multigrade filters or colour head filters - advice needed please

[Beestonite]

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

Unfortunately th filter drawer is missing, but it's a very easy work around. Th uicon 85 condenser is used for both the 80mm and 50mm lenses. You just slide the lensbord either way or the required lens.. this raises or lowers the condenser. I can easily make a drawer tht would sit above or below the condenser depending on its position. When measuring the filter size required. It needs the larger size and they need to be cut. The system is auto focus. The 2 lenses are both rodenstock rodegon f5.6. That are specifically adapted and set up for this. Looking at the under lens system. I do not think the filter holder would work with them.. so I have aired on the side o caution, and ordered a new large set.

 

[pentaxuser]

Unfortunately th filter drawer is missing, but it's a very easy work around. Th uicon 85 condenser is used for both the 80mm and 50mm lenses. You just slide the lensbord either way or the required lens.. this raises or lowers the condenser. I can easily make a drawer tht would sit above or below the condenser depending on its position. When measuring the filter size required. It needs the larger size and they need to be cut. The system is auto focus. The 2 lenses are both rodenstock rodegon f5.6. That are specifically adapted and set up for this. Looking at the under lens system. I do not think the filter holder would work with them.. so I have aired on the side o caution, and ordered a new large set.

Thanks, let us know how you get on with the large set. As long as your modification set-up works then the benefit is that there is a considerable saving in price

pentaxuser

 

[Beestonite]

Thanks, let us know how you get on with the large set. As long as your modification set-up works then the benefit is that there is a considerable saving in price

pentaxuser

Cheers I will do when I get fully set up and running, which is a bit off yet.

 

[pentaxuser]

I guess if you're Amish you might stick with sheet filters in a filter drawer. I can't think of any other reason for doing it the slow clumsy way once efficient colorheads were invented, unless it's simply not practical at this time to acquire a colorhead.

This seems like a bit of an insult to the Amish. Is there any reason why they have been singled out ?

pentaxuser

 

[Tim Stapp]

Interesting observation regarding the Amish. When I worked on industrial woodworking equipment the Amish in Northern Indiana were some of my best customers.

Depending upon what the Church elders allowed: some were hydraulically powered (shops lighted by kerosene or LPG lanterns) and 7 miles down the road were running CNC routers and moulders powered by CAT GenSets. Cell phones were allowed only on the business premises.

 

[negativefunk]

I just started to use the cls 70 colour head of my durst m800 whilst previously I was using condenser. This one too has filtration on a 0-100 scale and I didn't find an equivalence scale with the 130/170 scales.

My impression (after a single printing session on Sunday) is that if you are working with a colour head, it's perhaps worth dropping the idea of an equivalence with contrast grades, and just play with the scale available to you to see if it allows the room for maneuvering you need - at least this fits my limited expectations at the moment.
For me it seems to work to do larger increments initially when looking for a the "proper" contrast. It makes the effect more obvious and it helps me understand where I want the end print to be - but this could be me.

I can confirm what pentaxuser says - using the M or Y scales invariably causes a change in exposure times which was not usually the case when I was using the condensers and the tray filters, so I now do a test strip on the highlights when I change filtration to find the new timings. Whilst this is annoying I still find there's a greater benefit in using the colour head and having less imperfections on the print and not having to swap filters and invariably stain\mark them.

 

[pentaxuser]

Don't make a social "correctness" football out of a perfectly obvious analogy. If it's more comfortable to you, use lower case "amish" as an adjective. They choose to do certain things in a particular old-fashioned manner.

It wasn't particularly obvious to me nor was the analogy with multigrade filters in a filter drawer in an enlarger being obviously old fashioned.

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't want to make a fuss out of this, so will delete the posts you find offensive. Thank you.

But just for sake of general interest I can respond to Tim. For decades before I retired I interacted with tool salesmen, senior manufacturing reps specifically, who traveled all over the country during that era, and were highly paid due to that (unlike now). And several of them sold equipment to Amish and Mennonite sects, who could be serious power tool customers. In one case, the buggy manufacturing operation was forbidden to use any electricity, so they installed diesel compressors (gasoline per se engines also being forbidden), and bought high end Sioux air tools, even more industrial duty than the electric versions! And yes, I've talked to some in person wearing expensive designer tennis shoes, Rolex watches, and surfing the web using the latest cell phones, yet otherwise in traditional garb. Just depends on the specific rules, and whatever loopholes exist in that. Their own kind of "hybrid workflow".

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

The whole line of Durst color enlargers with dial-in filters are ideal for B&W contrast control and are well worth doing up. I also prefer their halogen bulbs over the tungsten bulbs of other simpler enlargers.

 

[pentaxuser]

The ilford rc datasheet has a section on color equivalent for both versions of durst heads.

Yes it does but my experience is that outside of grades 2-3 or in fact slightly less than that narrow range of grades, the combinations the datasheet gives do not maintain an equal exposure for the other grades unlike the MG filters but I do not recall Ilford making this as clear as it might. Maybe it should be obvious and no doubt it is to all those who know about such matters but is likely not to be obvious to newcomers who are the ones asking most of this type of "beginner's" questions

A colour head is fine if that's your preference but any person asking for the pros and cons of MG filters v colour heads should be told of all the pros and cons with both methods in my opinion

pentaxuser

 

[xkaes]

Whether a colorhead or filters are used, the exposure changes with the filtration, and my tests (there's that nasty word again) -- using my gear, paper, chemicals, process, etc., of course -- showed me that the manufacturer's recommendations are just that. As others have done, I have a matrix table for my Ilford MG filters, so that I know how much to change the exposure if I switch from a #2.5 filter to a #3.5 filter, for example.

This is one reason why I normally use the OLD/"amish"/antiquated/pre-historic approach -- filters instead of a colorhead (although I love my colorhead!!!)

 

[MattKing]

When working with anything that attempts to "speed match" contrast adjustments - whether using the individual filters or the filtration settings - it is critical to remember that any attempt to speed match is in relation to a particular tone.
I believe that tone is usually a high mid-tone.
If you expect that a contrast change will result in no change in density in either a highlight or a shadow, you will be disappointed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have used both multigrade filters and a color head. The color head is a part of my 4"x5" enlarger and just being built in makes it more convenient. Overall I found the color head much more convenient and allows for small variations which multigrade filters cannot provide.

 

[xkaes]

As usual, Matt hits the nail on the head. I used a gray card as my "home plate".

 

[pentaxuser]

As usual, Matt hits the nail on the head. I used a gray card as my "home plate".

Can I ask: what does the grey card do to avoid any change other than overall contrast equally in all tones and in practical terms what are the steps needed to ensure that?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Contrast is a measure of how similar tones compare to each other.
With higher contrast filters/settings, the differences between similar tones in the print are accentuated - highlights go brighter, shadows go darker, and the apparent differences between similar tones increases.
With lower contrast filters/settings, the differences between similar tones in the print are decreased - highlights go dimmer, shadows go lighter, and the apparent differences between similar tones decreases.
The grey card is likely to be at least close to the tone that the speeds are matched to. If you change the contrast filters/settings, and they are speed matched, the grey card image will come close to matching in tone, no matter what contrast filters/settings are used, but with respect to the other tones in the subject:
a) with higher contrast filters/settings, the highlights will go brighter, the shadows will go darker, and the apparent differences between similar tones will increase; and
b) with lower contrast filters/settings, the highlights will go less bright, the shadows will go less dark, and the apparent differences between similar tones will decrease.
I like to think of it as an example where changing the contrast filters/settings causes the tones in the print to "pivot" around the targeted tone, while the target tone remains as the relatively unchanging fulcrum for them all.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.


Mick.

Sorry, Mick. That's not correct, but it's a common opinion. In any event, I achieved a measured grade of 5+ with my Durst L1200 on Ilford paper, and a grade of 0 is easy peasy. Just use full magenta or yellow, respectively!

 

[Mick Fagan]

Sorry, Mick. That's not correct, but it's a common opinion. In any event, I achieved a measured grade of 5+ with my Durst L1200 on Ilford paper, and a grade of 0 is easy peasy. Just use full magenta or yellow, respectively!

Ralph, you are correct, but in general only if you are using an enlarger with a Durst colour head filtration system, and even then, that can be different enlarger to enlarger. My only use of a Durst enlarger was with a massive 25cm x 25cm (10" x 10") 2000W colour enlarger which was the only colour enlarger we had that managed to match contrast extremes with our B&W enlargers fitted with Ilford's multigrade B&W head.

The other main system which is based on Kodak's colour enlarger filtration units, are unable to achieve grade 5. I know this as I've been using DeVere colour head enlargers for decades doing both colour and B&W enlarging in a commercial lab and in my own darkroom. Whether you use a single or dual filtration method, I have yet to see in the darkroom, a Kodak colour head filtration system that gets as strong a grade 5 as Ilford's contrast filters are able to do.

Page 3 on Ilford's technical downloads site mentions this issue.

"Quote

USE OF COLOUR HEAD
By adjusting the yellow and magenta filtration on colour heads, it is possible to obtain a wide contrast range with MULTIGRADE papers. However, the maximum contrast will be slightly lower as the filters used in colour heads are optimised for use with colour paper and not with variable contrast paper. The suggested filtration in the following tables can only be a guide, because individual enlargers vary. The actual filtration for a particular enlarger must be determined by trial.

Unquote".

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Contrast-control-for-Ilford-Multigrade.pdf

 

[xkaes]

The actual filtration for a particular enlarger must be determined by trial.

Looks like even Ilford is afraid to use the ugly word "TEST".

I'd use the word "TRIAL" too, but I wouldn't want to end up being found GUILTY.

 

[pbromaghin]

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 >>

I bought some Ilford MGRC a couple months ago and it had that info.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some of the misunderstanding here is due to the fact that regular subtractive CMY colorhead filtration has improved over time, particularly with respect to Durst and Omega colorheads. Therefore, given purer magenta and yellow and less white light getting through too, you can achieve a greater paper grade range. It's still not as much as with a true additive RGB colorhead, but for all practical purposes, plenty enough.

In that respect, the Ilford link which Mick quoted is clearly jaded and in error. And one can always use deep green or blue filters below the lens for sake of split printing too, which will trim the light even more than any official VC filter set. But at a certain point, it's all overkill anyway.

And yes, I've tested multiple method using different kinds of enlargers. I can pretty much duplicate VC results with any of them.