(and also as far as I can see, the newer MG deluxe papers don't require double the time for grades 4+ that the MGIV ones did - but that's not reflected in the instructions that come with the new filters - grrr)View attachment 254621
On account of this problem I have 3 sets of Ilford MG filters dated 2004, 2014 and 2019, all different. I would be interested to hear from someone who has done serial spectral densitometry on these filters, but I would be surprised if even Ilford has taken the trouble to do so. It would be good to know the interval between observable differences in print appearance, ie how often we need to buy a new set!
As far as I know the replacement gel filter sets that Ilford sells are the same for both under the lens and filter drawer above.I've not seen this mentioned in any of the posts: There is a huge difference in quality between the filters that go below the lens in the optical path and the large filters that go in the filter drawer above the negative carrier. .
A very good point and one that I'd would have expected Simon Galley to have mentioned and Ilford to have stated in its information about such filters, were this definitely to be the caseIf the time-irrespective fading can be confirmed, then maybe there should be an expiration statement on the package; "These filters should be replaced 5 years after date of purchase", or something similar.
Well then I'd have to throw out every set I have!
"For your 2nd q – we haven’t tested how long filters that are not used, but stored away from daylight will last. But its our belief, that typically, so long as filters are not left in sunlight or in constant room lighting – they’ll perform optimally indefinitely, and really shouldn’t fade."
I hope this helps
True but I am often left speculating about "what happened" in a lot of OP posts. We often never seem to reach a definitive conclusionBut it still leaves us speculating what happened to the OP's filters...
I had forgotten about this thread until I saw it appear again yesterday. I note that I did receive a reply from Ilford that appeared to clarify a doubt expressed about whether unused filters were subject to the same limited life span mentioned by Simon Galley
On re-reading what thanks I got for this, I was somewhat underwhelmed
I wonder more frequently than was the case a few years ago why I bother. Time I stopped bothering to share what I have taken the time to get an answer on , I fear
pentaxuser
Fear not, I did read and note your report on Ilford’s reply. So thanks for your effort. However, Ilford’s ‘belief’ doesn’t answer (a) why there is so much variation, and (b) why the OP’s filters seem to have faded. I think I might ask them to comment on this thread.
What was your first question to Ilford, and their reply?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?