Omega B22 filter question

[DramaKing]

I've been looking at Ilford multigrade filters for my B22. However, the ones I intend to buy are 6x6". I suddenly realized that this presents a problem as the filter drawer doesn't seem big enough to accomodate the large size. Is there some way to make this work? I suppose I could cut the filters down to size. Or should I just look for 3.5x3.5" filters?

Appreciate any suggestions.

 

[Jon Shiu]

Probably cheaper and more convenient to buy the smaller size, with grade numbers already marked on them.

Jon

 

[Neal]

Dear DramaKing,

Look here: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1373535-Ilford-MG-Filter-Set-3.5-in.-x-3.5-in.?cat_id=1602

or here: Dead Link Removed

or here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/114879-REG/Ilford_1762628_Multigrade_Filter_Set_3_5x3_5_.html

or here: http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/IK0052/

Neal Wydra

 

[George Collier]

You could mark each corner of each filter before hand with a sharpie, then cut them to size, keeping the original labeled one for last. Then you have replacements if they fade, as long as the remaining area is big enough.

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Filters for a B-22

I have two enlargers in my darkroom, a B-22XL (longer girder), and an Omega D-6. As I am now using Kentmere and Ilford papers almost exclusively, I have two sets of Ilford filters, a 6-inch set for the D-6, and an under-the-lens 3-inch set for the B-22. I also have two sets of Kodak Polymax/Polycontrast filters, (the same configurations as the Ilford filters; now retired and headed for eBay), as well as a set of AGFA filters, which have been cut to fit the filter drawer of the B-22.

I find it much easier to deal with the under-the-lens 3-inch set for the B-22 when using up my last few boxes of AGFA paper (insert a heartfelt sight >HERE<), rather than juggling cut filters in and out of the drawer. Also, as I often employ split filter printing methods, sliding a under-the-lens filter out and an other one in, or the same procedure for the D-6 with the 6-inch set, is much easier that running the risk of bumping the B-22's head when changing filters in the filter drawer.

My B-22 leaks light like a sieve, especially as I use a home made glass negative carrier with it. So, I have blocked the light leaks on both of my enlargers with old black socks, wrapped around the appropriate place on the enlarger, and held in place with an ordinary wood clothespin. Moving one of those to get at the filter drawer will almost always disturb the head, so I stick with the under-the-lens set for the B-22.

(One of my photographer friends saw this arrangement recently, and thought that I had a screw loose; I told him that my enlarger gets cold in the winter, and the socks help keep it warm!)

As for the actual filters themselves, I recently borrowed a friend's densitometer to make some sensitometric tests on several B&W papers, and part of the data I gathered was a reading of all of my B&W filters. I don't have the data in front of me at this moment, but I did find that both sets of Ilford filters were pretty much identical with each other (both #2's were the same, et cetera), and found much the same with the Kodak filters. The three sets (Ilford, Kodak and AGFA) were different from each other, but all tended to "go" in the same direction; that is to say, the higher the contrast number, the higher the magenta-yellow density ratio.

So, my suggestion would be to use a set of under-the-lens 3-inch filters for your enlarger. The purists may say that they will degrade the image quality, but for the prints I make, which are 11x14 and smaller, I have never noticed it. Also, if you get a second enlarger, you can move filters between the two enlargers without any problem.

If you are interested in the filter data, drop me a PM.

 

[2F/2F]

I got a set of the 6x6 inch filters that I cut into semicircles for a Beseler 45. The filters cost me 50 bucks. Ouch! Then, I got another in one of those boxes of paper that has the filters and 50 sheets of RC for 50 bucks. I viewed it as another 50 bucks for another set of filters, and 50 free pieces of proofing paper. I cut those into the proper size for the filter drawer of my B22s. You have to chop the corners. I made a handle/label for each one out of masking tape folded back onto itself. There is enough filter material to make four sets like this. I suggest the 50 sheets of paper and a set of filters. It is a good deal. The only problem is that they do not come in a box, so you need a nice, safe place to stow them. I keep both sets in the box that the first set came in. I suggest doing this, as having your filters the above-condenser filter drawer is preferable to having them in the below-lens filter holder for a variety of reasons, and you'll have an extra supply of filter material in case you lose one or damage one (or want to go pinholin' or otherwise shoot paper negs with MG paper).

 

[DramaKing]

Okay, got the filters. I followed the advice in this thread and bought the 3.5x3.5" filters. I just tried to use them and discovered that they were still too large. I measured the below-the-lens holder, which is 2.5x2.5". Going to the manual, I found that the drawer accepts 2.75" filters. Does anyone know if there is a filter holder for the B22 that will hold 3.5" filters, or should I try to cut them down to the right size.

 

[2F/2F]

Okay, got the filters. I followed the advice in this thread and bought the 3.5x3.5" filters. I just tried to use them and discovered that they were still too large. I measured the below-the-lens holder, which is 2.5x2.5". Going to the manual, I found that the drawer accepts 2.75" filters. Does anyone know if there is a filter holder for the B22 that will hold 3.5" filters, or should I try to cut them down to the right size.

Since you will need to cut the filters anyhow, I would return the small ones and get the big ones. They will give you enough meat for four full sets of filters for your B-22. Not a bad deal for only about $20 more, and you can find them packaged with 50 sheets of MG RC for the same price.