Ilford multigrade filters / size help / Omega D2 users

[Serge S]

I would like to purchase a set of ilford multigrade filters for my "new" Omega D2V

I not sure what size to order - I plan on placing them in the variable condenser housing.

Thinking 6x6?

Thank You

[Pieter]

I would like to purchase a set of ilford multigrade filters for my "new" Omega D2V

I not sure what size to order - I plan on placing them in the variable condenser housing.

Thinking 6x6?

Thank You

yes

[Serge S]

yes

Excellent!
Thanks for the quick reply:)

[ASA1000]

The Ilford Multigrade filters fit right in my D2 upper condenser housing ;-). and so do my old Cibachrome filters.......

[Maris Rusis]

I use Ilford Multigrade Filters with my Omega D2V enlarger but strictly as below the lens filters and not filters in the enlarger head. Why? Manipulating the enlarger head to insert and remove filters can move it slightly. This is of no account for working at a single contrast value but it becomes critical if the contrast filters are changed during the printing of a single negative for split grade or selective burn/dodge effects. Enlarger head movement between exposures can cause a subtle double image effect that looks like vague unsharpness.
Below the lens filters can be slipped in and out with a very light touch that does not risk enlarger movement between changes.

[Pieter]

I use Ilford Multigrade Filters with my Omega D2V enlarger but strictly as below the lens filters and not filters in the enlarger head. Why? Manipulating the enlarger head to insert and remove filters can move it slightly. This is of no account for working at a single contrast value but it becomes critical if the contrast filters are changed during the printing of a single negative for split grade or selective burn/dodge effects. Enlarger head movement between exposures can cause a subtle double image effect that looks like vague unsharpness.
Below the lens filters can be slipped in and out with a very light touch that does not risk enlarger movement between changes.

C'mon. Something is not right with your enlarger. The door opens freely, slipping the filter in takes little effort and none of which should disturb the head unless it is not lock in place. You might be experiencing softens from negative pop between exposures due to heat.

[Serge S]

That's an interesting thought - wonder if there is a way to test the theory?
Any thoughts?



I use Ilford Multigrade Filters with my Omega D2V enlarger but strictly as below the lens filters and not filters in the enlarger head. Why? Manipulating the enlarger head to insert and remove filters can move it slightly. This is of no account for working at a single contrast value but it becomes critical if the contrast filters are changed during the printing of a single negative for split grade or selective burn/dodge effects. Enlarger head movement between exposures can cause a subtle double image effect that looks like vague unsharpness.
Below the lens filters can be slipped in and out with a very light touch that does not risk enlarger movement between changes.

[Maris Rusis]

C'mon. Something is not right with your enlarger. The door opens freely, slipping the filter in takes little effort and none of which should disturb the head unless it is not lock in place. You might be experiencing softens from negative pop between exposures due to heat.

My enlarger could be at fault. It is emblazoned Simmon Bros Inc Long Island and dates from the 1950s. But it has all its bolts and screws done up tight and it's in alignment. All my neg carriers use glass so no film popping.

The flip-up door to the lamp-house is spring loaded to be open or closed. While watching a negative through a high magnification grain magnifier I had a colleague open that little door and I noted that the grain shook then settled in about 3 seconds. Closing the door again produced about 3 seconds of shake. I may be a good assumption that the enlarger settles back exactly to where it was before the lamp-house was opened and closed but I don't know absolutely for sure.

When I gently change a below-the-lens filter and watch the film grain I see no such shake. Maybe it makes no difference but with the cost of enlarging paper I'd rather not take a chance. And then there's the usual paranoia about not getting the best results through a simple mistake. In the interests of more paranoia I step away from the enlarger and its bench for a few seconds before making the exposure via a foot-switch.

An concerning design feature of the Omega D2V is the long thin lever that lifts the lamp-house and opens and closes the negative stage. Badly used that lever can vibrate for about 35 seconds after the negative stage is closed. This on a piece of photographic apparatus that should be an epitome of stillness.

[Pieter]

My enlarger could be at fault. It is emblazoned Simmon Bros Inc Long Island and dates from the 1950s. But it has all its bolts and screws done up tight and it's in alignment. All my neg carriers use glass so no film popping.

The flip-up door to the lamp-house is spring loaded to be open or closed. While watching a negative through a high magnification grain magnifier I had a colleague open that little door and I noted that the grain shook then settled in about 3 seconds. Closing the door again produced about 3 seconds of shake. I may be a good assumption that the enlarger settles back exactly to where it was before the lamp-house was opened and closed but I don't know absolutely for sure.

When I gently change a below-the-lens filter and watch the film grain I see no such shake. Maybe it makes no difference but with the cost of enlarging paper I'd rather not take a chance. And then there's the usual paranoia about not getting the best results through a simple mistake. In the interests of more paranoia I step away from the enlarger and its bench for a few seconds before making the exposure via a foot-switch.

An concerning design feature of the Omega D2V is the long thin lever that lifts the lamp-house and opens and closes the negative stage. Badly used that lever can vibrate for about 35 seconds after the negative stage is closed. This on a piece of photographic apparatus that should be an epitome of stillness.

Maybe try removing the spring. And anchor the top of the column to the wall.

[Serge S]

Interesting to hear about the vibration issues. I will be cognizant of that when I get my enlarger set up.
In the process of stripping & repainting the condenser housing, as it was shedding paint chips.
Apart from that it is in excellent condition.

I will also see if I can brace the column to help stabilize it better.
Still trying to find the perfect spot for it in the darkroom....thinking I will have a better idea – after I have painted the sink & set it up.
Two choices with tradeoffs - one close to a wall (where I can brace & have good height) but a little far from the sink & a spot in the middle of the room (not ideal) with good proximity to the sink but no way to brace the enlarger.

[John Layton]

I mostly use my Z-6 enlarger these days...but when I do use my D2-V, there are no issues (at least on my machine) with changing above the lens filters mid-print.

Another thing...if you look very, very carefully with a focussing magnifier at the film grain with a below the lens filter, and compare this with the grain with an above the lens filter - you just might see a difference, as I do.

[jnantz]

Hi Serge

I used to use the filters that went into the top housing of a D3V but realized those filters were more of a pain than anything else. I then began using the Kodak Polycontrast Filter System that goes from 0+ to 5+, which works with all papers, not just what used to be made by kodak. It is a housing that attaches to the lens barrel and the filters easily go in and out and are stored in a hard plastic case. I have been using the same box for probably 30 years they haven't faded and haven't given up the ghost, they haven't been a problem, and they make split grade printing a breeze.

[Serge S]

Hi John,

I did not think the Kodak filters were compatible with the current papers.
Good to hear they are an option, as I've seen them around in shops & had passed on them.



Hi Serge

I used to use the filters that went into the top housing of a D3V but realized those filters were more of a pain than anything else. I then began using the Kodak Polycontrast Filter System that goes from 0+ to 5+, which works with all papers, not just what used to be made by kodak. It is a housing that attaches to the lens barrel and the filters easily go in and out and are stored in a hard plastic case. I have been using the same box for probably 30 years they haven't faded and haven't given up the ghost, they haven't been a problem, and they make split grade printing a breeze.

[Serge S]

Hi John,

Do you suppose it is some sort of focus shift?
Prob no effect in practical terms, as others on the board would have noted discrepancies in their prints.
It's interesting to hear though.


I mostly use my Z-6 enlarger these days...but when I do use my D2-V, there are no issues (at least on my machine) with changing above the lens filters mid-print.

Another thing...if you look very, very carefully with a focussing magnifier at the film grain with a below the lens filter, and compare this with the grain with an above the lens filter - you just might see a difference, as I do.

[John Layton]

Yes...I must amend my observation by also saying that the very minute differences I'd noticed are generally not noticeable on prints.

But there is something else relative to the use of below the lens filters for doing split grade prints...which is the possibility of very slight differences in the resting optical planes while under the enlarger lens - and that any refractivity present in these filters would then manifest as a slight lateral shift in the image from one filter to the next. Again...probably not noticeable in a print.

But as for possible refractivity issues...I'm thinking that this might be more of a problem with older Ilford and Kodak filters, which were physically pretty thick - while the newer ones are more like thin gels, which tend to exhibit minimal refractivity due to being so thin. Make sense?

[Serge S]

I guess each approach as trade offs.

Thanks for the details.



Yes...I must amend my observation by also saying that the very minute differences I'd noticed are generally not noticeable on prints.

But there is something else relative to the use of below the lens filters for doing split grade prints...which is the possibility of very slight differences in the resting optical planes while under the enlarger lens - and that any refractivity present in these filters would then manifest as a slight lateral shift in the image from one filter to the next. Again...probably not noticeable in a print.

But as for possible refractivity issues...I'm thinking that this might be more of a problem with older Ilford and Kodak filters, which were physically pretty thick - while the newer ones are more like thin gels, which tend to exhibit minimal refractivity due to being so thin. Make sense?

[jnantz]

Hi John,

I did not think the Kodak filters were compatible with the current papers.
Good to hear they are an option, as I've seen them around in shops & had passed on them.

hi. just to clarify
I don't mean the small cube of kodak filters form the days of yore, but the polymax polycontrast filter sets tha typically come in a large rectangular plastic box made in the 1990s... when purchased there is something like a "tray" that attaches to the barrel with 3 big plastic thumb screws. I've used them with a variety of VC papers from the 90s and 2000s (forte, kodak, Ilford, Agfa, foma, and rebranded "made in England" stuff photo warehouse used to sell... never an issue..

[Serge S]

Thanks for the clarification John.


hi. just to clarify
I don't mean the small cube of kodak filters form the days of yore, but the polymax polycontrast filter sets tha typically come in a large rectangular plastic box made in the 1990s... when purchased there is something like a "tray" that attaches to the barrel with 3 big plastic thumb screws. I've used them with a variety of VC papers from the 90s and 2000s (forte, kodak, Ilford, Agfa, foma, and rebranded "made in England" stuff photo warehouse used to sell... never an issue..

[John Layton]

Serge I just sent you a PM.