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.Originally Posted by Torquemada
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
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
Yes this is all a non-issue unless you consistently find yourself needing max/min contrast for a basic exposure.
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
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks