hypeo
Hello,
Is there a reason why one should opt for the slightly more expensive Ilford filters, or are you just paying for the name with Ilford?
I was initially planning to buy second-hand ones on eBay – but when I read here that such filters only last about five years, I quickly ruled that out.
My main concern is whether both filters are consistent, i.e. that there are no darker or lighter areas on the prints due to poor processing, and that the change in exposure time after a change is as minimal as possible.
If the Ilford filters mean I need fewer test strips when enlarging two prints from two similar negatives using slightly different filters, then it’s worth the extra cost to me. Otherwise, I’d invest the money I save in photographic paper. ;)
Regards,
hypeo
piu58
> that such filters only last for about 5 years
You can’t really say that. If left on a shelf, they’ll last for decades. But exposure to light and, above all, heat inside the enlarger breaks down the colorants. You can see this clearly on old filters: the colouring is still fine at the edges.
Depending on how much they’re used, these filters can be worn out much more quickly. For example, if you leave the darkroom and forget to switch off the enlarger, the filter inside will be noticeably lighter a day later.
> both filters are uniform, i.e. there are no darker or lighter areas on the prints
The filters are positioned at a point in the light path where minor irregularities are not noticeable.
In my opinion, the main difference between the filter sets lies in whether they also include half-gradients. I wouldn’t want to work with full gradients alone.
sputnik
In my view, the main difference between the filter sets lies in whether they include half-gradients. I wouldn’t want to work with full gradients alone.
Another noteworthy factor is the absorption strength of the filters, which can vary considerably.
For instance, the Kodak Polymax filters in grades G0 to G3 absorbed only about half as much light as the Ilford filters!
This is an invaluable advantage when using relatively insensitive papers such as Fomatone MG FB or the Forte Polywartone FB (which will hopefully be available again soon) in conjunction with higher enlargement ratios.
I don’t know how the Paterson filters compare to the Ilford filters. Perhaps someone else has had different experiences in this regard.
Wolf_XL
...when I look at the prices, these are definitely the sort of ranges where I can get a colour mixing head on eBay – depending on the enlarger I have... Sometimes the price even includes the enlarger as well... ;-)
Urnes
With Ilford, you definitely need to double the exposure for gradients 4 and 5. Otherwise, if looked after properly, the filters last practically forever. They usually spend most of their time in their packaging in a dark cupboard. And I have to say, the prices are nothing to sneeze at. Mirko used to have low-budget filters in their range; they didn’t have intermediate gradations, but they weren’t bad either. But I don’t think they’re available anymore. Otherwise, I prefer to work with a colour mixing head.
Regards, Sven.
hypeo
Thanks for your replies!
> that such filters only last about 5 years
You can’t really say that. If left on a shelf, they’ll last for decades. But exposure to light and, above all, heat in the enlarger will ruin the colorants. You can see this clearly on old filters: the colouring is still fine at the edges.
Depending on how much they’re used, these filters can be worn out much more quickly. For example, if you leave the darkroom and forget to switch off the enlarger, the filter inside will be noticeably lighter just a day later.
That puts my mind at rest. If the filters were to last 10 years, that would be €4 per year, 33 cents per month, 16 cents per session, 0.04 cents per print. Seen in that light, even a lifespan of 5 years would be good value.
As I have a dark cabinet for the prints anyway, storing them in the dark won’t be a problem.
...looking at the prices, these are definitely in the range where I could get a colour mixing head on eBay – depending on the enlarger I have... . ;-)
But that wouldn’t be a condenser enlarger ;)[size=4] I opted for one with a condenser not because of the price, but because of the results and the application. For that, I’m happy to put up with a few more dust specks and the hassle of changing the filters.[/size]
With Ilford, you definitely need to double the exposure for gradients 4 and 5.
Does that mean I can use identical exposure times from 00 to 3 1/2? Or are there differences there too?
Urnes
The Ilford Handbook states the following on this subject:
[font=sans-seri[size=1]
[size=4]"Working with MULTIGRADE filters is convenient, as they[/size][/size][font=sans-seri[size=1]
[size=4]feature automatic density compensation: when changing filters[/size][/size][font=sans-seri[size=1]
[size=4]between 00 and 3.5, the exposure time determined once[/size][/size][font=sans-seri[size=1]
[size=4]exposure time does not change; when using filters 4 to 5, this[/size][/size][font=sans-seri[size=1]
[size=4]time is simply doubled (e.g. instead of 10 seconds previously with filter 3[/size][/size]
[size=4]now 20 seconds with filter 4)[/size]"
If I’m not entirely mistaken, you can also place the colour cup on the condensers, at least on the old Leitz Focomats.
Regards, Sven.
hypeo
Thanks, Sven! I’ve just downloaded the full manual.
[size=4]There doesn’t seem to be any documentation or more detailed information on the Paterson units; in fact, I haven’t found anything on Google or on the website that’s any more detailed than the description provided by Impex.[/size]
Ilford deserves the nod if only for the lovely manual.
By the way, here’s a lovely 6x6 enlarger from Durst (F60), for which there’s no colour tray. But it’s an interesting idea nonetheless.
Regards,
hypeo
sputnik
Well, this business of keeping the exposure time ‘the same’ is a bit of a tricky one.
It works relatively well if your mid-tones are right and the highlights AND shadows aren’t too extreme or too washed-out, because that’s what the filters are ‘calibrated’ for.
However, if your highlights are fine but your shadows are too flat, then of course, as well as using a hardener, you’ll need to extend the exposure time slightly, otherwise the highlights will blow out.
But you’ll pick all that up very quickly once you’ve got started.
Wolf_XL
...I used to have an Opemus V, where the condenser was also located beneath the colour mixing head...
You’re simply more flexible with a colour mixing head, and some things are very difficult to achieve with insert filters – for example, enlargement of films developed in staining developers (Märsch Tanol or similar) or films such as Ilford XP-2 or Kodak BW 400CN. The gradient just isn’t right anymore...
pittyman
...I used to have an Opemus V, and on that the condenser was also located beneath the colour mixing head...
Hi Wolf,
Could you explain the ‘design’ of the condenser and colour mixing head in a bit more detail? It sounds
really interesting!
Best regards,
Dirk
Wolf_XL
...in the Opemus, the light from the colour-mixing head is mixed inside an integrating sphere and passed through the condenser. The interesting thing about it is the integrating sphere (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulbricht-Kugel), which, as far as I know, is only used in the Opemus and differs from a conventional mixing box.
hypeo
I quote
from Wikipedia:
[color=#000000][font=sans-seri[size=3]The radiation scattered within the integrating sphere is almost perfectly diffuse; it satisfies [/size][/coloLambert’s law[color=#000000][font=sans-seri[size=3] (also known as the Lambertian distribution) far better than is the case with [/size][/coloopaque [color=#000000][font=sans-seri[size=3]material ([/size][/colofrosted glass[color=#000000][font=sans-seri[size=3]) or a flat, diffusely reflecting plate.[/size][/colo
[color=#000000][font=sans-seri[size=3]…[/size][/colo
If I am not mistaken, this does, however, run counter to the principle of a condenser enlarger, which enlarges the image directly onto the paper, mercilessly reproducing every scratch, grain of film and speck of dust.
Urnes
Yes, the upper half of the sphere containing the lamp socket is removed and the colour mixing head is fitted in its place, using an adapter if necessary. With Focomat enlargers, the condenser remains in the enlarger.
There’s actually no real difference. You’ll still see dust and scratches with the colour mixing head, whether you use a condenser or not. Fingerprints too. Sometimes the colour enlarger also acts as a hardener if you fit a better lens. There are many factors at play here. And ultimately, everyone has to decide according to their own taste. But in my experience, many differences in the print are only marginal and only noticeable in a direct comparison with a second print.
Regards, Sven.
Wolf_XL
...the one has nothing to do with the other – whether there is a non-diffuse light bulb or the diffuse light from the Opemus colour-mixing head in front of the condenser is ultimately irrelevant – the condenser ensures that the diffuse light is converted into a focused beam...
But I too have found that the lens has a far greater influence on the positive than the enlarger’s lighting principle...
hypeo
[size=3][size=4]
[/size]
...one thing has nothing to do with the other – whether there is a non-diffuse light bulb or the diffuse light from the Opemus colour mixing head in front of the condenser is ultimately irrelevant – the condenser ensures that the diffuse light is converted into a focused beam..
Learnt something new again.[/size]
[size=4]Sometimes the mixing enlarger also produces a hardener if you fit a better lens. There are many factors at play here. And ultimately, everyone has to decide according to their own taste. But in my experience, many differences in the print are only marginal and only noticeable in direct comparison with a second print.[/size]
If you compare a mixed enlarger and a non-diffuse...enlarger, using the same lens, at the same aperture, with the same negative, at maximum sharpness settings, using the same developer, with the same development times, the mixed enlarger cannot be harder than the condenser enlarger – as far as I correctly followed a thread in another analogue forum – unless the MG filters are already very brightened or the opal lamp prevents it due to a colour temperature fluctuation.
But you’re right, of course ;)
The question is: from what size does this difference between diffuse and non-diffuse – when using the same V-lens – become clearly noticeable?
Ultimately, it’s surely a matter of taste. For some, the difference is marginal – others rave about it.
The icing on the cake. Regards, hypeo
Commander8x
...in the Opemus, the light from the colour-mixing head is mixed inside an integrating sphere and passed through the condenser. The interesting thing about it is the integrating sphere (
http://de.wikipedia..../Ulbricht-Kugel
), which, as far as I know, is only used in the Opemus and differs from a conventional mixing box.
You can’t really generalise about that. I’ve just had a look inside my Opemus 4, and there’s no integrating sphere, just a simple lamp socket in a matt black lamp housing. It looks exactly the same in the Opemus 6.
The integrating sphere was used in the early models (Opemus 1+2, Magnifax 1, and also in the Adjutar produced in the GDR, if I’m not mistaken). You can tell this by the adjustment mechanism on top of the lamp housing (often a rod) for adjusting the opal bulb in the centre of the sphere.
Wolf_XL
...the Ulbricht sphere is in the colour-mixing heads – in a standard black-and-white head, an Ulbricht sphere makes no sense...
Commander8x
...so there’s definitely no integrating sphere in the Opemus 6’s Color 3 colour head. Instead, it has these polystyrene mixing boxes fitted inside.
I don’t know what the Meochrom colour head on the Opemus 5 looks like; I can’t be bothered to look and start fiddling around with it.
But the two enlargers are different, you’re right about that. Whilst on the Opemus 5 you place the colour head onto the condenser, on the Opemus 6 you have to remove the condenser first.
But this makes perfect sense for colour and B&W, as a uniformly illuminated diffuse light source is ideal for any kind of enlargement; who wants dark corners on their print? Both the integrating sphere and the mixing chamber serve this purpose, though the integrating sphere perhaps does so slightly better. The dilemma with halogen lamps in an enlarger is that they produce a light source that is almost point-like.
I must correct myself on one point: the old enlargers had only one condenser lens, and in that case the light source must be adjusted to the exact focal point on the convex side.
Regards, Matthias
Commander8x
...
