ultrafine multigrade filter set

[Torquemada]

I purchased a set to use, have had a hard time getting my dichroic head in tune with certain brands of photo paper.

SO when i was using it, the results were way out of what they should have been.

Using the ilford comparison charts based on beseler dichroic filters,,, my contrast 2 filter from the kit, should have equaled my dichroic head set to 0-0-0..

but the results were more like my head set to 80 yellow- 0 - 0.. even when i used the 1.5 and 2.5 filters... they were still in the 80yellow + range in actual result.

Is this normal?

[Vaughan]

MG paper is sensitive to blue and green light. The blue sensitive layer is the HARD grade, the green layer is the SOFT grade. Red light makes no difference other than to the brightness of the image to our eyes.

Magenta filtration is blue+red=hard. Yellow filtration is green+red=soft. Combinations of magenta and yellow filtration make the in-between grades. Sometimes a bit of cyan filtration is added to give neutral density so the exposure times are consistent between filter grades.

I'm not into split grade printing myself, but you could in theory split the exposure time between magenta-only and yellow-only light to get different grades.

Note that MG filters were designed for tungsten enlarger light sources. All bets are off with cold (fluoro) and LED lights.

[Torquemada]

and im using a tungsten halogen dichroic head..

the thing is, i have no clue as to why a 2 filter would produce paper results identical to the head, built with kodak filters, set to 80 yellow -0 -0.. but the head itself set to 0-0-0 ie pure light, and a defined internationally recognized grade 2, actually produces a grade 2.

[Doremus Scudder]

and I'm using a tungsten halogen dichroic head..

the thing is, i have no clue as to why a 2 filter would produce paper results identical to the head, built with kodak filters, set to 80 yellow -0 -0.. but the head itself set to 0-0-0 ie pure light, and a defined internationally recognized grade 2, actually produces a grade 2.

... You shouldn't even need a set of multigrade filters if you have a dichroic head. Just use the filtration in the head. Ilford has a nice chart, which I think you mentioned you have. Filters are for enlargers that don't have color heads.

And, quit worrying about matching this grade to that filter to some arbitrary contrast number. Light sources vary in color temperature, filters fade, etc., et. Just start with no filtration; dial in more magenta if you need more contrast, dial in more yellow if you need less.

If you run out of contrast control on either end consistently, you need to develop your negatives more appropriately. If you're always using maximum yellow, develop your negatives less. If you're using maximum magenta a lot, develop your negatives more. Refine till most of your prints from "normal" negatives are within 20-30 units of no filtration.

Best,

Doremus

[Michael R]

and im using a tungsten halogen dichroic head..

the thing is, i have no clue as to why a 2 filter would produce paper results identical to the head, built with kodak filters, set to 80 yellow -0 -0.. but the head itself set to 0-0-0 ie pure light, and a defined internationally recognized grade 2, actually produces a grade 2.

There is no definition of any grade number. Also keep in mind the light source is an important variable when trying to match different filter sets or filter sets to dichroic heads. A halogen lamp does not emit the same spectrum as a regular incandescent lamp etc. Trying to calibrate anything for B&W work is largely a waste of time. Just use whatever settings get you to the print you want and ignore the numbers. As Doremus pointed out if you find you are consistently printing at minimum contrast or maximum contrast settings/filters you probably need to alter your film development times somewhat but other than that it doesn't matter.

[Torquemada]

... You shouldn't even need a set of multigrade filters if you have a dichroic head. Just use the filtration in the head. Ilford has a nice chart, which I think you mentioned you have. Filters are for enlargers that don't have color heads.

And, quit worrying about matching this grade to that filter to some arbitrary contrast number. Light sources vary in color temperature, filters fade, etc., et. Just start with no filtration; dial in more magenta if you need more contrast, dial in more yellow if you need less.

If you run out of contrast control on either end consistently, you need to develop your negatives more appropriately. If you're always using maximum yellow, develop your negatives less. If you're using maximum magenta a lot, develop your negatives more. Refine till most of your prints from "normal" negatives are within 20-30 units of no filtration.

Best,

Doremus

i was having problems with the ilford papers last year, i was getting higher grades of contrast then i should have gotten... i mean head set to 80 yellow - 0 - 0 was coming out equivalent to a 2 or 3 contrast setting on foma 313. I just wanted something "always in calibration" because id like to use ilford paper, but the damn cost of it

[Andreas]

Shortest and best explanation I have ever read of multigrade system, thanks !
Andreas


MG paper is sensitive to blue and green light. The blue sensitive layer is the HARD grade, the green layer is the SOFT grade. Red light makes no difference other than to the brightness of the image to our eyes.

Magenta filtration is blue+red=hard. Yellow filtration is green+red=soft. Combinations of magenta and yellow filtration make the in-between grades. Sometimes a bit of cyan filtration is added to give neutral density so the exposure times are consistent between filter grades.

I'm not into split grade printing myself, but you could in theory split the exposure time between magenta-only and yellow-only light to get different grades.

Note that MG filters were designed for tungsten enlarger light sources. All bets are off with cold (fluoro) and LED lights.

[Mark J]

Yes, very good.
Bear in mind that the exact 'grade' achieved, also depends on the colour temperature of the tungsten bulb - higher temperature has more deep blue content and hence a harder grade. Most enlargers specify a bulb over 3000°K .

[nolindan]

MG paper is sensitive to blue and green light. The blue sensitive layer is the HARD grade, the green layer is the SOFT grade.

Well.... I have to differ.

Both emulsions have the same contrast. Each emulsion contributes to half of the print's density. By controlling the relative exposure of the blue and green sensitive emulsions the HD curves of the two emulsions slide past each other. If the HD curves are on top of each other then the result is a high contrast print. If the blue light is attenuated then the HD curves combine so the low density part of the print is imaged with the green emulsion. The green emulsion plateaus half-way through the print and then the blue emulsion starts to contribute to the print's density and takes over until DMax is reached - in this case the print has low contrast as the combination of the two HD curves is now spread apart and the result is a combined HD curve that covers a larger exposure range.

See http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/appnotevcworkings.pdf (Sorry about the 'security warning' - I have to go into the site and change all the files around. A PITA that I have been avoiding for too long.)

and https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Contrast-control-for-Ilford-Multigrade.pdf

[Robert Bowring]

Doremus and Michael R. are correct. Stop worrying about some arbitrary contrast numbers. With variable contrast papers those numbers are irrelevant. You just need to know when to increase contrast or decrease contrast.

[Torquemada]

when you cant tell if your getting the correct contrast for the numbers on the dial indicator, you have to worry. Also,not all papers are the same.

I THINK we can agree that Ilford is the most advanced of the black and white papers now, with their MG 5 on the market.. and not all of the other companies feel like mentioning any changes they make to the papers they produce

[Doremus Scudder]

when you cant tell if your getting the correct contrast for the numbers on the dial indicator, you have to worry. Also,not all papers are the same.

I THINK we can agree that Ilford is the most advanced of the black and white papers now, with their MG 5 on the market.. and not all of the other companies feel like mentioning any changes they make to the papers they produce

The most important determiner of the contrast of the final print is the density range of the negative you are working with.

Don't expect a "grade 2" print from a "grade 2" contrast setting/filter with any old negative. If your negative is not developed to the exact density range to yield a grade 2 print with a grade 2 filter, then you need to vary the contrast of the paper to get the print you want.

Unless you are very carefully controlling and measuring the density range of the negative you are printing to make sure it is correct to yield a print with a full range of tones with grade 2 filtration, and making sure that your enlarger light source is the same color temperature as the one Ilford uses to calibrate the filtration, and you are using genuine Ilford filters right out of the box so they aren't faded, your results will likely vary.

And are you sure that your dichroic filters are the same in transmission and attenuation at the numbers on the dials on the enlarger head? That fact that a grade 2 setting on your color head doesn't match the grade 2 filter you have means that a) the settings you are using for your color head are wrong or b) the filters you are using are faded or not the same as new Ilford filters (I think you mentioned using Ultrafine filters; I wouldn't just assume that they were the same as Ilford filters).

If the suggested settings from Ilford for you dichroic head for various grades don't match the Ilford filters (or the Ultrafine filters, which probably don't match the Ilford ones either), then there is a discrepancy somewhere. You can get all the information and calibrate your head to the Ilford filters; there are ways to do that and methods published here an over on Photrio to enable you to do that.

You can go down that rabbit hole if you like to see how your procedure and equipment vary from the Ilford standard and come up with your own set of numbers for settings on your dichroic head, or you can just work on refining your development and printing so that most of the negatives you make of scenes with average contrast end up printing at intermediate settings on your color head. The only tools you need for that are a decent light meter and a timer for your development. Then the negatives you make under more extreme contrast conditions (flat or very contrasty) will be printable at the extremes of the filtration options available to you from your color head.

Now, if you suspect your color head is not functioning properly, that's another issue. Check to make sure the filters move in and out of the light path correctly for all colors and that your bulb is the proper one for the enlarger head. You don't have to worry about dichroic filters fading; they don't. But if they are damaged, that might affect contrast a bit.

Best,

Doremus

[Torquemada]

I might have to change the bulb in my enlarger head, its old stock.

but the funny thing is, ive done comparison tests using these filters from ultrafine and they dont jive at all with actual comparisons using actual negatives.

I mean, i use my head, and i set the head itself to a contrast 2 per the beseler manual,, and after developing, im happy with the print. BUt using the manual filters, with the same grade as dictated by the paper charts in multiple brands of paper, ilford, foma, arista, to convert the beseler setting to ilford and then to the multi grade standard

the results are so out of whack its not funny.

[Doremus Scudder]

I might have to change the bulb in my enlarger head, its old stock.

but the funny thing is, ive done comparison tests using these filters from ultrafine and they dont jive at all with actual comparisons using actual negatives.

I mean, i use my head, and i set the head itself to a contrast 2 per the beseler manual,, and after developing, im happy with the print. BUt using the manual filters, with the same grade as dictated by the paper charts in multiple brands of paper, ilford, foma, arista, to convert the beseler setting to ilford and then to the multi grade standard

the results are so out of whack its not funny.

Obviously, your color head filtration doesn't match the published equivalent with the filters, or there's some discrepancy in the tables you are using to convert settings to filtration. It's really no big deal. The question arises: why do you want to use both your color head and regular multigrade filters?

You can use the Ilford filters as a baseline and find what settings on your color head match those filters, if you feel like it. I wouldn't waste the time; I'd be making prints. :)

Doremus

[Michael R]

Yes this is all a non-issue unless you consistently find yourself needing max/min contrast for a basic exposure.

[Robert Bowring]

Stop trying to "match" things. There are way too many variables involved to ever get anything to "match". No combination will ever match the results you get from YOUR camera, film, development, enlarger, light source, filters. color head, thermometer, chemicals, etc. Learn by making prints with your equipment. Make a print you like then make the same print with more contrast and one with less contrast. You will see the difference. Take notes. Repeat, repeat, repeat...

[Torquemada]

Stop trying to "match" things. There are way too many variables involved to ever get anything to "match". No combination will ever match the results you get from YOUR camera, film, development, enlarger, light source, filters. color head, thermometer, chemicals, etc. Learn by making prints with your equipment. Make a print you like then make the same print with more contrast and one with less contrast. You will see the difference. Take notes. Repeat, repeat, repeat...

I was using eco pro developer until this year. And when i switched to ethol i got out some of MY own test negatives, and suddenly had to make massive changes in my exposure. SO i decided i was going to relearn the whole process of making prints.

part of that was to get the multi grade filters as a way to get consistent results so that i could ALWAYS go back to my paper work, see the notes said " 12 seconds at f/8 with filter 1.5" and get the same finished results in my print. Instead of having to guess at the results by using a table spoon to measure out 1/4 teaspon of cinnamon

[Doremus Scudder]

I rarely, if ever, have gone back to a print to reprint it after a time (months/years) and found that the original exposure time and filtration used on the original print ended up being the same for the reprint. Everything from disappearing papers to variations in enlarger bulbs prevents that. My notes do serve as a starting point to work from, saving me time. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that kind of matching to happen, no matter how well you've calibrated your printing.

Doremus

[Torquemada]

I rarely, if ever, have gone back to a print to reprint it after a time (months/years) and found that the original exposure time and filtration used on the original print ended up being the same for the reprint. Everything from disappearing papers to variations in enlarger bulbs prevents that. My notes do serve as a starting point to work from, saving me time. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that kind of matching to happen, no matter how well you've calibrated your printing.

Doremus

One of the BIG inputs, outputs, thoughts of most of the photography books i have read has been,,,, identical paper, chemicals, exposure settings ie aperture, head height, and seconds yields same print again. The weston website, last i was on it, made that identical results in every print in every print run a natural event.

[MartyNL]

One of the BIG inputs, outputs, thoughts of most of the photography books i have read has been,,,, identical paper, chemicals, exposure settings ie aperture, head height, and seconds yields same print again. The weston website, last i was on it, made that identical results in every print in every print run a natural event.

The truth of the matter is, I don't want all or any of my prints to be identical. Nor do I wish every time I go into the darkroom to be identical.

The moment I 'let go', was the moment I really started to understand and enjoy print-making.

The advice here and above, does not mean we're rebels or make us 'slapdash' in our approach to print-making, quite the opposite. Each print and darkroom session, is a moment to make a personal interpretation of a negative. And I believe, it's what keeps us returning to our darkrooms.

[Torquemada]

Ive been trying to figure out what to do to get a consistent process going... i can go through the motions but there is something missing that the filters are supposed to be fixing..

i remember, a consistent filtration standard. With papers chagning themselves so much, and so many versions/generations of the same thing on the market still,, id just like to be able to have a reliable means of control

[Michael R]

There was never a filtration standard, nor were grades of paper ever standard. Everything was arbitrary. Filter sets for variable contrast paper also changed over time, as did the papers. Even if they had not, gel/dyed filters fade with use/age, and lightbulbs change. There were no constants.

[Drew Wiley]

Colorheads with dichroic coated filters are much more consistent than sheet filters because they do not fade. Very old or routinely overheated dichroic filters can spall off some of their coating and lose strength in that manner, but they do not fade per se.
But I fully agree with Michael. Even specifying "grades" with respect to VC papers is anachronistic, since there are few graded papers even left, and VC papers represent a contrast continuum instead. "Variable" says it all.

[Vaughan]

With papers chagning themselves so much, and so many versions/generations of the same thing on the market still,, id just like to be able to have a reliable means of control

Test. Every negative, every print. Every time.

Put in the grade 2 filter (or set the colour head to Y/M filters to G2). Set the print exposure to get D-max of the paper in the darkest shadows, or (at the vey least) the film rebate.

(Note: make sure you're using the recommended paper developer, it's fresh, and you're developing for the recommended time. I've seen posts where people use ID-11 for prints because that's all they have and they wonder why things don't turn out like the picture on the box.)

Examine the print whites and highlights: if there is no base-white in the print or the print lacks contrast overall, increase the filtration to G3. If the print contrast is too high then decrease the grade.

Rinse and repeat until you get a good straight base print. Work out from this what localised exposure manipulation it may need.

Note that if you consistently cannot get good base prints because the negative contrast is too low or too high (ie, you need G-1 or G6) then adjust your film development to suit.

[Doremus Scudder]

Test. Every negative, every print. Every time. ...
Note that if you consistently cannot get good base prints because the negative contrast is too low or too high (ie, you need G-1 or G6) then adjust your film development to suit.

This.

The only thing I do differently than Vaughan is to base my print exposures on a highlight value. I make a test strip at my starting contrast setting, find the exposure that gives me the desired value for a textured highlight and then make a straight print at that exposure.

If the midtones and blacks are not where I want them, then I change contrast settings accordingly and make another test strip. I'll do this a couple of times, maybe, before I get close to the right contrast. At that point, the creative manipulations start: dodging and burning (often at different contrast settings), bleaching, etc., etc.

It may sound like a lot of wasted time making all those test strips and prints, but it's not. In reality, especially as you gain experience, you'll achieve your end goals more quickly and waste less paper. Every good printer I know uses some kind of test strip or exposure meter to determine a base exposure and then some other method to determine ballpark contrast. Some use contrast ring-arounds with split printing techniques, others just make another test strip at the new, estimated contrast, etc. Whatever; it really doesn't matter as long as you have something that works and lets you approach each individual print with a clear strategy.

Best,

Doremus

[Torquemada]

This.

The only thing I do differently than Vaughan is to base my print exposures on a highlight value. I make a test strip at my starting contrast setting, find the exposure that gives me the desired value for a textured highlight and then make a straight print at that exposure.

If the midtones and blacks are not where I want them, then I change contrast settings accordingly and make another test strip. I'll do this a couple of times, maybe, before I get close to the right contrast. At that point, the creative manipulations start: dodging and burning (often at different contrast settings), bleaching, etc., etc.

It may sound like a lot of wasted time making all those test strips and prints, but it's not. In reality, especially as you gain experience, you'll achieve your end goals more quickly and waste less paper. Every good printer I know uses some kind of test strip or exposure meter to determine a base exposure and then some other method to determine ballpark contrast. Some use contrast ring-arounds with split printing techniques, others just make another test strip at the new, estimated contrast, etc. Whatever; it really doesn't matter as long as you have something that works and lets you approach each individual print with a clear strategy.

Best,

Doremus

One of the things i wanted to start trying next year to get some better results was split grade, hence the filter set..

I have thought about those meter things that you put on the easel and take readins on the projected image, but from what little i have READ, they are more set up for fiber based paper.

[nolindan]

...from what little i have READ, [enlarging meters] are more set up for fiber based paper.

Enlarging meters work the same with RC or FB - there is no difference.

[Michael R]

You can “split grade” with your dichroic head or any filter set.


One of the things i wanted to start trying next year to get some better results was split grade, hence the filter set..

I have thought about those meter things that you put on the easel and take readins on the projected image, but from what little i have READ, they are more set up for fiber based paper.

[Torquemada]

Enlarging meters work the same with RC or FB - there is no difference.

teh only only ive actually gotten useful information on is pre programmed with about 100 paper types, dark room lab? and the presets are going by label either ilford RC or Fiber Base names..

and im not sure if its been updated to multi grade 5 yet

[Doremus Scudder]

One of the things i wanted to start trying next year to get some better results was split grade, hence the filter set..

I have thought about those meter things that you put on the easel and take readins on the projected image, but from what little i have READ, they are more set up for fiber based paper.

One of the advantages of split-grade printing is that you can achieve intermediate contrast grades with a filter set. For example, you can get to, say grade 2.75 with split-grade printing, whereas the filter give you only #2.5 and #3. If you have a dichroic head, however, the contrast range is continuously variable within the extremes.

Where split-grade printing really shines is being able to dodge and burn at different contrast settings. For overall print exposure, using split-grade techniques with two exposures through different filters is no different than finding the corresponding single filtration. I prefer to use a single, intermediate filtration for base print exposure, but then will change the filtration to one of the extremes for burning. If I have to dodge at a different contrast setting than my base exposure, then I'll move to more complicated two-filter approach to the whole print, but that doesn't happen all that often.

As for enlarging exposure meters. I've never found the need for one. A couple of strips of paper and you're good to go. Plus, test strips give you actual visual information about highlight separation that no meter ever will. I don't know if I've spent more on paper using test strips over the years than I would have if I had purchased an enlarging meter, nor if the meter would have saved paper or not after the first straight print was made. I rather think it wouldn't have, though... Still, I love low-tech and testing exposure with the very materials I'll be printing on. Now metering for film; that's a different thing altogether... :)

Best,

Doremus