Using filters under the enlarger lens

Putting a cross beam attachment to the top of your enlarger can steady the head while doing split printing which in my case means opening the filter drawer or adjusting the dichroic filters by hand at least two times per image. Without the brace there is a good chance of vibration, as well
once braced the head stays in Alignment much longer.
To the OP's question - I think using filters below the lens is a bad idea on many levels, but as others point out putting a grain focuser
on the easel will answer the question quite quickly , but I would suggest make a few prints with and without and be the judge yourself. When I started collecting enlargers I always made sure that a bracing system was available .

Everything is relative. Many people on this forum might be interested in just having some fun with a modest financial commitment, and will find
below-the-lens filters adequate for their needs. I happen to be obsessive about print quality and define expectations very specifically, so play by
matching nitpicky rules. This isn't a religion telling you what you must do. It's about choices. But if you want the highest technical quality in your own prints, certain types of time-tested an optically logical advice will apply.

Who does that , Michael? I certainly don't. I could buy an full case of window float glass for the cost of a single small piece of true enlarger glass.

Just a comment on below the lens Ilford Multigrade filters. I used them for many years with my 5x4 enlarger and it's cold cathode head and there's no difference in print quality between images made using them or prints from the same negatives made later with my De Vere 5108 and it's Dichromat clour head.

Michael is right that negative carriers use float glass rather than optical glass and this has never been an issue either.

Ian

Once again, what some of you consider perfectly acceptable for your own needs would fail the test for others of us. Maybe you can't see the difference, but I sure can! At one time I had samples of nearly twenty types of carrier glass in my lab for testing, and every single piece was
special plano-parallel optical glass. It's only within the last decade or so that just 5% of PPG float glass has become flat enough to optically coat for even architectural applications.

I have acquired a cold light head for a 45MX enlarger, what solutions have other taken to set up a filter holder that would be between the light source and the lens. Pictures would be great!
Thanks
Todd

DREW WILEY said:

Once again, what some of you consider perfectly acceptable for your own needs would fail the test for others of us. Maybe you can't see the difference, but I sure can! At one time I had samples of nearly twenty types of carrier glass in my lab for testing, and every single piece was
special plano-parallel optical glass. It's only within the last decade or so that just 5% of PPG float glass has become flat enough to optically coat for even architectural applications.

Click to expand...

I find your constant carping comments somewhat bizarre.The Ilford below the lens filter sets are high quality filters and have no detrimental impact on print quality (assuming they are kept in good condition). Neither do the glass inserts used in many negative carriers.

Ian

If you don't understand my viewpoint, Ian, just re-read my posts. What is "good enough for government work" isn't necessarily good enough for everyone. I'm not making up rules for you to follow, Ian; but I sure as heck know by now what tends to optimize high-quality image reproduction, and what doesn't, so don't you pretend to speak for everyone either, with mere generic input, especially when it defies common sense, engineering-wise.

Although in general I agree with Drew, take as few short cuts, make as few compromises as possible, yet at some point it becomes the Princess and the Pea. In the world of food the famous chef Alice Waters only uses garlic shredded with a sliver fork, smashing, chopping or crushing left a "bitter flavor." Not that I could taste the difference but Alice Waters can, maybe others can as well. Maybe Drew can the see the difference, perhaps others can. I use or used graded paper, VC paper, over the lens filters, and under the lens filters. Set side by side at 11X14 I don't see a difference, nor can any of the buyers who have bought from me over the years. Maybe behind my back they says tist, tist, tist, what a shame he used those awful under the lens Polycontrast filters.

If given a choice I would use above the lens filters, but if that was not an option then I would under the lens filters without a second thought.

DREW WILEY said:

If you don't understand my viewpoint, Ian, just re-read my posts. What is "good enough for government work" isn't necessarily good enough for everyone. I'm not making up rules for you to follow, Ian; but I sure as heck know by now what tends to optimize high-quality image reproduction, and what doesn't, so don't you pretend to speak for everyone either, with mere generic input, especially when it defies common sense, engineering-wise.

Click to expand...

I FULLY understand your points, I just don't agree. Your posts don't match the quality of the images you used to have on your now defunct website, there;s a huge gap between what youu claim and the reality.. I can't claim my own website is the best - a large portion of the images were digitised 20 years ago and aren't good by modern standards.

You/we can be too obbsessive when it comes to quality, on another forum you talk about using lenses many would say are second rate (even the manufacturers) so completely contradict yourself.

I have no issue with many items you think are no more than useless, and know full well that others don't either, so it's not purely my POV - in fact far from it The problem is you constanyly post totally unstantiated claims and can never back them up.

Ian

First of all, you've never ever seen a print of mine. If you did you wouldn't be making ridiculous remarks like this; and the mere fact that your point
of reference is web imaging - which is inherently incapable of conveying even .01% of the visual information in the real print, or maybe .001% in the
case of older web speed jpegs, shows me the your idea of a qualitative yardstick is already compromised. When making images such as these, within the real world constraints of time, budget, and space, I still try as best as possible to iron out all the variables, because every little glitch add us to a certain amount of cumulative image loss. I even operate unique custom enlargers which give more accurate color than any production model.
This might indeed amount to overkill for many darkroom enthusiasts, but does apply to a certain category of work that I'm interested in, though not
in any exclusive sense. For a number of years I worked beside a NASA optical engineer who would have probably laughed at just how primitive ALL
conventional printing gear is. But when he was with them, let's just admit they had a few tens of billions more dollars to spend than the rest of us.

Gentlemen, please calm down, this is a thread about how to use a vintage Federal enlarger in the age of variable contrast paper, state of the art don't enter into it

Fair enough, but threads that start off as simple queries often lead into extended discussion of related nuances that might be of wider interest. That's the nature of the beast.

Todd Barlow said:

I have acquired a cold light head for a 45MX enlarger, what solutions have other taken to set up a filter holder that would be between the light source and the lens. Pictures would be great!
Thanks
Todd

Click to expand...

Using a cold-light head, intended for graded papers, with VC filters expected to be used with a continuous-spectrum lamp might not be optimal at all. If the cold-light spectrum is adequate, it should be possible to find VC filters, or green and blue, that are 15cm square - these could be trimmed and used above the neg-carrier up to 4x5" anyway? Your question then is how to change the filter without moving anything else, and perhaps you will need to rely on the head and focus locks.