Question on Printing on variable contrast paper without any filter

I’ve recently been skiming through the book 8Mastering black and white photography* by Bernhard J Suess, which was printed in 1995.

I found something in it that was totally contrary to what I recall being taught.

I have always thought that a sartingpoint for variable contrast paper was a 2 ½ filter.

Suess writes that *Grade 2 is considered normal contrast. With a normal contrast negative, you should be---.. able to make a good print---with a full tonal range on a grade 2 paper. Using variable contrast paper with no filter yields a print which is very close to a grade 2.* (page 94)

Please share any thoughts on this.

Thank you

Jim Benson

If you take a look at (for example) the data sheet for Ilford MGIV RC paper, it states that it has an unfiltered ISO range of R110 - This equates to a grade 2 which is in line with what your book has to say.

Now... One could argue that a diffusion enlarger would give a slightly lower grade than a condenser, but I think that is best left for another thread

I printed variable contrast papers without filters, but somehow grade 2 in fixed grade papers were always more contrasty than grade 2 in variable contrast papers (without filter or with No 2 filter).

when I do this I consider no filter grade 2.

whether condensor enlarger or diffusion.

When I have a dense negative Pyro and a flat light scene this is my go to technique.

as no filter gives much more initial power . then I will build up contrast with multiple hits of grade 5 to get the look I want.

Yes, but some of it depend on how your enlarger diffuses light and its light source.I calibrated my filtration to ISO ratings to be sure and no filter was at aboutgrade 2 indeed.

Again I ignore all that grade talk. Any high quality silver paper has a degree of flexibility to it to accommodate a certain amount of contrast
range, depending on how long you develop it. I often use VC papers as if they were graded papers with just "white" light. The nice thing is that if I need to, I can then tweak this base exposure a bit using selective filtration in VC mode. When I do buy graded papers (which are
getting scarce), I have always standardized on Grade 3. That's a personal choice, based on how you typically develop the film in the first place - to what degree of contrast. And the same negs intended for ole time Grade 3 seem to print just as easily on VC papers with just
"white" light, which in fact is never truly white, so the exact personality of your light source factors into this. But I employ different sources: blue-green cold light, additive colorheads, subtractive colorheads. Seem to make no difference. They all work superbly. Then there's always the precise option of the differential control of "split printing" which can be applied to any enlarger.

DREW WILEY said:

Again I ignore all that grade talk.

Click to expand...

Me too. I either adjust for more contrast or less depending on what the results are.


Steve.

While unfiltered light gives similar contrast to using a #2 filter, it doesn't require similar exposure.

The variable contrast filters are speed "cordinated" on a particular tone. So if you change between filters to adjust contrast, your exposure changes will be minimized if you start out with the #2 filter.

I always proof with white light
Settings at zero...it works for me

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Without a filter multigrade paper is in the 2 to 2.5 grade range for me.

As usual it depends. Not all papers are the same and not all enlargers are the same. Dichroic head enlargers vary greatly and what the manufacturers state as combined Y+M values work well with some papers and enalrgers and not so well with others.
Also paper loses contrast as it ages and unfiltered may be in the ISO(R) range for Grade 2 when it is newly manufactured and can be quite a long way short of that a year or two later than that.

For what its worth my testing with Ilford MGIV FB (the old one) was spot on G2 without filtration when the paper fresh(new). Some old paper I tested was way off.

Also I found with Fresh paper Ilfords recommended Y+M figures for G2 on my dichroic Durst enlarger matched exactly unfiltered G2 and Ilfords own filters matched G2 exactly. Others papers varied from this as did my other Durst dichroic enlarger.

In short it depends on your own system, the paper, how old it is and how accurate your Y+M filter settings are. You can get really bogged down in worrying about this when all you really want is that for each contrast setting 0 thru 5 that you get even spacing between them and that the speed point for each grade setting is close (the tone that doesn't change when you change grade) and you know what the speed point tone is. This makes changing grades more predictable. You want to be able to use 3 grades nicely spaced up from your dev calibration. Whether they are real ISO(R) grade spacings or some arbitrary grade spacings doesn't really matter providing they are ball park ISO(R) spacings.

The way to test for this is with a transmission step wedge, print and compare the steps. The ones with 1/3 step increments are best. They don't need to be the highly calibrated ones. Stouffer makes them.

So whether unfiltered is actually G2 is not that important but if you are using it for neg calibration then its as good as most other methods. Just make sure you use very new paper to do the tests.

I'm pretty certain that the original Ilford Multigrade system (paper was sold in a pale yellow box!) did not include a No. 2 filter and the recommendation was to print "normal negatives" with no filter. I don't know about other brands such as Kodak Polycontrast and Agfa's Muticontrast because they were not readily available here until the 1990s. Ilford discountinued Multigrade for a period that ended in the late 1970s with the introduction of a RC version of Multicontrast paper and that's when, I think, the No 2 filter appeared. I also recall reading at the time that the contrast level remained the same with or without the No 2 filter but obviously not the density so the filter was introduced to even up exposure through the contrast range provided by the filters. OzJohn

Jim Benson said:

I’ve recently been skiming through the book 8Mastering black and white photography* by Bernhard J Suess, which was printed in 1995.

I found something in it that was totally contrary to what I recall being taught.

I have always thought that a sartingpoint for variable contrast paper was a 2 ½ filter.

Suess writes that *Grade 2 is considered normal contrast. With a normal contrast negative, you should be---.. able to make a good print---with a full tonal range on a grade 2 paper. Using variable contrast paper with no filter yields a print which is very close to a grade 2.* (page 94)

Please share any thoughts on this.

Thank you

Jim Benson

Click to expand...

What is the question?

> but somehow grade 2 in fixed grade papers were always more contrasty

I my younger day I used fixed graded paper with contrast "normal" (numbers weren't in use that time). It was harden than the today grade 2, around on step. Grade 3 may be equivalent to this.

It was Orwo baryta paper, PE was not available in the 70th.