multigrade filters or colour head filters - advice needed please

I have been using a Durst M670 colour enlarger and a set of multigrade filters for B&W work. I have noticed that some of the filters appear faded in areas (I have no idea how old the set is) Would it be better to use the dial up filters in the colour head for contrast control, or should I buy a new set of multigrade filters. I would be grateful for anyones advice.
Thanks
gbu

Much easier to use the colour head. The multigrade filters have a 2-3 year life in use according to Ilford but of course that depends on how much you use them. Ilford publish the filtration needed for Durst enlargers.

Ian

I agree that the inbuilt filters in a colour head are far easier to use. The only real compromise is the inability for the colour filters to do the extreme grades, that is grade 5 and grade 0.

If you have a situation where you can use the filters, then keep them and use them for the rare occasion that you need the extreme filtration, you will have the best of both worlds.

Mick.

Hello Ian,

with Ilford's filters you can use the same exposure for filter grades 00 to 3,5 and roughly double for 4 to 5. Does this apply to colour heads as well?

TIA

step wedge and test

I calibrate my dichroic head for new papers (actually in my case, usually very old papers) all the time - it takes one sheet of 8x10, and then my analyser gets me to a great print the first time.

I project a stouffer step wedge to about a 2.5" square size piece of paper. My Omega head goes from 170Y to 170 M in this series and for a first pass I go 30 units at a step- ie 170y, 140Y... 35Y, 0, 35M, 70M... 170M.

Label each piece with the filtration used for exposure- pencil, sharpie, etc.
Develop and process all in the same manner. Once dry, make note of the first non black step , and first non white step for each value of filtration. I use a 1/3 stop step wedge, so each step is .1 units of density.

You will find that usually the highest magenta filtration needs more exposure, to give an equivalent exposure to less contrasty filter settings. The solution is to figure in neutral density for all the settings that need it to get equal exposure. Then you can change paper grades by varying the filtration, and the highlight exposure will not change.

I look at the lowest non wihte step from the range of exposures with differing filtration, and then work out how many steps worth of ND is needed.

To do this, I measure the light value of a step that is being projected, and then measure the light output when the lens is stepped down 2 stops. Since I have a 1/3 stop step wedge, this is eqaul to 6 steps on the wedge. Yesterday, for example, I found that 12.4 seconds was the f/8 exposure.

Two stops down was 50.1 seconds. Not quite 4x, but don't worry. Now back to the open aperture, in my case f/8 Dial in C, Y and M, all to same values, until the time reading on my analyser reads 50 seconds (yes Cyan, because the analyser probe reads colour) In my case I found that it took 42 units of each to get 2 stops of light fall off. - so for me each 1/3 stop works out to 7 units. You can do this without an analyser, it just takes longer, with a series of prints needed to make the first non white when dry move 6 steps if you have a 1/3 stop wedge.

So now I know that, for instance, that first non white for me happened at 20 on the 170M, and at 14 for 0 filtration. So I need 7x6 steps of filtration to have equivalent exposure. - so my 'corrected' filtration for 0 is now 42Y 42M.

I do the same comuptations for all the other test exposures. Then I can see, for me at least, that for the paper in question, it doesn't get any softer beyond 140Y. It also tells me that without adding in extra 'offboard' filtration I will not get a harder than 4 contrtast grade. This is typical of old paper - they loose cointrast with time.

I go back to my tabulated filter data and assign which filter setting corresponds to the ISO paper range for each contrast. This data is on the sheet that comes with every type of paper Ilford ( and usually others) sells.

There are two charts for Durst colour heads & VC paper filtration, one using a single filter the other using Dual filtration and constant exposure times for the majority of Grades. One is available on-line, see the library on the Dead Link Removed.

Ian

I have a colour head on my DeVere but I use an under the lens Ilford Multigrade filters.

I can very carefully slide the filters in and out of the holder without disturbing the head - something I am guaranteed to do with changing the colour filtrations

If you are not split grade filtering then there is no advantage - if you are then this is a BIG plus point

I do use the heads in built colour filters but only as a variable ND filter to keep the exposure times sensible.

Martin

Thanks for the information - I am using Ilford MGIV paper - I have found the values for the various paper grades for the durst, should I also be dialing in filters for grade 2, given as 36Y, 46M, as a matter of course when doing test strips etc (I haven't been as I understood the paper printed as grade 2 without any filtration) but it will surely make a difference. Also should I have been using the grade 2 filter under the lens all along - maybe that where I've been going wrong?!

gbu

If you use the Gd 2 filter or dial settings you keep a constant exposure if you move to Gd 1 or 3. It doesn't matter.

Ian

You should be aware that Durst has used two standards for color enlarger filtration over time, one with maximum 130 Magenta and one with maximum 170 Magenta. There are different contrast filtration recommendations for each type.

Since it's hard to format tables for presentation on APUG, here are the Ilford Multigrade paper numbers in comma separated value form for you to plug into your favorite spreadsheet for formatting and printing:

Grade, Durst (170M), Durst (130M)
00,150Y,120Y
0,90Y,70Y
0.5,70Y,50Y
1,55Y,40Y
1.5,30Y,25Y
2,0,0
2.5,20M,10M
3,45M,30M
3.5,65M,50M
4,100M,75M
4.5,140M,120M
5,170M,130M

Note that these are for Ilford MG paper. Other papers will have their own characteristics and potential contrast ranges. I'd recommend Steve Anchell's Variable Contrast Printing Manual from Focal Press.

I prefer color head filters too. For my Dunco I got a combined modul: one for colorprinting and with a switch VC for bw . Its working very fine.

The Multigrade filters will fade in time. Ilford says to expect 2 to 3 years, but they may last longer if you don't use them much. Throw them out if they appear to be faded or uneven. The same can be said for the dichro filters in enlargers, although they generally last longer. As for which to use, it's your choice. The dichro head is easier to adjust, and you can get continuous adjustments. Some older heads do not have enough adjustment range to cover all the contrast grades you may want, however. The individual filters are also made so that there is no change in exposure when you change filters (at least in grades 00 through 3-1/2, with a predictable 1 stop increase for the higher grades). Exposure may change with the dichro adjustment. I generally use the dichro head to adjust contrast on my big enlargers, but for some reason I find it easier to use the filters on my 35mm enlarger.

About De Vere and MG filters

Martin Aislabie said:

I have a colour head on my DeVere but I use an under the lens Ilford Multigrade filters.

I can very carefully slide the filters in and out of the holder without disturbing the head - something I am guaranteed to do with changing the colour filtrations

If you are not split grade filtering then there is no advantage - if you are then this is a BIG plus point

I do use the heads in built colour filters but only as a variable ND filter to keep the exposure times sensible.

Martin

Click to expand...

Thank you for your tip on using under the lens filters on De Vere.

As I also do split-grade and it can be tiring to dial back-and -forth. I have one question though. How does these Ilford filters mount on De Vere? I have never used external filters on enlargers..

I have a 504 and use mainly EL-Nikkor 80mm lens to go with it. As I am thinking of buying a set I would appreciate advice on what kind of set it should have and how to mount it on my enlarger? But I also have 135mm EL-Nikkor so that might require larger set, is this correct?

Please let know if you good tried and true solutions for this one. Thanks.

Niina, you should be fine

The Under The Lens Filter Set of MG Filters made by Ilford come with a Filter Carrier which clamps to the outside circumference at the bottom of an Enlarging Lens.

Since I don't have El-Nikkor Lenses I cannot 100% guarantee that the Filter Carrier will fit - but I am 99.9% certain that it will.

I find an 80mm Rodenstock Lens to be on the very limit of what the Carrier can clamp onto (the bottom of the lens doesn't really stick out from the bottom of the Enlarger far enough to get a good purchase)

A 135mm Lens will be a much more certain proposition – as the lens barrel is longer

I use the same standard Filter Carrier with a 150mm f5.6 without problems - for reference it takes a regular 52mm screw in filter, so the barrel external diameter must be 55~56mm minimum.

Hope this helps

Martin

nworth said:

. The same can be said for the dichro filters in enlargers, although they generally last longer. .

Click to expand...

As I understand things the dichroic head filters will last almost indefinitely due the the fact that they operate on an interference principle and not on obstructing the light in the way that under the lens filters do. I admit to not understanding this explanation but assuming it is correct then any buyer needs to know that the purchase of a dichroic head will give him/her virtually filters for life whereas the under the lens filters or the filters for the built-in tray over the lens will fade and with the ones used more often say grades 2-3.5 fading faster.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

As I understand things the dichroic head filters will last almost indefinitely due the the fact that they operate on an interference principle and not on obstructing the light in the way that under the lens filters do. I admit to not understanding this explanation but assuming it is correct then any buyer needs to know that the purchase of a dichroic head will give him/her virtually filters for life whereas the under the lens filters or the filters for the built-in tray over the lens will fade and with the ones used more often say grades 2-3.5 fading faster.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Hence the reason I bought a dichroic head.

Steve

gbu said:

Would it be better to use the dial up filters in the colour head for contrast control

Click to expand...

Yes!

gbu said:

I have been using a Durst M670 colour enlarger and a set of multigrade filters for B&W work. I have noticed that some of the filters appear faded in areas (I have no idea how old the set is) Would it be better to use the dial up filters in the colour head for contrast control, or should I buy a new set of multigrade filters. I would be grateful for anyones advice.
Thanks
gbu

Click to expand...

When you are using the multigrade filters, do you zero the YMC settings on your colour head. The reason I ask is I have a CLS 201 colour head. But it only has a max YMC of 60, and nobody seems to know the multigrade settings for this head.

Beestonite said:

When you are using the multigrade filters, do you zero the YMC settings on your colour head. The reason I ask is I have a CLS 201 colour head. But it only has a max YMC of 60, and nobody seems to know the multigrade settings for this head.

Click to expand...

Always worth checking whether in a very old thread the original poster is still around. That person hasn't visited us since 2010

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Always worth checking whether in a very old thread the original poster is still around. That person hasn't visited us since 2010

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Thank you, would you have any idea to the answer of my question?

Over time, I have found a reasonable starting point (15M on my Omega) for my negatives. After that I just add or subtract contrast to taste.

Beestonite said:

Thank you, would you have any idea to the answer of my question?

Click to expand...

My answer would be that, yes, I always zero the YMC on my enlarger on my Durst colour head as the multigrade filters take over the role of the YMC filters. Your CLS does seem to have a very small range in its filters but I know nothing about such enlargers. Hopefully someone here has one and can comment on this 60 unit range

However its range seems irrelevant to your basic question about zeroing the YMC. Zeroing would apply in every case when multigrade filters are used

Do you envisage or have found situation when multigrade filters might not do what you need them to do and the YMC you feel have to be brought into play and was it that that prompted the question?

Let us know

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

My answer would be that, yes, I always zero the YMC on my enlarger on my Durst colour head as the multigrade filters take over the role of the YMC filters. Your CLS does seem to have a very small range in its filters but I know nothing about such enlargers. Hopefully someone here has one and can comment on this 60 unit range

However its range seems irrelevant to your basic question about zeroing the YMC. Zeroing would apply in every case when multigrade filters are used

Do you envisage or have found situation when multigrade filters might not do what you need them to do and the YMC you feel have to be brought into play and was it that that prompted the question?

Let us know

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply. If I could have found out the colour head settings I would have probably given it a try. If not I would purchase a filter set and use them instead. The enlarger to be used is a durst da900. This on its own is a condenser enlarger. Using the colour head converts it to diffusion. This is all new to me. Only just getting started with black and white film photography. Home development and printing. Just trying to give myself a starting point, before actually doing any

Beestonite said:

Thank you for your reply. If I could have found out the colour head settings I would have probably given it a try. If not I would purchase a filter set and use them instead. The enlarger to be used is a durst da900. This on its own is a condenser enlarger. Using the colour head converts it to diffusion. This is all new to me. Only just getting started with black and white film photography. Home development and printing. Just trying to give myself a starting point, before actually doing any

Click to expand...

Well you've come to the right place for advice. There can be a tendency for answers to get complicated and cover matters that may not seem relevant to your question but that's true of any forum. So don't be afraid to ask for clarification if any answers puzzle you.

Does your condenser enlarger have a slot into which multigrade filters can be placed? If so then a set of filters can be purchased from Ilford reasonably cheaply. If there is no filter slot then you will need to by a set of under-the-lens filter. These by their nature will be more expensive. If you haven't already done so have a look at the IlfordPhoto website where both sets are listed under accessories

I have an under-the-lens kit as my Durst colour had has no place for a filter slot but I found b&w filters easier to use. There is no need to make any exposure adjustment for filters 0-3.5 and then you double the exposure for 4-5. I found that with the colour head that while the combination of Y and M suggested by Ilford for colour head users gave very similar exposure for grades 2-3, exposure compensation was required for any prints requiring grades out side this narrow range

Now a search of numerous threads on Photrio will give you ways to establish your graph of compensation required it does need more work on you part. Alternatively you can use Ilford's recommendations for single grade filtration using Y and M only this does require a change of exposure for each grade which you must decide on

Multigrade filters eliminate this need which brings me on to my last point I would not buy second hand filters unless I could be certain that they had only been used for a few months. Filters will unfortunately fade over time so depending on how frequently they are used, will require replacing after a few years. This could be 5 years for the average home printer or even longer for the occasional printer


pentaxuser

Not so long ago paper came with the magenta and yellow setting for various types of filters. I should probably go buy only old paper. << Grumble >> << Grumble >> << Grumble >>