Older Ilford Multigrade Filters - fading

[JimEA]

I was really struggling with printing using Ilford below-lens Multigrade filters that came as a job lot of darkroom stuff that I had bought from ebay - especially with grades 4+.

After much searching I found two pieces of excellent advice in the archives in this forum (thanks to the original posters) and thought I'd re-post to help anyone else with the same issue....

1. The filters fade over time (especially the 4+ ones)
2. You can buy the above lens filters and easily cut them down to size to fit the under lens holders (roughly halving the cost of a new set).

Having just upgraded the old filter holders with new gels - all of them were slightly different colours, but the 4+ ones were way out - to illustrate just how much they can fade I've posted a pic.

(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)

Thanks to all who contribute to these forums, very much appreciate being able to absorb all of your advice!!

 

[Paul Howell]

I have my Ilford filters for over 10 years and so far no fading, they are the larger 6" sheets that I use above the lens in my D3. I bought a set of off brand 4" filters for a second enlarger, maybe 3 years ago, these have started of fade. I still have set of Dupont filters, maybe 50 years old, outside chance 40 years ago, they stopped making paper in the late 70s, no fading at all. Grade 2 and 3 print well, but as paper has changed not compatible at grade 1, 4 or 5.

 

[jimjm]

I agree there are quite a few differences between the old and new MG RC papers. Resulting contrast is about a full grade harder, at least up to about grade 3, so I've been dialing-in a lower grade to get the contrast I like with a dichroic enlarger.
The new paper also seems faster, resulting in shorter exposure times. Ilford has a Tech sheet comparing the two papers.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks to JimEA for the excellent illustration of what has been shared anecdotally on many occasions.

 

[pentaxuser]

I had the same experience as the OP which I find strange as I had expected the grade 4 and above filters to be the least used but there we are I can only conclude that the previous owner of the set which I was given for free anyway used the grade 4 and above quite frequently unless there is something about grade 4 and above filters that makes then age more quickly than lower grades.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Grades 4 and higher block more light!

 

[tezzasmall]

I also replaced my filters recently. I could only afford the 'student' set of above lens filters, which I cut down to size for the filter holders that I have.

So, if you are on a budget, get these filters. They only come in full grades, but that more than covers my needs and they are MUCH cheaper than buying a full set, at about £10-00 I think I paid.

In the UK, I bought them directly from Ilford, when they had a free postage promotion, but also because main sellers would only supply them to me in a minimum batch of 100 sets!!!

Terry S

 

[AgX]

I am completely clueless on this thread:

-) have the OP's filters faded during dark storage, bright storage or during use under the enlarger?

-) what is depicted in the photo?

-) how does cutting the filter sheets to smaller size, to fit just under the lens, cut cost by half? That may be true for the area, but what can he begin with that resting area?

 

[wyofilm]

I am completely clueless on this thread:

-) have the OP's filters faded during dark storage, bright storage or during use under the enlarger?

-) what is depicted in the photo?

-) how does cutting the filter sheets to smaller size, to fit just under the lens, cut cost by half? That may be true for the area, but what can he begin with that resting area?

The OP can respond better, but it looks like to me, given the circles in the filters, that they have faded from use, and maybe from age (surprising if kept in the dark). I believe in the photo is where he cut out new filters, which left a space for him to position the old filters for comparison. I'm also a little lost on the cost savings claim.

I am blown away by the degree of fading on these filters. This makes me wonder about the filters on my enlarger heads! Heiland to the rescue?!

Thanks for posting OP!

 

[AgX]

So I am not the only one being puzzled.
And there is fading aside the alledged lens diameter too.

 

[NB23]

It is very hard to judge fading filters if you don’t have a fresh set to compare.

I’m a bit deceived by Ilford regarding their under-the-lens filters, which are the same thin plastic sheets as their over-the-lens filters, and which are very easily damaged with fingerprints and water.

The old Kodak Polymax filters were made from a hard plastic that simply didn’t fade. Now that was top quality!
I still have my old set, amazing stuff. But they require a careful matching with a given paper, which in turn requires to always use the same paper... so it’s not that simple.

 

[MattKing]

This makes me wonder about the filters on my enlarger heads!

If your filters are dichroic filters, they work using very thin layers of different optical coatings with different refractive indices. The result is that they provide selective reinforcement of certain wavelengths of light and selective interference with other wavelengths - they don't really fade.
They can get damaged, and they can become dirty.

 

[Nige]

-) how does cutting the filter sheets to smaller size, to fit just under the lens, cut cost by half? That may be true for the area, but what can he begin with that resting area?

I'm guessing the under lens set is twice the price of the above lens set. Don't they have plastic frames, which is why the faded filters have circles. I think the examples above have been removed from the frame.

 

[AgX]

However, if a manufacturer offers both, under- and above-lens filters, the former even at higher price, one should expect the under-lens one to be of higher optical quality.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes the big saving comes from buying a set of filters for a filter drawer but cutting them to fit the existing plastic holders rather than buying a set of under the lens filters in another set of plastic holders plus the bits needed to hold them under the lens. if you already have the bits and the holders which do not wear out then simply re-use these.

The "cost" is in the time needed to cut the new filters and placed them in the old holders. It can be done and I have done it but requires that you are careful and methodical when opening the old holders, cutting the filters to size and placing them in the opened filter holders and closing them carefully

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

Thank you! I had been very slow on the uptake this time.

However, there still is the issue of the rebates of the cut-out pieces having faded too. At Multigrade filter mounts I know theses are covered on both sides.

 

[Nige]

However, there still is the issue of the rebates of the cut-out pieces having faded too.

Yep, faded from time and light.

 

[AgX]

-) the rebates are light tight covered by the mount
-) if they are to have faded by age, the resting pieces should have been affected too, unless stored under very different conditions

 

[Bikerider]

I have 3 sets acquired from various sources over the years and they have not been used for a very long time and then they were perfectly good. Having been given an old enlarger with condensers I thought it would be OK to use what Multigrade filters have. Even they have been kept in a box away from light the harder filters are virtually useless. The Gd5 has faded all over to a pale amber, paler than Gd 0. Fortunately grades 1 to 3.5 appear the be Ok so I was able to use them. Mind you with the new Multigrade 5 I have found that I can print perfectly well with no filter at all. Oh yes the enlarger an old Durst M600 works perfectly well and yes the condensers do give a harder image and accentuates the grain (and dust).

 

[JimEA]

OP here - I don't know the history of the faded filters as they were bundled with a secondhand enlarger I bought. Not sure where the confusion is - was simply posting to share that I'd learned that older filters do change colour (whatever the mechanism) in order to be helpful to others who may experience the same difficulties with contrast when using older filters.

 

[AgX]

Thank you for bringing up this interesting case.
Well, the confusion is due us not understanding how the fading occured. If we would know how this confusing situation emerged we even could evade such outcome.
But there are also cases of long stored Multigrade filters that seem not being affected by fading.

 

[pentaxuser]

But there are also cases of long stored Multigrade filters that seem not being affected by fading.

Yes it is a bit strange that stored filters which have never been subject to light or at least to very little light have faded. Simon Galley, formerly of Ilford made several posts about Ilford filters and while he acknowledged that in use filters have a limited life I don't recall him saying that fading was related to time alone i.e. that filters begin to fade once they are made

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

Mounted filters stored in the light likely would have faded, but then not their rebates.

 

[Vaughan Bromfield]

I just purchased a used enlarger and it came with some old Multigrade filters -- as-in, Multigrade v1.0 filters. Their colour matches the old "faded" set in the OP's photo: The number 7 filter (corresponding to grade 4) is a deep purple, compared to the strong magenta colour of the new grade 5 filter.

Those old filters are definitely faded (ie the lighter circle in their centre) but they are also a different colour to the new filters because the MG v1 filters were not "speed matched". The newer filters incorporate some neutral density to match exposures when changing filter.

 

[AgX]

Explanations of the rebates fading too may be:

-) different climate conditions for the mounted filters versus the surplus pieces
-) just being covered by the mask and kept from air fascilitating dark ageing versus the surpus pieces being more aeriated
-) an interaction between the mask material and the dyes
-) the filters having ben dismounted and thus the rebates light faded too