ADOX MCP contrast control with Durst colour mixing head

SayCheese · 2014-02-21T17:59:26+00:00

Hallo, ich habe folgendes Problem: ich habe von Ilford Multigrade IV auf Adox MCP umgestellt. Bisher habe ich immer die Dual-Filter Werte vom Ilford Datenbl...

SayCheese

Hello, I have the following problem: I’ve switched from Ilford Multigrade IV to Adox MCP. Until now, I’ve always used the dual-filter values from the Ilford data sheet, and that has worked for me. Unfortunately, the Adox pack didn’t contain a data sheet like the ones I’m used to from Ilford, but I managed to find one for Agfa MCP online. I’m working on a Durst enlarger with a colour mixing head, where the scales go up to 170. However, the data sheet only lists filter values for scales up to 130. What should I do? I’m sure I’m not the first person to have this problem, but I haven’t found anything useful online. Can I simply convert this using the rule of three? Or is there a table available somewhere? I also have an enlarger at home with a Meopta colour head. The Ilford data sheet provides filter values for this too, albeit only for the basic version. What values should I use with the ADOX paper on this enlarger? Many thanks in advance, Klaus

Wolf_XL

...here you go... € http://infomagazin.phototec.de/infomag_bildentw_3.htm

SayCheese

Blimey... that was quick! Thanks a lot! Does that mean the filter settings are the same for every type of paper? I always thought you needed a specific table for each type of paper, because the values in the manufacturers’ tables vary quite a bit. K

bernhardmangelsgmxde

It’s not quite the same... but in my opinion, that doesn’t really matter, because you’re developing by eye anyway. You can still get good results without the manufacturer’s specifications. If the result is too soft, use less Y (or more M); if it’s too hard, do the opposite.

Urnes

Namir is right. Normally, though, there are differences between enlargers as well, because the filters lose their density over time. But that’s certainly enough to go by. ? ? Regards, Sven.

SayCheese

Great, thanks to everyone involved. I don’t need metrological precision, just a rough guide so that I get visually predictable changes in gradation. In that case, any of the existing tables should do the job – the main thing is that I use the values from a single table and don’t mix them all up. Best regards, K.

TR

What matters for the values is the specific colour-mixing head, not the paper. Paper A produces a harder tone at grade X than Paper B. Paper C produces a softer tone at grade Y in developer B than in developer A, and so on. The term ‘gradient’ – or the value assigned to it – is quite variable. As someone mentioned earlier: enlarge by eye. If you want to enlarge the same subject using the same parameters three days later, you may suddenly find that you have to print half a gradient softer because – for reasons unknown – the highlights are no longer getting enough coverage. That’s just how it is. Incidentally, the large Durst machines have a scale up to 130; the small ones up to 170.

bernhardmangelsgmxde

If you want to enlarge the same image using the same settings three days later, you might suddenly find you have to print it half a gradient softer because – for some unknown reason – the highlights aren’t getting enough coverage.

Really? I wouldn’t have noticed that. I use the same settings and actually get the same results. As long as it’s three days and not three years, and the paper is from the same pack.

TR

That was a bit of an extreme example ;)