RH analyser pro + Kaiser BW MG head

[petrk]

I am struggling to calibrate the analyser for the Kaiser MG head. Should be straitforward, I use Ilford IV MG RC papers, the goal is only calibrate for head filters. But I messed it. I am not sure for which grades in the analyser I am supposed to set acquired data for the exposure ofset. The head has filters 0-5, the 00 is missing. So I have 6 fiter grades, not 7. Entry for calibration starts with 00. I thought I can write there the same data for 0, but the analyser recalculates ISO down from the 00, which gives me strange results on paper. Are here some Kaiser users who could shed light to the issue?

Many thanks

Petr

 

[R.Gould]

The Analyser comes pre programed for the Ilford RCMG4 paper, that is the standard setting, for anything further I would suggest the first port of call should be the RH designs website,

 

[etn]

Have you tried the calibration data provided on RH's website? (http://www.rhdesigns.co.uk/darkroom/html/user_calibrations.html)
Do they work for you? (they don't for me, although I fail to understand how calibration values are enlarger dependent. They should rather be paper and developer dependent, I guess...)

As a matter of fact, I am also struggling with calibrating the device. A preliminary calibration did not yield good results. When I get a long weekend sometime soon I will dedicate a couple days to fine-tuning the calibration (or, re-doing it from scratch) with fresh chemicals.

 

[petrk]

Great! Thanks for ponting me. I have missed these user data. Will give it a try.

Thanks to you, R.Gould and etn!
Petr

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The Analyser comes pre programed for the Ilford RCMG4 paper, that is the standard setting, for anything further I would suggest the first port of call should be the RH designs website,

+1

 

[Svenedin]

I have a Kaiser Multigrade head and an RH designs analyser. It is a tedious and laborious process to do the calibration but well worth it. For 00 you need to use an Ilford filter as the MG head only goes to 0. I’ll post my calibration data which should get you started.

Note that the numbers on your MG head 0,1,2,3,4,5 do not map exactly to Ilford MG filters. However, you do have continuous control of contrast -you can set intermediate values as you please. I have never had to make a print below setting 1.5 or above 3.5.

 

[Svenedin]

Have you tried the calibration data provided on RH's website? (http://www.rhdesigns.co.uk/darkroom/html/user_calibrations.html)
Do they work for you? (they don't for me, although I fail to understand how calibration values are enlarger dependent. They should rather be paper and developer dependent, I guess...)

As a matter of fact, I am also struggling with calibrating the device. A preliminary calibration did not yield good results. When I get a long weekend sometime soon I will dedicate a couple days to fine-tuning the calibration (or, re-doing it from scratch) with fresh chemicals.

The values are enlarger dependent and paper dependent. The reason that the values are enlarger dependent is that the exposure readings are taken using white light (no filter). Effectively, the analyser is acting like a multi-spot meter. Then when you select the grade you want to print at the analyser is using pre-programmed data based on Ilford multigrade filters and Ilford MGIV paper to calculate the exposure and to display an idea of the tones and the tone separation. However, different enlargers use different light sources and other factors (condenser vs diffuser etc) alter the exact wavelengths and intensity of light that reaches the paper so there is a lot of variability between different set ups which is why the device must be calibrated. Different papers have very marked differences in speed and response at different grades.

Here are some more figures for a different enlarger with Ilford above lens filters. This enlarger is a condenser with an incandescent light source (I have since sold this enlarger so I cannot comment further as I no longer have it).

 

[R.Gould]

Have you tried the calibration data provided on RH's website? (http://www.rhdesigns.co.uk/darkroom/html/user_calibrations.html)
Do they work for you? (they don't for me, although I fail to understand how calibration values are enlarger dependent. They should rather be paper and developer dependent, I guess...)

As a matter of fact, I am also struggling with calibrating the device. A preliminary calibration did not yield good results. When I get a long weekend sometime soon I will dedicate a couple days to fine-tuning the calibration (or, re-doing it from scratch) with fresh chemicals.

I use the calibration settings direct from the RH designs website apart from the newer Ilford classic paper, which I found via the intrernet, and they work fine for me, the Agfa figres are perfect for l=Adox MCC paper, and for MGA art 300 I find the MG Warm tone calibration is fine, I use a Meopta 66 enlarger condenser head and Ilford above the lens filters.

 

[Svenedin]

I use the calibration settings direct from the RH designs website apart from the newer Ilford classic paper, which I found via the intrernet, and they work fine for me, the Agfa figres are perfect for l=Adox MCC paper, and for MGA art 300 I find the MG Warm tone calibration is fine, I use a Meopta 66 enlarger condenser head and Ilford above the lens filters.

Yes. My own calibrations with a condenser enlarger and Ilford multigrade above lens filters give figures very close to RH designs defaults. So close that there is not much difference. However, with a multigrade enlarger head my calibration figures are very different (which is what the OP is asking for).

You can see in post #7 that the offsets for MGIV are 0 across the grades (meaning there is no variance from the pre-programmed RH designs figures) but in post #6 for a multigrade enlarger with dichroic filters there is a big difference.

 

[R.Gould]

In the rh website there are calibration instructions for both MG heads and Colour heads, well worth looking at if you are using either, also on here, some time ago Dr Ross gives instructions for a Kaiser MG head, cant direct you there, but is was a long time ago,around march 2006, and if anyone knows how to do it he does, Also on the site there are user calibration figures for Kaiser MG head enlargers which at the very least would give you a good starting point

 

[Svenedin]

In the rh website there are calibration instructions for both MG heads and Colour heads, well worth looking at if you are using either, also on here, some time ago Dr Ross gives instructions for a Kaiser MG head, cant direct you there, but is was a long time ago,around march 2006, and if anyone knows how to do it he does,

I think my figures will work for the OP. I took a lot of time and care over it and it wasn't the first time I had done a calibration. I'll be interested to hear if the OP has good results.

 

[petrk]

Dear all,
many thanks for your help. The trick with the grade 00 is great, thanks etn and Svenedin! I have my own calibration data, so I will compare them with others this evening.
Petr

 

[Svenedin]

Dear all,
many thanks for your help. The trik with the grade 00 is great, thanks etn and Svendin! I have my own calibration data, so I will compare them with others this evening.
Petr

Glad it was useful Petr. My data works very well with my set-up which I think is the same Kaiser multigrade head. The only difference could be the light bulb. I use this type:

 

[petrk]

To Svenedin: I can confirm that your values are really very good starting point. For grade 4 and 5 I have got exact same values, for 2 and 3 I have got only small differences. But I am off for grade 0 and 1, let say -2 in the exposure and -10 in the ISO. I think these values are probably correct for my set-up, because the test print gives me the same user experience as the Ilford MG filters do.

 

[Svenedin]

To Svenedin: I can confirm that your values are really very good starting point. For grade 4 and 5 I have got exact same values, for 2 and 3 I have got only small differences. But I am off for grade 0 and 1, let say -2 in the exposure and -10 in the ISO. I think these values are probably correct for my set-up, because the test print gives me the same user experience as the Ilford MG filters do.

Glad to hear we are in general agreement. I think it is to expected that there is some variation. As long as your prints turn out well that is what is important.

 

[mr rusty]

to is only part of the learning curve. It is definitely worth watching the vids and working out how to calibrate properly. However, for me the learning curve is deciding exactly where to take readings from your neg. You don't want the densest black or the lightest blown out highlight - you need to find those spots which give you a reading that has a little texture at either end of the scale.

 

[petrk]

...However, for me the learning curve is deciding exactly where to take readings from your neg. You don't want the densest black or the lightest blown out highlight - you need to find those spots which give you a reading that has a little texture at either end of the scale.

Well said!

 

[hadeer]

... However, for me the learning curve is deciding exactly where to take readings from your neg. You don't want the densest black or the lightest blown out highlight...

Taking time to calibrate your paper really pays off but this is the real important thing: learning where to take readings. It helped me to use the density measuring function of the analyser first to get an idea of the various densities in the negative before actually making the enlargement

 

[pentaxuser]

to is only part of the learning curve. It is definitely worth watching the vids and working out how to calibrate properly. However, for me the learning curve is deciding exactly where to take readings from your neg. You don't want the densest black or the lightest blown out highlight - you need to find those spots which give you a reading that has a little texture at either end of the scale.

"Aye and there's the rub" as Shakespeare said. I still find it difficult on a lot of negatives to find the right area as described above. A densitometer would be valuable but expensive.

pentaxuser

 

[Svenedin]

The method I use is to first take 2 readings, one for the brightest highlight (that retains detail) and the same for the shadow (but not something that is going to be black without detail). These will be the near darkest and brightest parts of the projected negative image respectively. Then I take readings from the most important mid-tones. Then I adjust the exposure time to place the mid-tones where I want them using the tone guide on the analyser (can’t see the tone scale properly under safelight so lights on). Finally I adjust the contrast which of course varies according to the negative in question. If all the tones are bunched up together I will increase the contrast to separate the tones out. If the tones are too seperated I will reduce contrast. I aim to have the highlight/shadow readings near the extreme ends of the scale and the mid-tones cleanly separated before I print at the settings determined. I have a few days leave from work and I’m thinking about making a photo-illustrated guide of how to do this if anybody is interested.

 

[rmann]

I have a few days leave from work and I’m thinking about making a photo-illustrated guide of how to do this if anybody is interested.

This would be a great idea - a picture is worth a thousand words - the more that gets posted just makes it easier to find answers to questions.

 

[petrk]

illustrated guide of how to do this if anybody is interested.

It would be very good. I very much appreciate your willingness!
Petr

 

[rpavich]

to is only part of the learning curve. It is definitely worth watching the vids and working out how to calibrate properly. However, for me the learning curve is deciding exactly where to take readings from your neg. You don't want the densest black or the lightest blown out highlight - you need to find those spots which give you a reading that has a little texture at either end of the scale.

I second this!
However, after a bit you will get comfortable with it and be a good judge of where you want to see detail in HL and SH.
I love my Analyser Pro...I'd never print without it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I do not mean to run off with this thread, but have a question that might get answered here while the discussion is going on about the RH Analyzer Pro. I remember reading somewhere that RH doesn't work with the older Ilford Ilfospeed 400HL and 400HS multigrade heads. Is there a work-a-round for this? I've often thought about getting one of these analyzers, but if they won't work with my older Ilford heads I'll pass. I know I could just buy a 500 head, but like my old heads better. Yes, I did own the complete Ilford 500 setup on a Beseler 45V XL and sold it years ago. Like I said, I prefer the 400HS and 400HL heads myself. JohnW

 

[rpavich]

From RH designs site:


Please Note: The Analyser Pro is designed to control enlargers in which the lamp can be switched on and off simply by applying mains power - this covers the great majority of enlargers but excludes some which have closed-loop control systems such as the Durst Autocolor, Fujimoto, etc. A special version is available for the Ilford Multigrade 500 system. We do not support the Ilford Multigrade 400 or 600 systems. If your enlarger is not suitable but you would like the exposure metering functions, consider our ZoneMaster II baseboard exposure meter.