow:	200	140	110	85	65	50	40	30	20	10	0	0	0
ND:	0	10	15	20	25	25	25	30	30	25	20	10	0

Once you've found an exposure time, at one of these settings, that places the highlights correctly, you can change settings by following the table, and use the same exposure time, and you'll change the contrast of the print while keeping those highlight details in the same zone.

Note: I haven't actually tested this. It would be cool if someone did.

-tih

 

[tih]

OK, I was a bit confused. Of course the ND scale is exponential, as I first thought. So here's the table again, this time with (rounded) correction amounts in 1/3 and 1/2 aperture steps, and on the Meopta ND filter scale:

Grade:	00	00½	0	0½	1	1½	2	2½	3	3½	4	4½	5
Magenta:	0	0	0	5	10	25	50	50	55	65	80	110	200
Yellow:	200	140	110	85	65	50	40	30	20	10	0	0	0
Open by:	1	1	½	½	0	0	0	0	0	0	½	½	1
or by:	1	2/3	2/3	1/3	1/3	0	0	0	0	0	1/3	2/3	1
or add ND:	0	5	10	15	20	25	25	30	30	25	20	10	0

-tih

 

[maarten m]

thanks, tih!
so this should keep the highlights in place en shift the darks down.
i'll try that out next tim i go into the dark ...

 

[maarten m]

one more question: you say the ND-scale is exponential.
does this mean that a 10pt shift does not exactly accord to 1/3 stop
but is different whether it's from 5 to 15 or from 45 to 55?
i'm getting a bit confused here ...

mm

 

[tih]

one more question: you say the ND-scale is exponential.
does this mean that a 10pt shift does not exactly accord to 1/3 stop
but is different whether it's from 5 to 15 or from 45 to 55?
i'm getting a bit confused here ...

Right, I can see that. My confusion was over how to compute the conversion between exposure time and the numbers on the ND filter scale. That scale is really graduated in 1/30th stops, of course, so that d(30):d(29)::d(1):d(0), where d(n) is the density of the given setting. In other words, 10 points equals 1/3 stop, anywhere on the scale. My final table assumes this, whereas the former one assumes that d(30)-d(29)=d(1)-d(0). It's really only interesting at the level of 1/6 stop differences.

I'd love to know how my calculations work out in practice! If you do test this, please report back!

-tih

 

[tih]

Oh, and Maarten: I don't know if you have the current URL to Meopta's collection of documentation? You can find it at http://www.meopta.com/CCE/DownloadFileList/ - click on "Discontinued Product Manual" for the old stuff!

-tih

 

[maarten m]

hey tih, i already found that manual, but thanks anyway.
when i get some time to work on your diagrams, i'll make some tests and see how they work out.
keep pushing me though, or i might forget

regards,
mm

 

[wilfredo69]

[QUOTE = "tih, post: 372491, member: 15702"] Ah, y Maarten: ¿No sé si tiene la URL actual de la colección de documentación de Meopta? Puede encontrarlo en http://www.meopta.com/CCE/DownloadFileList/ - ¡haga clic en "Manual de producto descontinuado" para ver las cosas viejas!

-tih [/ CITA]

Hola, estaba viendo la conversación sobre los filtros de cabezales de color 3. Tengo esa cabeza y antes de comprarla siempre usé filtros Kodak Polimax. Ahora los comparo con los de Color 3 y estos parecen menos fuertes que Kodak. Koda grado 5 es mucho más fuerte que Magenta 200, ¿por qué? Lo mismo ocurre con los amarillos, en el color 3 parecen más débiles que el Polimax Kodak. Ahora no tengo productos químicos nuevos para probar, pero muestra que el Color 3 es muy débil. ¡Gracias y perdón por mi mal inglés!