Omega D2V and Multigrade Filter Question

[curiousart]

Hi-

I have an Omega D2V enlarger, and I'd like to use Ilford Multigrade Filters with it. Is there any reason at all I can't simply lay them over the variable condenser glass, inside the variable condenser housing?

This question comes after having spent many hours building a filter drawer per some instructions I found on the innernet, only to find that the extra distance between the bottom condenser and the negative causes light falloff around the corners. Grrr.

Thanks...

 

[Rick A]

Thats where I place mine.

 

[Bob Carnie]

You should put them under the condensors away from the bulb if you can.
the heat will hurt the filters eventually.

 

[tkamiya]

I have the same enlarger. Mine has the Ilford's under-the-lens bracket mounted via an L bracket. Much easier to swap filters during split-grade printing.

 

[curiousart]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

At this point, I just want to make some damn pictures and stop wasting time and money, so I think I might just shove 'em into the hot box.

I was mostly worried that they wouldn't be as effective that far from the negative. I figure if I don't put them into the VC box until I'm ready to print, the bulb will only be on for seconds at a time, and it won't get terribly hot in there.

As far as gear goes, those Ilford Multigrade Filters are quite a bargain (got an incomplete set free, and a full used set on Amazon for about $10), so I consider them to be a disposable item. Fry them up, get a new set.

 

[curiousart]

I have the same enlarger. Mine has the Ilford's under-the-lens bracket mounted via an L bracket. Much easier to swap filters during split-grade printing.

I have a Kodak under the lens setup, but the filters were so elderly they degraded. Also, I read that having the filter between the neg and bulb was better, since you could avoid getting any dust or scratches on the filter ending up in your print...has this ever been a problem for you?

 

[tkamiya]

has this ever been a problem for you?

In a word, NO. That filter is so out of focus, dust will have no impact. I have some minor scratches but that never shows. I meant to do some extensive testing on that aspect of under-the-lens filter to determine how bad it has to be, before problem shows, but I haven't got to it, yet.

Opinions vary a lot on this subject. I have heard from very experienced folks on APUG and elsewhere that there are no image degradations by using under-the-lens filers and that matches my experience.

I have this setup on both of my D2s. I like it.

By the way, I am nowhere near a master printer. I hope someone else who is will chime in on this subject.

 

[curiousart]

This bit of info came to me from Ian C...

Above the negative filtering allows dirty or scratched filters without affecting the image.

So long as the filters are handled with care and kept in their storage sleeves or box to keep them clean, below the lens filters work fine and don’t alter the sharpness of the print.

With big enlargers and lenses using the 6” x 6” filters is the only practical alternative. You might have to fabricate a holder, but that can be done easily if you think about it.

The holder can be as simple as thin cardboard folded or glued together. The holder and filter can weigh almost nothing and still work fine.


So, after a 7 hour printing session last night, it hardly got even lukewarm in the VC box. I stuck my hand in there every once in a while, and the temp stayed pretty comfy. I'll probably make a little cardboard holder to keep the filter off of the metal parts, though.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use the 6x6 sheets, when using the middle and top condenser position between the 2 condensers, with the top condenser in the bottom position or the condenser removed for a 150mm lens, filter on the bottom condenser with a sheet of heat absorbing glass in the middle position. In the past I used the smaller Kodak or Dupont filters in the lens cone over the lens. More trouble than the 6x6 as it take more time to change filters.