No MC filter vs. 00 vs. 2

[David Aimone]

I know this is a newbie question, but I have to ask it:

What is the difference, when using MC RC paper, between using no Ilford filter; using a 00 filter or using a #2 filter. I know the second and third are different contrasts, but which one (if any) is like using no filter at all? If neither, than what is the difference using no filter?

Also, anyone know a source for ND filters that I can cut to 4.5" square to put in my Durst enlarger?

Thanks!

[bsdunek]

Generally, if you print on MC paper with no filter, it will be contrast grade 2 or 2 1/2. Using filters give you the contrast grade of the filter used. 00 is VERY soft, while 5 if very hard. I bought this set of filters for use in my 6X9 enlarger. The filters are six inches square.
http://www.adorama.com/ILMGF66.html

[David Aimone]

Thanks, I suspected so.

So my obvious followup question is why you would use a number 2 filter if it's the same as no filter...

Generally, if you print on MC paper with no filter, it will be contrast grade 2 or 2 1/2. Using filters give you the contrast grade of the filter used. 00 is VERY soft, while 5 if very hard. I bought this set of filters for use in my 6X9 enlarger. The filters are six inches square.
http://www.adorama.com/ILMGF66.html

[ic-racer]

I know this is a newbie question, but I have to ask it:

What is the difference, when using MC RC paper, between using no Ilford filter; using a 00 filter or using a #2 filter. I know the second and third are different contrasts, but which one (if any) is like using no filter at all? If neither, than what is the difference using no filter?

Also, anyone know a source for ND filters that I can cut to 4.5" square to put in my Durst enlarger?

Thanks!

Well, using the filter subtracts Cyan (making it more RED) which acts like ND since paper is not sensitive to RED.

[Mark Sampson]

And all light sources are not the same. Condenser heads with tungsten bulbs, color heads with projector-type lamps, and blue cold-light heads all have different color temperatures... which make for differences in paper contrast. So the difference between unfiltered light and the #2 filter may vary by light source type. Since the 'grade' numbers and filter numbers are arbitrary, and vary themselves between manufacturers, and indeed between paper types, the only answer is to test your setup by making prints.
It's much less of a problem in practice than it is in theory.

[David Aimone]

Sounds good. I have been testing and have determined that using no filter results in a definitely lighter print than using a #2. Using the filters is the way to go then, to keep everything relative between filters.

Thanks everyone!

[Vaughn]

If you start off with a #2, going to any other filter, from 00 to 3.5, will, in theory, be the same exposure time (and double that time for 4 to 5).

-- sorry, a bit late --better answers were given above

[nolindan]

Also, anyone know a source for ND filters that I can cut to 4.5" square to put in my Durst enlarger?

Try Rosco Cinegel: http://www.adorama.com/RO3403.html

[David Aimone]

Thanks, Nicholas!

[patrickjames]

If you need ND you can use gels from Lee or Rosco assuming that it will not be in the optical path. You can get these from B&H, or nearly any pro supplier. They are not expensive and can withstand the heat inside the enlarger if that would be an issue.

You could also use a ND filter on the front of the lens.