Ilford multigrade filters / size help / Omega D2 users

[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.