VCCE for Saunders/LPL

I inherited a Saunders/LPL Super Dichroic 4500 II. I discovered that there is a model with something called "VCCE" which keeps exposure time constant as filtration changes. In the past, I calibrated my enlarger to do this - a tedious task - but, of course, I would have to do it again for every different paper.

Is this unit effective in fulfilling its purpose? Can it be bought separately from the actual enlarger?

I have the version for the LPL 7700.
My answers are yes, and yes.
But with respect to calibration, the numbers on the dial are, of course, reliable but, at best, only matched to a single paper.
For your purpose they are more convenient and quicker to use than a colour head, but they won't do the job any differently.

The VCCE module just slides in where the Dichroic module is. The VCCE module is pricey though (CA$1295.00), and very difficult to find used. Is it worth it? I'd say so but it depends on you. If you want to spend the money then sure. Makes printing a piece of cake.

There is one on Seattle Craigslist.
https://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/pho/d/tacoma-omega-lpl-vcce-variable-contrast/7585055599.html
$975 USD. Local sales only.

I have the LPL 4550 XLG with the VCCE head and I love it. It came with the enlarger. I think you would be highly satisfied with it. If you have the means to get it comfortably, then I say it's worth it.

As far as the VCCE capability, I just completed some paper curves and have seven paper speed points (one for each whole number filtration setting used from #00 to #5, there are in between settings as well) that I've been looking at. Lately, I'm trying to learn more about paper sensitometry, I know most don't give a rip about it but I've never tried to learn as much about it as I've tried to learned about film curves. I learned that the speed point is a point on the curve at a density of 0.6 over the b+f density of the paper, follow a line down to the log exposure range to note the log exposure of the speed point. I've also learned that the VCCE performance will not be perfect in it's ability to speed match between filters......there will be some fudge factor. So I've wondered how much of a fudge factor.

In an effort to look at the VCCE performance of my LPL, the question I have is......should the log exposure speed points be the same for each filter since the VCCE's job is the try and speed match the exposure times between filter changes. It may not be a valid question, but it's something I've been thinking about as I try to learn more about it, maybe those that know will chime in.

I've noted that for the seven speed points I have (for the paper I've toned in selenium), the fastest i.e., the further left on the horizontal axis, is a log exp of 1.68 for the #2 setting. The slowest i.e., the further right on the horizontal axis, is a log exp of 1.39 for the #5 filter. That's a log exposure range between the fastest and the slowest of 0.29. My question is, does that difference represent the difficulty of the VCCE head to more exactly perform speed matching between filters, if so, it's still a pretty tight range, imo. I'm not even sure these curves are able to do the job of telling me about the VCCE performance of the enlarger, but it's a question I have. Here are the #2 and #5 (BTZS Plotter generated) paper curves. Ignore the curve name for #2, it is also toned in selenium.

I have the 7700 with VCCE head. When ilford started reformulating their papers I was not getting much difference in the higher filter settings, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5. I contacted ilford about this and they recommended using their filter set. They even sent me a free small pack filters (sheets) that I initially just held under the lens. Those filters produced much better high contrast results and so I went and bought the under the lens set from ilford and just use my enlarger now on white light setting. Not sure if my VCCE filters faded or Ilfords paper just got too different from when the head was designed. Just something to look out for.

brian steinberger said:

I have the 7700 with VCCE head. When ilford started reformulating their papers I was not getting much difference in the higher filter settings, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5. I contacted ilford about this and they recommended using their filter set. They even sent me a free small pack filters (sheets) that I initially just held under the lens. Those filters produced much better high contrast results and so I went and bought the under the lens set from ilford and just use my enlarger now on white light setting. Not sure if my VCCE filters faded or Ilfords paper just got too different from when the head was designed. Just something to look out for.

Click to expand...

Determining what contrast grade the filter settings were actually providing to my paper (Ilford MG RC Deluxe) was the main reason for performing the relative ISO Range Number testing i learned about. It can be that, depending on paper, light sources, development, etc...that the actual range number does not significantly change from one filter to another. The curves I generated, told me that for #2, #3, #4, #5 settings.......the relative range number corresponded to what the ISO RN is for those grades, so, ex: a #3 setting on my LPL, delivers an actual grade 3 contrast. Filter #00----> grade #0. Filter #0----> grade #1. Filter #1----> a low grade #2. Filter #2----> a higher grade #2 than filter #1. I think it would be somewhat of a mistake to assume that because all filter settings may not provide the exact expected contrast grade based on the filtration setting used, that there is something wrong with the VCCE performance. According to the testing that I read about, that can be a normal circumstance.

brian steinberger said:

I have the 7700 with VCCE head. When ilford started reformulating their papers I was not getting much difference in the higher filter settings, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5. I contacted ilford about this and they recommended using their filter set. They even sent me a free small pack filters (sheets) that I initially just held under the lens. Those filters produced much better high contrast results and so I went and bought the under the lens set from ilford and just use my enlarger now on white light setting. Not sure if my VCCE filters faded or Ilfords paper just got too different from when the head was designed. Just something to look out for.

Click to expand...

When was that Brian?

Patrick Robert James said:

When was that Brian?

Click to expand...

I had to look back through my emails I had with ilford at the time. 2015. So only two years after they launched the new classic paper that I prefer. They asked for the batch number of my paper and determined it was an initial batch. They sent me a new batch (current in 2015) along with a set of filters. They said they only tested their new papers with their own filters and a few color enlarger heads. When I got the filters I was so impressed that I bought the under the lens set and have been using it since. I should test again with the VCCE head on current classic at harder grades to see how they compare with the filter set currently.

FWIW, with my old limited range Ilford Multigrade 400 light source I would use the built in control for all necessary adjustments with almost all negatives, but for the small number of negatives that required higher contrast, I would set the 400 control to the highest number available - 4 - and then supplement that with a high contrast filter below the lens.

brian steinberger said:

I had to look back through my emails I had with ilford at the time. 2015. So only two years after they launched the new classic paper that I prefer. They asked for the batch number of my paper and determined it was an initial batch. They sent me a new batch (current in 2015) along with a set of filters. They said they only tested their new papers with their own filters and a few color enlarger heads. When I got the filters I was so impressed that I bought the under the lens set and have been using it since. I should test again with the VCCE head on current classic at harder grades to see how they compare with the filter set currently.

Click to expand...

Thanks Brian. Looks like I have some testing in my future...