wschwetz
Hello
I’ve been having problems with the Adox MCP setting on the Heiland Splitgrade for some time now. It feels as though the setting and the paper have very little to do with one another. I’m currently developing in N113, where you always have to perform slightly less exposure anyway. But with the Adox MCP setting, it tends to be a whole stop shorter. That seems far too much. Has the paper changed since the last calibration by Heiland? It’s been a few years now. I don’t have these problems with the MCC.
It would be great if Mirko could comment on this.
While I’m on the subject of Heiland Splitgrade: can anyone explain the difference between the Splitgrade channels for Foma Variant III RC and Foma Variant 311 RC? On the Foma website, the paper is called Fomaspeed Variant III, and in the FOTOIMPEX shop it’s Foma Variant 311. So which setting applies to the paper currently on sale? Unfortunately, an enquiry to Heiland didn’t clarify the matter. Does anyone know?
Wilfried
Wolf_XL
...I can confirm that – I’ve been experiencing the same issue for a while now. Could it perhaps be because the split-grade settings are still calibrated for the paper from the first batch, whereas now only paper from the new batch is being sold? In my opinion, the gradient isn’t quite right either – it’s not as far off as the ‘Zeit’ paper, but to me it’s a bit too soft.... I’m also using the N113 developer.
€
P.S. My paper:
€
300 sheets 8x10 inches, ordered on 1 June 2015
250 sheets 13x18, ordered on 26 August 2015
wschwetz
So I’m not the only one, then.
?
And the paper’s too flimsy for the drain, too.
Wolf_XL
... but it could also be down to the latest Splitgrade update – in which case Mirko wouldn’t be the right person to ask... I’ll try to work out when I installed the last update. Unfortunately, although I can find the full software history on the Heiland website, there’s no information on when these software changes were made...
wschwetz
The ADOX MCP 310 channel has been available since version 2.7, and I saved it to my computer in March 2011. I can’t find any mention of a recalibration in the history. So it’s been five years since then.
?
Furthermore: if the paper and Splitgrade are no longer compatible, for whatever reason, I can no longer use the Heiland – or the corresponding paper. Photographic paper has become far too expensive to waste on botched prints and/or adjustments. My time in the darkroom is also too precious to spend on tedious trial and error. After all, I did go to the trouble of buying the Splitgrade, which isn’t exactly cheap.
highscore
Well.
I’m really glad I’m using a Wallner tower. :spudnikwaving:
I can only list two papers there, mind you. But I can change the settings at any time :spudnikcoinflip:
highscore
Hi, it's me again.
This time, I'm being a bit of a know-it-all.
On page 22 of the Heiland user manual (General adjustment of time and gradient),
it actually explains how you can permanently set adjustments for individual papers, in 1/10 stop increments.
Wolf_XL
...that’s what I do too – but I just go by feel rather than relying on a reproducible set of measurements. So I’d actually prefer it if an update gave me an MCP channel again that I didn’t have to tinker with myself...
highscore
Hi Wolf
Well, I suppose the function is there, on the one hand, to correct for variations in the casts.
I reckon what Heiland is providing there is an average value.
On the other hand, the enlarger being used is likely to be a significant factor.
I wouldn’t have any qualms about fiddling with the settings. Especially as you can always restore the default values.
As I said, I use a Wallner Turm.
I take any high-contrast negative, print it as well as possible and set the rotary potentiometers to the calculated times. That actually always works. With negatives I don’t want to develop fully, the first print often turns out well as it is – without any further corrections.
PS: I’d be happy to have a Heiland in my home if I ever happen to find one at a reasonable price.
Wolf_XL
...I’ve been working with the Wallner Tower for at least twenty years – once you get used to it, you can achieve a great deal. I don’t see the problem so much in determining the exact exposure time – you can make corrections even with complex measurement sequences – but rather in the fact that the gradient parameters – in other words, which Y/M values achieve gradient X – have changed slightly. That’s where things get more complicated, because I then have several options for correction...
highscore
Hmm, I see.
I don’t have enough experience in that area, though.
All I can see from this discussion is that our personal standards seem to differ quite a bit.
And I don’t (yet) go to the trouble of determining the paper gradation for every negative.
The multigrade options do tend to encourage ‘sloppy’ work.
That said, I would certainly do so if, as a child, I only had fixed gradations at my disposal.
I just wanted to point out that the ‘perfect’ Heiland technique opens the door for the user to adapt the system to their own needs.
But you do say that the gradation parameters have changed, so I suppose the only option left is to adjust the development time of the negative.
But that’s not ideal.
TR
Hello, if the negative is developed differently, surely the Splitgrade’s sensor takes this into account and compensates for it. That is, after all, the whole point of the measurement: the positive would look the same.
?
It should be obvious that a system like Auto-Splitgrade can only operate on autopilot as long as there is always up-to-date data on the current paper margins. It is predictable that something will change with the papers at some point. Either there will be an update, or you will have to find a correction yourself.
?
However, it would be a nice gesture on the part of a paper manufacturer if they were to supply the relevant (up-to-date) Splitgrade data. This might even be economically worthwhile for them.
Wolf_XL
?...I think it’s Heiland who needs to take action here – the paper manufacturer can hardly be expected to cater solely to the handful of Splitgrade users. They are Heiland’s customers. However, knowing Mr Heiland as I do, if he were aware of any significant changes in the paper’s behaviour, he would incorporate these changes fairly promptly and make them available to his customers...
wschwetz
Exactly, it would be a nice gesture if changes to the paper parameters were communicated. And to go on to explain exactly how things have changed. And if Heiland then didn’t feel compelled to issue an update, the responsibility would indeed lie with Heiland. But only then. It would be even better to communicate what has changed and how, compared to the current Splitgrade setting, as people usually still have older paper as well.
Regarding the claim that “paper manufacturers can’t cater to a few Splitgrade users”: FOTOIMPEX produces its prints on MCO/MCC using Splitgrade itself; at least that’s what they state in their shop: “we produce prints that correspond in brightness and contrast to what we, or rather the Heiland computer, consider optimal”. So one also knows whether the parameters have changed, and how. Why then is this not communicated?
To reiterate: I would very much welcome a statement from Mirko.
As the older batches of MCP do not have this problem to the same extent as my last order, I will use up what I have. And then I will probably switch to a different paper. The price difference compared to Ilford is now negligible, and with Fomatone the print usually comes out right on the first attempt.
Wolf_XL
...right, I’ve just gone back through my order history:
?
Well, since 2009 I’ve ordered MCP 310 at least once a year and I’ve always got on well with the MCP channel. I have, however, always had to make slight adjustments – whether that’s down to the natural ageing of the emulsion or fluctuations in the development of the negatives is open to question....
?
But a sensitivity deviation of one stop plus a shift in gradation since the last order is quite significant – in my opinion, this cannot be explained solely by natural ageing or fluctuations in the negative development process...
sputnik
?
To reiterate: I would very much welcome a comment from Mirko.
?
?
?
When I recently asked for an explanation as to why the MCC from a brand-new pack bears little resemblance to the original MCC – neither in appearance nor in its settings and visual impression (and I’m not the only one who’s noticed this) – my post was deleted without comment.
Never mind.
I could actually glean more from that reaction than from an evasive answer.
Wolf_XL
... even I’m slowly reaching the point where I’m starting to get annoyed... I have no problem with the fact that I can’t expect the same product consistency from a product manufactured under artisanal conditions. But if significant variations are being reported by various people, this issue really needs to be addressed...
€
A statement from Mirko would be the first step – otherwise, when I place my next order for paper, it’ll be Ilford or Foma on the order form instead of ADOX...
MStache
Hello everyone,
Here is a response from the FOTOIMPEX lab.
I’ve been using the Heiland Splitgrade system for some time now alongside Adox MCP paper and haven’t noticed any significant changes. I use the device, in a way, as a substitute for time-consuming test strips and then always adjust the reading slightly for the final exposure, based on my own judgement. It is also important when measuring to always measure the areas that are important to the image and not to include extreme values such as overexposed highlights or very deep shadows – in other words, the parts that are meant to be pure white and deep black – to avoid ending up with images that are too dark and muddy. But I’m sure most of you already do that anyway. The Splitgrade Comfort module is also very helpful for better pre-visualisation.
Following consultation with Mr Büddecker, nothing has changed regarding the ADOX MCP paper. We are also already in contact with Mr Heiland, who will review the paper calibration shortly and adjust it via a software update if necessary.
Best regards,
Marc
FOTOIMPEX Berlin
MirkoBoeddecker
We’ve been aware of this thread since this morning.
Marc has already replied, as you know.
Of course, we haven’t made any major changes. If we had, the paper would simply be called MCP II. And why not?
We weren’t able to detect any significant variations between batches during production either, but we always measure mainly from batch to batch, primarily to ensure consistency in the finish.
This principle would allow slight variations to accumulate across production runs (we currently have material from production run 9).
So let’s wait and see what Jürgen Heiland has to say.
?
Best regards,
?
Mirko
MirkoBoeddecker
I have no problem with the fact that I can’t expect the same product consistency from a product made under artisanal conditions.
?
That’s not inherent to small-batch production. In fact, the whole idea of small-batch production is precisely to achieve consistent production by using small kettles and producing
continuously (as opposed to batch by batch). Unfortunately, this isn’t possible with products under extreme price pressure, such as the MCP.
The small kettle also operates much more precisely, so that fluctuations are naturally reduced.
