Older Ilford Multigrade Filters - fading

[pentaxuser]

(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

Has anyone got an answer yet from a user experience point of view to the above which pertains to what increase in exposure time for the new MG V paper is required grades 4 and 5?

There may well be an increase that can be worked out from the new paper speeds but does this theoretical increase translate into a practical one? If it does what is it?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[gone]

The filters are plastic and dyed, right? All dyes are fugitive to my knowledge, and plastic degrades over time, so it's just the nature of the filters to fade, with or w/o light. It would be surprising if they didn't fade.

 

[ghart]

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!

 

[pentaxuser]

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!

Yes in the light of the stated inexorable fading as in replies above due to time alone and not use or any exposure to light at all, it would be interesting to know the maximum time before fading occurs and secondly how much acceleration there is in fading due to use, if any.

I now wonder if Simon Galley himself was aware of what is for me, at least, a new piece of information about fading. All I recall is that Simon mentioned the figure of 5 years but this seemed in the context of use. I cannot recall him giving the warning that 5 years was largely the limit brought on by time in the main

It would have been helpful if he would have said that beyond 5 years filters fade anyway and may not be safe for use even if that use is only very occasional

pentaxuser

 

[randyB]

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. I would never cut a circle out of the big sheet to use it below the lens since the big sheet is not optically flat and free of defects. Most of the quality below the lens filters were gelatin or precision dyed plastic made specifically for use below the lens. I too have Ilford filters that have faded.

 

[pentaxuser]

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. .

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.

Here's the quote from Ilford leaflet on fiilters: MULTIGRADE FILTERS are available in sets, 8.9 x 8.9cm (3½x3½”) and 15.2 x 15.2cm (6x6”), and can be used above or below the lens as well as cut to fit enlarger filter drawers as necessary.

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Inquiry sent today at 6:00pm BST to Ilford on this question of fading irrespective of use or light. I'l report back with the answer when I get it

pentaxuser

 

[Saganich]

I have 4 sets of filters. The 1st and 3rd are 25+ years old and the others are about 10 years old. I'm scratching my head here, according to the OP the 5's are fading to a darker hue? But the current Ilford number 5's (judging from current catalog photos) look more like my 25 year old filters than my 10-year-old filters. It looks to me like my 25 yr old filters are fine but the newer ones faded.

 

[Kino]

If 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!

 

[pentaxuser]

If 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!

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 case

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Well I have now received an answer to my inquiry about fading whether Ilford filters fade without being used at all or subject to any light exposure and I quote Ilford below:

"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 got this answer back in a week so anyone else wishing to make a technical inquiry should expect to receive a similar service. Always worth a try if you want an answer from the "horse's mouth" as the saying goes

I hope this helps

pentaxuser

 

[bernard_L]

1. The "blue" and "green" to which the (three) emulsions of VC paper are sensitized are presumably not identical to the "blue" and "green" of the human eye.
   
2. So, two filters fabricated 20 (or whatever) years apart may, in principle at least, be functionally equivalent, yet "look" of different colors.
   
3. An additional reason for visual differences without functional counterpart is the "red" that the VC filter must pass through (otherwise, once the enlarger's red filter is engaged, the baseboard would be dark). That "red" can be transmitted in various amounts and with various dominant wavelengths.
   
4. To avoid spending on a new set "just to be safe", record test strips (5s, 7s, 10s, 14s, 20s... ) under the #4, #4.5, and #5 filters. Keep them on record; Repeat if in doubt. If you have a Stouffer wedge, even better.

 

[AgX]

"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

But it still leaves us speculating what happened to the OP's filters...

 

[Hilo]

what an excellent thread!

We must not forget that we do not print in the same envirement, we do not heat the darkroom the same way, the humidity will be different, the daylight coming in will be different, we store filters in different ways. We have different ventilation . . .

The filters shown with the circle towards the edge. Probably forgotten to take out of the under-the-lens filter holder.

For 20 years I had a darkroom without daylight, ever. I never changed filters, but I do not know if they weren't affected, perhaps there was gradual change . . . . Then I switched to a smaller workspace which is also my darkroom. The sun comes in from the middle of the afternoon until it sets. My filters started to fade too. I try to remember to put them back in the box and to put the box into a drawer that's dark when closed. But I also forget, perhaps 30% of the time. I never worried much about it because in the end you solve the problem with the print

My advise, just get new ones when in doubt. They cost something sure, but they're inexpensive for what you get.

For Ilford it is impossible to make sense of it, there are too many different parameters.

 

[pentaxuser]

But it still leaves us speculating what happened to the OP's filters...

True but I am often left speculating about "what happened" in a lot of OP posts. We often never seem to reach a definitive conclusion

pentaxuser

 

[David Lingham]

I stumbled on this thread by chance while searching the forum for information on split grading. It made an interesting read as I remembered buying a set of Ilford multigrade filters back in the early 90s’. Around that same time I had the chance to buy a Dichro colour head for my De Vere 203 enlarger, and the box of multigrade filters were put away virtually unused and have stayed safe and warm, hidden away in my darkroom ever since. After reading this thread regarding issues with the filters fading I thought I would find my box and check them. I’ve attached a picture that clearly shows they have faded quite badly, refuting Ilfords claim that they don’t.

 

[snusmumriken]

Thanks for bumping this, David, because I hadn't seen the thread previously. It inspired me to lay out the 3 sets of MG filters I have. The one on the right is the oldest, from an eBay purchase of darkroom miscellania. The other were bought new, but at least 15 years ago. All have been stored in the dark except when in use.

Like Christopher Saganich in post #33, I'm finding it hard to know what to conclude. The colours seem vaguely consistent throughout the series up to grade 3 1/2, though with evident variation. For harder grades, the colours are all over the place, and quite unlike either the OP's or David's in post #41. Grade 5 in my old set on the right has discolouration at the top where someone has pressed very greasy fingers, but otherwise that is the boldest grade #5 of the three sets. I accept that the OP's old filter set shows evidence of fading, but each of the three top grades of his new set is unlike mine in different ways.

I can't comment on the current performance of mine because I almost never need anything harder than grade 3. Most of the time I work with the below-lens set on the left, and switch to the above-lens set in the centre if I'm being totally perfectionist (almost never!). I have never used the set on the right. Clearly I must get myself a printing step wedge to run some simple tests. But I can't help wondering how much of the variation is just down to manufacturing?

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you are going to split print then the other more permanent option is to get blue 47/green 58 glass filters. Or magenta/yellow, but I don't know the Wratten numbers for m/y so you'd have to look them up.

 

[snusmumriken]

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?

 

[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?

Thanks and you're quite right. The reply I got from Ilford only clarifies the doubt/assertion that was expressed about Ilford filters fading in their box and unused

I tried to clarify the doubt expressed about inexorable fading irrespective of actual use but these days I feel less sure if I am helping by calming someone's legitimate fear by finding the info from Ilford or simply responding to someone who has said something "for effect" and for whom such action as I took was irrelevant

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

Thank you David and Snusmumriken, for those photos!

I just looked at my set, bought "used" (but seemingly unused) years ago. And stored dark since then. In a full-stop row of six it looks as being inbetween your samples, with #4 being the odd one.

Another filter of the set has extreme fading just at part of its circumference and a few blotches of fading, all resembling quite good lens seperation, to give you an idea.

 

[snusmumriken]

I think we need to bear in mind Ilford's advice re safelight filters: "If a safelight is in use for long periods, such as several hours a day it will gradually fade with use and become less effective. To offset this the filter should be changed each year and the date of installation recorded." I don't see why MG filters would be any different, and the fading of the OP's old filters suggests prolonged exposure to light. But that doesn't explain the inconsistent differences among the sets shown in this thread.

 

[FotoD]

If you are using the same filters you did when this thread started, it's time to change

Seeing some are using 25 year old filters, haven't Ilford also tweaked the colors a couple of times during the years? That would make it more difficult to compare old and new filters.

 

[AgX]

Yes, but the odd samples shown or described here hardly can be explained as needed for a certain generation of Multigrade.