Kodak Polycontrast acetate filters

**David Aimone** · 24-Oct-2010, 13:43

I was given a set of these, presumably for contrast control of VC papers?

I have numbers 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4

Can I assume this is a complete set (since the person who gave me these had 2 sets in the same range of 1-4), or am I missing .5, 4.5 and 5?

They are all 150mm x 150mm, and I was planning on cutting them down slightly for the Durst 1200 filter drawer.

**Oren Grad** · 24-Oct-2010, 14:14

I don't recall about the old Kodak Polycontrast set, but FWIW the later Kodak Polymax set and the current Ilford Multigrade set both have 12 filters - the Kodak set has -1 and then 0-5 in half-grade increments, while the Ilford set has 00 and then 0-5 in half-grade increments.

**Heroique** · 24-Oct-2010, 14:27

Originally Posted by David Aimone

I have numbers 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4.

If my box of smaller filters is any indication, yes, that’s the “complete” set.

Well, there’s a red filter, too.

**Steve Sherman** · 24-Oct-2010, 14:29

Hi David,

Without going into a long explanation as to why, your best results will come from using only the the hardest and softest effecting filters. Usually, the hardest contrast filter is used first followed with the softest to dial the highlights and areas of highest contrast into correct relation.

There are noticable differences which happen in the mid tones which make this a superior use of multi contrast paper.

Cheers, Steve

**David Aimone** · 24-Oct-2010, 14:33

Ok, reading "Way Beyond Monochrome", it goes into detail on filters from 0-5, with 2 being "medium/normal" in most cases. Is this Kodak set covering the same range with larger increments, or does it not cover as wide of a range?

Should I use these or should I eventually upgrade?

Steve, does your recommendation specific to the point-source condenser in the Durst or generally applicable?

In the meantime, thanks everyone for the help...

**sean mcentee** · 24-Oct-2010, 14:58

David,
My memory of those filters goes back to the 70's. As I recall they really were designed to work with Kodak's Polycontrast paper of the time. I remember in the 80's being told by a Kodak rep that the old filters wouldn't perform with the newer papers. (Not sure if he just wanted me to buy the new filters) The PITA of the old filter was that they each had a different filter factor and you had to adjust the exposure as you changed from filter to filter. The newer filters allow you to move from filter to filter w/o adjusting exposure except at the extremes.

The early ones were gelatin and very delicate. The newer ones are durable, cheap acetate and meant to go above the negative rather than below the lens. I'd upgrade asap, the ones you've got are really museum pieces.

**ic-racer** · 24-Oct-2010, 15:57

I'd cut them down see how they work. If there is too much mid density change between filters, then I'd just go with a new set as new ones are pretty cheap.

**Steve Sherman** · 25-Oct-2010, 19:31

Originally Posted by David Aimone

Ok, reading "Way Beyond Monochrome", it goes into detail on filters from 0-5, with 2 being "medium/normal" in most cases. Is this Kodak set covering the same range with larger increments, or does it not cover as wide of a range?

Should I use these or should I eventually upgrade?

Steve, does your recommendation specific to the point-source condenser in the Durst or generally applicable?

In the meantime, thanks everyone for the help...

I believe it has more to do with wave length / color of the light in relation to the paper than it does with the "type" of light source