Which filter set for which papers??

jovo · Aug 4, 2007

Thanks to Brian Kosoff (Early Riser), I am enjoying several boxes of different brands of enlarging paper that he gave me a month ago or so. They include Oriental, Forte, Kentmere and Agfa. My enlargers include VC heads on a Beseler 23CIII and an LPL 4550XL. Does anyone have a recommendation for which filter set to use? The choices on the Beseler are Kodak, Ilford, and Agfa, and for the LPL it's Ilford and Kodak. I've been using the Oriental with Ilford filters, but I've not tried other options. I'd appreciate anyone sharing their experience with this. Thank you in advance!

Ole · Aug 4, 2007

I have to admit that I've always done it the "easy" way: If the print is too hard, add more yellow (or green). If too soft, add magenta (or blue) - I sometimes use a colour head, sometimes CC filters in th efilter drawer, and sometimes colour separation filters below the lens. All three methods lead to the same result.

jovo · Aug 4, 2007

Ole said:
I have to admit that I've always done it the "easy" way: If the print is too hard, add more yellow (or green). If too soft, add magenta (or blue) - I sometimes use a colour head, sometimes CC filters in th efilter drawer, and sometimes colour separation filters below the lens. All three methods lead to the same result.

That sounds great except that I'm red-green color blind enough that I get confused easily....plus the fact that the hard to soft colors on those two enlargers appear to be different to me. I could drag my wife into the darkroom to help me with this (she's got color sensitivity I can't even contemplate), but part of the magic of the darkroom is being the intrepid, lone explorer! I go by the filter numbers and the results, but appreciate your advice, Ole.

Ole · Aug 4, 2007

Put a label om the magenta control saying H, and one on the yellow saying S. Then just dial in more Hard or Soft?

David Brown · Aug 4, 2007

John:

Pick one. Not being smart-a@@, but I think Ole's onto it. I use the Ilford numbers. However, that being said, even if gr 2.5 if 5M and gr 3 is 25M (IIRC?), some prints need 10M. Or whatever. What we're saying is, dial in the number for a grade, but if the print needs a little more contrast, add more magenta (or blue) Less contrast - go the other way.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Aug 4, 2007

If you really have a lot of time to spare, you can just contact print a step wedge under different filtration for your papers and compare the resulting contrast. Granted, if you have 5 different papers and 6 different light filtration systems, and you go from the equivalent of grade 00 to 5 in half-grade settings, that should give you about 420 step wedge prints to do.

In practice I found little difference between Ilford filters, Agfa filters, dichroic head, and VC heads. They exist, and you should find your paper's documentation because the manufacturers list them. For instance, speed of MGIV with the higher grades varies between the normal Ilford filter and a dichroic head, but that's the kind of stuff the manufacturers mention.

Les McLean · Aug 4, 2007

John can I suggest that you also try split grade printing with only maximum Magenta for Hard and somewhere around 70 Yellow for Soft. Ole's suggestion to mark to enlarger dials is an excellent answer to your red/green problem.

Some years ago I carried out a comprehensive test on Agfa MultiContrast Classic when they suggested that any filter set was satisfactory but they did publish a set of dial in values for colour head enlargers. I was not convinced that their information was correct so I set out to prove it one way or the other.

I first made prints on all grades using Agfa Dial in factors on a colour head. I then printed the same negative using Agfa paper and Ilford filters and from grade to grade the results were significantly different. I then used Ilfords dial in values for colour enlargers but with Agfa paper and got the same results as I did with the Ilford filters, thereby proving that the Ilford Filters were consitent but Agfa's instructions to use any filter was not correct.

The result of that test which I published was that the Head of the Agfa Black and White Division contacted me to say that they agreed with me and asked me to test the Filters they had produced and they marketed them after I reported the results to them. I still have the filters but sadly the paper is gone.

Taking the trouble to carry out that test strengthened my view that split grade printing was a good way to work as I had been experimenting with it for some time before Multi Contrast Classic came along.

jovo · Aug 4, 2007

I am dragging my butt ever so slowly toward Les's hard/soft split approach to printing. I already use the softest filters to burn and the hardest filters to 'punch' a reasonably competent negative, but my base exposure is almost always a grade 2.5 or thereabout (with the Ilford filter set on the VC head) . Now keep in mind that my enlargers' VC filters are not all that different from one brand to another...I think the difference is more one of calibration (there is sometimes less than half a grade between one brand and another on the dial) than color change, so my question is more about anyone's certainty regarding which to choose for which brand....or does it make no difference given the more certain color component of the various filters.

Ray Heath · Aug 4, 2007

g'day John
i think the previous have all missed the point of your question

if you are using contrast control filters it doesn't matter what brand of filters you use, they will have the same effect any brand of paper

the actual 'grade' that a particular filter produces may not be exactly the same on all papers but this doesn't matter you will still get a full range from soft to hard

Les McLean · Aug 4, 2007

Ray Heath said:
g'day John
i think the previous have all missed the point of your question

if you are using contrast control filters it doesn't matter what brand of filters you use, they will have the same effect any brand of paper

the actual 'grade' that a particular filter produces may not be exactly the same on all papers but this doesn't matter you will still get a full range from soft to hard

Ray, sorry mate but the effect is not the same you will produce different degrees of contrast from one paper to another when using the same filter. That is the reason I carried out the test which proved conclusively that there are significant differences. I am not suggesting that you cannot use any filter but I do suggest that you will not get the best results from the paper when the filters do not match it.

Bruce Osgood · Aug 4, 2007

Les McLean said:
I am not suggesting that you cannot use any filter but I do suggest that you will not get the best results from the paper when the filters do not match it.

But Les, isn't that why a paper manufacturer lists filtration values by type of filtration on hand.

For example, Kentmere 'suggests' when using Chromega filtration under the Kodak 'type' a grade 3 would be magenta 45 for Fineprint VC and Ilford/Harman says MGIV VC FB is a magenta 25?

Different filters, different papers, yes; but how much difference between eachs grade 3 print..... I don't know.

Ray Heath · Aug 5, 2007

Les McLean said:
Ray, sorry mate but the effect is not the same you will produce different degrees of contrast from one paper to another when using the same filter. That is the reason I carried out the test which proved conclusively that there are significant differences. I am not suggesting that you cannot use any filter but I do suggest that you will not get the best results from the paper when the filters do not match it.

Les, sorry pal, i agree there will be differences, but during a printing session if a particular filter gives the "wrong" contrast just change to a higher or lower graded filter

what does it matter that at another time with another paper the result was different?

what is important 'now' is the current result using this filter/paper/neg/chemical combo.

Les McLean · Aug 5, 2007

Ray Heath said:
Les, sorry pal, i agree there will be differences, but during a printing session if a particular filter gives the "wrong" contrast just change to a higher or lower graded filter

what does it matter that at another time with another paper the result was different?

what is important 'now' is the current result using this filter/paper/neg/chemical combo.

Ray and Bruce, agreed that you can use a higher or lower grade filter if the "wrong" contrast is produced but in doing so the best that the paper can produce is not achieved. For example some papers will not produce a true grade 5 with another manufacturer's filter but will if using the dial in value suggested by the paper manufacturer a grade 5 can be achieved. In this instance there is no higher grade filter available if using another manufacturer's product. The difference may not be hugely different but in my printing subtleties make the fine print therefore the difference is significant.

Many paper manufacturers do not produce filters, which I think is wrong, for they have a responsibilty to their customer to give them the wherewithal to achieve the best possible results. This is one of the reasons that I chose to go down the road of using split grade printing whenever possible.

Roger Hicks · Aug 5, 2007

Les McLean said:
For example some papers will not produce a true grade 5 with another manufacturer's filter but will if using the dial in value suggested by the paper manufacturer a grade 5 can be achieved.

Dear Les,

You have more experience than Frances and I, but we have yet to find any paper, from any manufacturer, that gives a higher contrast at the limits of dial-in filtration (colour head or Multigrade) than you can get with the hardest Ilford discrete filter. Frances's normal rule of thumb, if she wants even more contrast than dial-in affords, is to go to discrete filtration and then to grade 5 graded paper. Very roughly, we have found ISO(R) 50 or so with dial-in; ISO(R) 45 or so with discrete filters; and ISO(R) 40 or so with graded papers.

As Frances pointed out, she uses diffused tungsten with M-Y filtration while (as far as she recalls) you use cold light with B-G filtration (minus M-Y), so this may be relevant; but I thought it worth mentioning.

Cheers (and Frances sends her best),

Roger

Les McLean · Aug 5, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Les,

As Frances pointed out, she uses diffused tungsten with M-Y filtration while (as far as she recalls) you use cold light with B-G filtration (minus M-Y), so this may be relevant; but I thought it worth mentioning.

Cheers (and Frances sends her best),

Roger

That's a good point you make Roger. I'll have to set up my old LPL diffusion enlarger to make a comparision with my cold head. Having said that I have never used filters with a cold head light source as the colour of the light is blue which causes problems in achieving the best results when usinf soft filters.

Please give my best to Frances

jovo · Aug 5, 2007

Thank you all for your answers. I do not think the variable contrast heads on either of my enlargers have two or three discrete sets of filters. Rather, the common color range they encompass is numbered slightly differently for each paper manufacturer. Some papers, like Kentmere, are designed to use Ilford filtration specifically since they don't have a filter set of their own. Others, like Oriental that doesn't make their own filters, don't offer a suggestion about which filters to use from other makers which is what I was asking about.

As it is, I do split grade my printing as I wrote above, but I don't have the nuanced control that I might have if I were using a color head with the option to make lots of variations....formulas for each paper company's product if you will.

Thanks again. I'll study this for a while and use what I can.

Les McLean · Aug 5, 2007

jovo said:
As it is, I do split grade my printing as I wrote above, but I don't have the nuanced control that I might have if I were using a color head with the option to make lots of variations....formulas for each paper company's product if you will.

Thanks again. I'll study this for a while and use what I can.

John, a very strong reason to use split grade printing is the ability to create the nuanced control simply by mixing the hard and soft filtration using accurate exposure time control. By applying subtle changes in the exposure given to hard and soft filtration you can create the exact contrast you wish from the test strip you make.

Roger Hicks · Aug 5, 2007

Les McLean said:
John, a very strong reason to use split grade printing is the ability to create the nuanced control simply by mixing the hard and soft filtration using accurate exposure time control. By applying subtle changes in the exposure given to hard and soft filtration you can create the exact contrast you wish from the test strip you make.

Also, some find it more intuitive than a single grade. Even though there is always an exact equivalent, many find split-grade easier.

(I know you know this; it's merely to add a little to your post for those who believe that either route is inherently superior. Personally I find single grades easier but I know as many who disagree as who agree).

jovo · Aug 5, 2007

Les McLean said:
John, a very strong reason to use split grade printing is the ability to create the nuanced control simply by mixing the hard and soft filtration using accurate exposure time control. By applying subtle changes in the exposure given to hard and soft filtration you can create the exact contrast you wish from the test strip you make.

If I ever get a chance to take your workshop, I will. Thanks....(I have your book, but 'hands on' would be great.)

Roger, isn't it true that folks who use a single grade also tweak the paper using multiple developers like Selectol Soft and Dektol? Which, if that's so, means that fine printers take great pains using either approach to wring the last little detail and nuance from their negatives. I've seen great prints from each type of printing technique.

Ole · Aug 5, 2007

I'm one of those who prefer graded paper. I find it's easier to get a tonal scale that matches my idea of what it should be with graded, even if it sometimes needs rather complicated "trickery" to get the contrast range right.

Most of the time changing exposure and/or development time allows plus or minus half a grade(ish). Some papers respond to some toners with a deepening of the blacks, giving another grade (like Bergger Silver Supreme in strong KRST). Other times a different developer may be needed.

An "ideal negative" to me is one that gives a good tonality on G2 graded without jumping through hoops. The the rest of the job is relatively simple dodging and burning in to get a good print.

Donald Miller · Aug 5, 2007

To follow on what Les said, there is one place where a single grade of paper or a single contrast setting on VC materials can not provide the same result as split grade printing...that is when pre flashing or dodging at a hard or soft grade or even when burning a print where one can choose a specific grade for addressing the specific print areas and effectively come up with several contrast grades within a single print.

This is important to fine printers because the negative characteristics (for a given film) are fixed by the exposure and highlight density...nothing can be done to affect the specific areas between those fixed parameters of the negative. However, the print material can have altered characteristics when one split grade prints on VC paper.

That having been said, I split grade print sometimes and sometimes not. I use the Ilford below lens filters on my Durst point light source enlarger (I replace the original Durst filters ...Kodak VC filters) and I have found that the differentiations of the two filter designations are not something that has caused earth shattering changes on either of my enlargers which also include a Saunders 4550 VCCE so long as I stay consistant throughout.

Roger Hicks · Aug 5, 2007

jovo said:
Roger, isn't it true that folks who use a single grade also tweak the paper using multiple developers like Selectol Soft and Dektol?

Indeed it is, and this is also important with VC paper: you can lose up to about 1 grade, or gain up to about half a grade, with subtle changes in tonality. A risk, however, is detectable variations in image tone according to the developer chosen.

It is always worth remembering that in photography there are usually multiple routes to exactly the same end, and that surprisingly often, the most successful printers are those who neither stick religiously to a single path, nor faff around trying every trick in the book: they use a modest range of techniques, with which they are extremely familiar. As Don says, sometimes you do it one way, sometimes another; and of course his comment about differential exposures at different grades when dodging and burning is absolutely fundamental.

Some of the best prints I've ever seen were made by a retired Soviet submarine commander, using outdated paper and benzotriazole in the developer. The real trick, as outlined to Frances by the late Bob Carlos Clarke, is to keep remaking the print until you make one that isn't as good as the one before. Then you know you've made the best you can -- that day.

haris · Aug 6, 2007

I am starting to think it would be much less trouble to use graded papers

Maine-iac · Aug 7, 2007

jovo said:
I am dragging my butt ever so slowly toward Les's hard/soft split approach to printing. I already use the softest filters to burn and the hardest filters to 'punch' a reasonably competent negative, but my base exposure is almost always a grade 2.5 or thereabout (with the Ilford filter set on the VC head) . Now keep in mind that my enlargers' VC filters are not all that different from one brand to another...I think the difference is more one of calibration (there is sometimes less than half a grade between one brand and another on the dial) than color change, so my question is more about anyone's certainty regarding which to choose for which brand....or does it make no difference given the more certain color component of the various filters.

I've been using my own variation of Les's hard/soft method for many years. There are detractors who say it's unnecessary and that the results are indistinguishable from single filter printing, but to my eyes, there's a difference in the local contrast--the tones, particularly the middle tones seem to "sing" a bit more.

I use a colorhead, and do a test with each brand of paper to discover what the right magenta exposure is and what the right yellow exposure is. E.g., if the right magenta exposure is 10 sec. at f11 and the yellow is 8 sec at f11, then I give any print I make on that paper a 10 sec. exposure at full magenta and an 8 sec at full yellow. That usually gets me very close. From there, I can ease up on the yellow or magenta a bit or give a little more of one or the other, or selectively burn parts of the print with one or the other to get it where I want it.

I've wasted less paper this way, and I like the results a lot.

If you want to print single filter, then Ole's right. Doesn't matter what the numbers say: make it harder or softer on the dial-in head or do a series of test-strip calibrations with your Kodak and Ilford filters to see how they differ (not much).

Larry

Which filter set for which papers??

jovo

Membership Council

Ole

Moderator

jovo

Membership Council

Ole

Moderator

David Brown

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Les McLean

jovo

Membership Council

Ray Heath

Les McLean

Bruce Osgood

Membership Council

Ray Heath

Les McLean

Roger Hicks

Les McLean

jovo

Membership Council

Les McLean

Roger Hicks

jovo

Membership Council

Ole

Moderator

Donald Miller

Roger Hicks

haris

Maine-iac

Which filter set for which papers??

Membership Council

Moderator

Membership Council

Moderator

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Moderator

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency