Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> VC Enlarger Filtration |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
VC Enlarger Filtration
In another thread there is a discussion about using below lens filters for variable contrast enlarging. I’ve always been puzzled by this approach, assuming that these filters were made as a stop-gap approach to allow older enlargers to be used for variable contrast papers when they were first introduced. I find the idea of putting a piece of plastic in the optical light path quite abhorrent considering that I have gone to considerable trouble to produce the best negative and select the best enlarging lens that I can. Placing filters in the light path above the negative stage must surely be the only satisfactory method to modify the light colour in single lamp enlargers. I’m interested to hear why others insist on using below lens filters, is it only a matter of economics or is there a perception of other advantages?
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I use them as a matter of necessity. When I used my Durst M605K I used the colour head settings and they worked well. When I changed to the De Vere 504 with the older style Dichromat head I just could not get good contrast settings using the inbuilt filters as was my original intention. I spent the best part of 12 months trying but always ended up with flat muddy looking prints whatever I tried. Some of this was due to other problems but I have yet to find a set of figures that work for me. This head does not have a filter drawer so is not easy to use above lens filtration. I suppose the filter could be sandwiched with the negative but if there were any scratches or marks on the filter material they would be more likely to show up doing this. In discussion with BobRob he persuaded me to try under lens filters and they work fine. Also if I want to use split grade printing I can change the filter without risking disturbing the head by turning dials which are fairly stiff to turn. I too had reservations about sharpness and the effect the filters may have but to date have not found them to be a problem. My prints for the print exchanges have been done using the filters and they seem to be acceptable to the recipients.
Perhaps I should do some work on the head to make the filter dials turn more freely. Also as the head is quite old the density of the filters, which may have faded anyway, is not enough to give the higher paper grades. I'm not sure if dichroic filters can fade. Research on the net says that they do and they don't so is inconclusive. Bill Last edited by Bill; 5th November 2011 at 08:34 AM. Reason: Additional information. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Dave
I have a similar view to you, the reason I use/used the Multigrade below lens filters is that before I recently acquired my De Vere 504 with Ilford Multigrade 500 system I was using an older De Vere 504 with a Mk1 Dichromat head with which I wanted to use the split grade printing method, there is no filter drawer in the 504/Dichromat and dialling the dichroic filters in and out could lead to slight movement of the head, If I wish to use my old De Vere 108/Dichromat for split grade I still have to use below lens filters for similar reasons, Anyone have a spare Multigrade 500 10x8 version going very cheap |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
At least we have highlighted a common problem, head movement during filter changes using the dials.
Anybody have an extremely cheap spare Mk IV head although I think there were chassis changes to accommodate it so it may not fit on mine? Bill |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
On my De vere I used to have a Cathomag head, and I did use below the lens filters making an allowance for the colour of the light. I now have a Dichro MK11 head and dial in the grades accordingly. The Dichro gives more contrast than the Cathomag with below the lens filtration, but the prints look the same. Also, never had any trouble with the head moving when changing the dials. I keep all the workings clean and lightly oiled.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dave, I can see why you have reservations about using filters below the lens. I once did practical tests and they showed that there were no visible differences between above lens or below lens filter placement.
On two of my enlargers below-lens is the only option. It is certainly a quick and convenient method. Alan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I should add that I do have a couple of sets of plastic filters, one Ilford and one Kodak, that have found their way into my darkshed, but have never used them.
My enlarger ( Durst 1200) has a variable contrast head on which the contrast can be changed from 0 to 5 in a few seconds; without shifting the focus. I'm surprised to read that some of you are trying to print with such obviously rickety machines. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
I only use below the lens filters with split-grade printing just for convenience and to save on wear and tear of the enlarger heads.
I haven't noticed any detrimental effects, at least to the naked eye.
__________________
MartyNL “Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.” - Minor White, 1950 |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Water filtration | Richard S | Darkroom | 22 | 16th February 2021 01:57 AM |
Ilford Multigrade with dial in filtration? | kennethcooke | Monochrome printing techniques | 68 | 6th January 2014 12:40 PM |
Contrast filtration query | mark d | Monochrome printing techniques | 6 | 13th March 2011 07:43 PM |