VC & Color Head - What Filters to Start?

[Pawlowski6132]

Something's not right in my darkroom. I have negatives (8x10 TXP) that I'm trying to contact print that look pretty damn good.

My maximum black test tells me to expose for six bursts of three seconds each. I'm using Ilford MG VC FB Warmtone paper. Then, to expose the paper I set my Omega Dichroic filtration to 41Y/32M. This, according to Ilford is the #2 MULTIGRADE filter equivalent: Prints suck. they look gray and w/o expexcted contrast. They look much better when I print at the equivalent #3 MULTIGRADE filter equivalent of 23Y/56M.

What gives? I want to standardize my negative exposure to print straight on #2 and I feel that I'm doing that but...

I think somethings amiss but, I can't put my finger on it. I'm going to try to find my Omega instructions and see what they recommend for filter settings.

Just thought I ask here too.

thanx in advance,

Joe

[Peter Mounier]

I've always printed with one color filtration for contrast control, either yellow or magenta. I see that Ilford has filtration suggestions for a 2 color method, but if that's not working for you, try using just one color. Here is a chart by Ilford for either method.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006130201152306.pdf

Peter

[Vlad Soare]

There's no point in using yellow and magenta together. Look at it this way: maximum yellow is the softest grade achievable with your printing head and paper. Then, by dialing in less and less yellow you get an increasingly higher contrast, until you get to zero (no filter). From this point onwards, to further increase contrast you dial in magenta. Maximum magenta is the highest grade achievable with this head and paper. Look at it as a continuous scale ranging from maximum yellow to maximum magenta, with zero in the middle.

Despite common belief, printing on VC paper with no filters at all won't give you a contrast similar to a normal grade paper. That's because incandescent bulbs give yellow light. You need to dial in a little magenta to compensate for the color temperature of the bulb. With my head (Chromega Dichroic II) I find that negatives that print well on normal grade paper need about 25% magenta on variable contrast paper to print the same.

The only reason for using several filters at the same time would be to calibrate your system so that you can switch from one grade to the next without changing the exposure time. In that case you would also need to use the cyan filter. Personally, I find this procedure awkward and wouldn't bother using it.

[Oren Grad]

My maximum black test tells me to expose for six bursts of three seconds each.

Why are you exposing for "six bursts of three seconds each" each rather than one exposure of 18 seconds (or whatever is the equivalent of your 6x3, allowing for ramp up / decay properties of your enlarger lamp)?

[Pawlowski6132]

Thanx guys. Yup, that makes sense. I too have the Chromega Dichroic II and the manual presents the No. 2 Plycontrast Filter equivalent as being 3Y/22M. Not sure why they include any yellow at all but, that seems to align more with your advice than the Ilford documentation. So, that's definitely the route I'll take.

But, I'm more than curious now to understand why such a reputable institution such as Ilford would recommend such misleading information???

[EdWorkman]

VC has two emulsions, one green sensitive [ low contrast] , one blue [ high contrast]
I use Roscoe acetate filters, green and "minus green" which is magenta, and once in a very great while, blue. I have no interest in what an equivalent real filter would be, account papers vary, and A paper varies with age, in my experience starting out high contrast and losing contrast as it ages. And I use a cold light, probably overly blue. Your "misleading" comment is too strong- YMMV when you deviate from standard filters [and they include red, to which paper is not sensitive, to kill some light and keep exposure in a narrower range when changing filters]. So, armed with the green-vs-blue basics, and recalling how RGB is related to YCM, mess about with the dichroic settings until you get what you want to see, and where to start- It won't take that much time and paper to find a starting point for your next negative . Afterall, even if you could walk right up to the enlarger and dial in "#2" the chances of that being better than close-with-an-indication-of -which-way-to-go is nil- that's why variable is so valuable.

[BetterSense]

I want to standardize my negative exposure to print straight on #2

Why?

[bob carnie]

Non stained normal exposed normal processed negs depending on base fog of film will be starting any where between 10mag -30 magenta
Stained normal negs will start somewhere between 25magenta -50 magenta.

I do not use yellow and magenta at the same time.

I do not like doing 3 second bursts. I know some who do and I think it is silly. logic being that one can dodge , burn more accurately.
I find that counting every time you press the timer and getting your seconds correct in your mind is the only way to dodge and burn.

I use a dichroic for split printing and will start with 10 magenta, then a full blast of 200magenta at established base times that give a soft and light print.

then you can burn in with your 10magenta , or your 200 magenta and 200 yellow or all three.

Very rarely will I find a negative , which does not have a starting point between 10-50 magenta.

Yellow is rarely used and higher than 50 magenta as a starting point.

sound confusing,, actually just go in and use one filter to start and see how it works and soon you will see how easy it is.

[Pawlowski6132]

Thanx everyone. I just had some good results keeping yellow off and playing with magenta. But, when doing a maximum black test for a contact print, what are your settings? How do you establish an exposure duration?

[jp]

There's too many variables to expect good negatives to look perfect without filtration on VC paper. That why it's variable. The goal would be that you would not have to use excessive filtration to get the print you want (such as grade 0 or >grade 4). My personal goal is to be able to print any negative between grade 1.5 and 3 and have it look great. Anything outside of that range is caused by over/under exposure or developement errors.

One thing unmentioned was the paper developer. Mix up a fresh batch. I've seen that make a huge difference.

I don't do max black tests. I just print it. If it doesn't look black enough, it either needs more time or more magenta. If your negative can print in the 1.5-3.5 contrast grade range, either proper time and/or contrast can make it so you have deep blacks and clean whites very easily. Contrast is a subjective selection. Time can be determined with a test strip.

I don't do bursts of light either. I would do 18 seconds rather than 6 3 second bursts. 18 seconds is more accurate as the bulb is a continuous brightness during this exposure rather than glowing out 6 times.

[Vlad Soare]

Thanx everyone. I just had some good results keeping yellow off and playing with magenta. But, when doing a maximum black test for a contact print, what are your settings? How do you establish an exposure duration?
I don't do maximum black tests. I make a quick test strip (with the actual image) to get in the ballpark, then use Michael Smith's "outflanking technique (http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/onprinting.html)".

If you want to determine the exposure time by testing for maximum black, then you need to do this test using the exact filter setting you're going to use for the "real" exposure. Let's say that by looking at the negative your experience tells you that it should print well with, say, 30M. You set 30M and make a test strip with light only, no negative (well, ideally you should use an unexposed and developed film of the same type, to account for base+fog density). See what the minimum exposure time that gives maximum black is. You then use that time to make the "real" exposure. Look at the whites. If they're too bright and devoid of detail, then dial in less magenta (or more yellow, if you're already at or below zero) and start over. If they're too gray and dirty, dial in more magenta and start over. A new test strip for maximum black is necessary whenever you change the filter setting.
Maximum black can be achieved with any filter setting; it's just the exposure time that varies.

[Henry Ambrose]

Pick an enlarger head height, an f stop and a filtration that gives you a good basic print with a good negative and let that be your standard. Every time you make a contact print use those settings. You will get a good read of each negative for making the first enlarged print.

If you pick those three settings to also work for the most common size print you make you can contact your work and then put the selected negative in the enlarger and hit a decent print on first try, assuming you made a decent negative. You now have something to work from to make a final print.

An example might be that you are contacting 4 each 4x5 negatives on 8x10 paper and wish to make an 8x10 print of one of them:

1) Set the enlarger head to produce a pool of light that covers the paper area generously.

2) Pick an f stop that is appropriate.

3) Select a filtration that works based on your experience.

4) Set a time that works based on your experience.

5) Make a contact.

6) If the contact looks decent, put the negative in the head and make an 8x10 print and you will be pretty close.

7) If you want a different size print, you can calculate the time difference needed based on the height of the enlarger head.

[Sirius Glass]

I don't do maximum black tests. I make a quick test strip (with the actual image) to get in the ballpark, then use Michael Smith's "outflanking technique (http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/onprinting.html)".

If you want to determine the exposure time by testing for maximum black, then you need to do this test using the exact filter setting you're going to use for the "real" exposure. Let's say that by looking at the negative your experience tells you that it should print well with, say, 30M. You set 30M and make a test strip with light only, no negative (well, ideally you should use an unexposed and developed film of the same type, to account for base+fog density). See what the minimum exposure time that gives maximum black is. You then use that time to make the "real" exposure. Look at the whites. If they're too bright and devoid of detail, then dial in less magenta (or more yellow, if you're already at or below zero) and start over. If they're too gray and dirty, dial in more magenta and start over. A new test strip for maximum black is necessary whenever you change the filter setting.
Maximum black can be achieved with any filter setting; it's just the exposure time that varies.

Thank you for the post and the reference.

Steve

[jeroldharter]

The outflanking technique is very helpful. I also agree that there is nothing magic about grade two. After all, the point of using VC paper is that you can achieve any contrast grade that best suits the negative to your taste. So as someone said, if you are generally finding that your negatives print between 1.5 - 3, then that should be fine.

The reason to combine yellow and magenta is so that you can use the tables supplied with your paper to maintain a constant exposure time when you change contrast grades. I use that method with Kentmere FP VC paper and it works well, saving a lot of test prints when tweaking contrast. Also, it is useful if you have a base exposure at grade two, but you want to burn 2/3 stop at grade 3 you can use the same time measure because of the filtration equivalents.

[ic-racer]

Something's not right in my darkroom. I have negatives (8x10 TXP) that I'm trying to contact print that look pretty damn good.

My maximum black test tells me to expose for six bursts of three seconds each. I'm using Ilford MG VC FB Warmtone paper. Then, to expose the paper I set my Omega Dichroic filtration to 41Y/32M. This, according to Ilford is the #2 MULTIGRADE filter equivalent: Prints suck. they look gray and w/o expexcted contrast. They look much better when I print at the equivalent #3 MULTIGRADE filter equivalent of 23Y/56M.

What gives? I want to standardize my negative exposure to print straight on #2 and I feel that I'm doing that but...

I think somethings amiss but, I can't put my finger on it. I'm going to try to find my Omega instructions and see what they recommend for filter settings.

Just thought I ask here too.

thanx in advance,

Joe

The tone reproduction cycle may be more linear at #3. But if you want to use #2, increase you film development time by 15% or so.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . I don't do bursts of light either. I would do 18 seconds rather than 6 3 second bursts. 18 seconds is more accurate as the bulb is a continuous brightness during this exposure rather than glowing out 6 times.

The "burst" method of printing was created or popularized by Fred Picker. IIRC his thinking went like this - when you make test strips you make the strips in increments, typically around 3 seconds each. So if you base your printing times on test strips you should make the print the same way you made the strips because as you point out, there's a difference between 18 continuous seconds and 6 bursts of 3 seconds each (or whatever).

For anyone who's a serious darkroom printer, a printing time derived from a test strip is useful only for getting a decent first print, which is really just a proof or a starting point from which you can go to work on the print. And with a little experience anyone should be able to figure out a time that will give a useful first proof just by looking at the negative, without the need for messing around with test strips.

So I stopped using test strips very early on, which meant there was no purpose in using the burst method of printing. And even in the short time I used test strips, I didn't think the difference between multiple bursts and a continuous time was big enough to warrant making a proof in bursts.

[bob carnie]

Totally agree

test strips are a waste of time.
I like the outflanking method as well.
I also critically watch the image emerging in the developer , I print lith quite a bit and from this work now am very aware of how an image comes up and you will quickly be able to see, the dodge /burn, contrast and density even before you drop the print in the fix.
turning on the lights is only to confirm your next move.


The "burst" method of printing was created or popularized by Fred Picker. IIRC his thinking went like this - when you make test strips you make the strips in increments, typically around 3 seconds each. So if you base your printing times on test strips you should make the print the same way you made the strips because as you point out, there's a difference between 18 continuous seconds and 6 bursts of 3 seconds each (or whatever).

For anyone who's a serious darkroom printer, a printing time derived from a test strip is useful only for getting a decent first print, which is really just a proof or a starting point from which you can go to work on the print. And with a little experience anyone should be able to figure out a time that will give a useful first proof just by looking at the negative, without the need for messing around with test strips.

So I stopped using test strips very early on, which meant there was no purpose in using the burst method of printing. And even in the short time I used test strips, I didn't think the difference between multiple bursts and a continuous time was big enough to warrant making a proof in bursts.

[Vlad Soare]

Test strips may be a waste of time if you only make contact prints, but I find them useful when I change the degree of enlargement, or when I use a different paper. Besides, my negatives are not always as consistently exposed and developed as I'd like. Outflanking works great, but I need a starting point first.

The outflanking method may seem wasteful at first glance, but I think that its advantages outweigh the cost of a few wasted sheets of paper by far. Not only is it faster than the classic test strip method (which is a great boon when you have two kids, and your only time for darkroom work is when they sleep :D), but I also find that my prints look better now. The reason for this is that outflanking gives me dodge and burn information, which otherwise would require a few more sets of test strips from different areas of the image. Having this information available so quickly and easily makes me less likely to skip the dodge/burn step. Thanks to this method (and to the metronome technique, which makes dodging and burning so incredibly easy), I started to dodge and burn more than I used to.

[Brian Ellis]

Test strips may be a waste of time if you only make contact prints, but I find them useful when I change the degree of enlargement, or when I use a different paper. Besides, my negatives are not always as consistently exposed and developed as I'd like. Outflanking works great, but I need a starting point first.

The outflanking method may seem wasteful at first glance, but I think that its advantages outweigh the cost of a few wasted sheets of paper by far. Not only is it faster than the classic test strip method (which is a great boon when you have two kids, and your only time for darkroom work is when they sleep :D), but I also find that my prints look better now. The reason for this is that outflanking gives me dodge and burn information, which otherwise would require a few more sets of test strips from different areas of the image. Having this information available so quickly and easily makes me less likely to skip the dodge/burn step. Thanks to this method (and to the metronome technique, which makes dodging and burning so incredibly easy), I started to dodge and burn more than I used to.

The old Kodak Darkroom Guide or whatever exactly it was called had a little wheel that you could use to figure a new time when you had a good time for one size but wanted to make another print of a different size from the same negative. I doubt that the Guide is still in print but you might find a used one. The wheel worked very well for me back in my fume room days.

[bob carnie]

There is a mag formula that I used in the 80's to do multiple sizes for light boxes. worked well.

I just cannot remember it and am useless at math. Maybe someone here can fill in the formula for changing sizes of the same negative.

something like OLD MAG divided by New Mag x old time = new time.. told you I was shitty at math.

The old Kodak Darkroom Guide or whatever exactly it was called had a little wheel that you could use to figure a new time when you had a good time for one size but wanted to make another print of a different size from the same negative. I doubt that the Guide is still in print but you might find a used one. The wheel worked very well for me back in my fume room days.

[BetterSense]

It's conceptually simpler to calculate the change in print area. When you change your print size, you have to spread the light over a different area. For me, it's easy to calculate the two print areas (length*width) and divide them to find out exactly how much more to expose the new size. This only works if you haven't changed your cropping at the same time.