Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Multigrade filtration anomalies Kodak/Durst/Leitz |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Multigrade filtration anomalies Kodak/Durst/Leitz
It has been a very long time since I compared the different filtration values suggested by Ilford for their Multigrade paper and I thought following the advent of MG5 and the fact it is a Sunday morning with an hour or so to kill, I thought 'Why not?'
The information comes from the Ilford website PDF giving the filtration values for both single filter values and dual values. This PDF is dated 2010 so I'm assuming the values are the same then with MG4 as for the MG5 now. Ilford are usually pretty slick at updating technical information when it needs changing, so I will put that down as a 'yes'. Firstly it seems that the Leitz V35mm colour enlarger has changed camps. In 1986/7 when I bought my 1st one, the Leitz values were in a camp of their own, neither Kodak values or Durst, although they were pretty close to Kodak. Then they did change to using the Kodak values but on the website they are lumped in with Durst. (This is dated 2010 as I said). However I will come back to Leitz later. Also Kaiser, who I am almost certain used to use Kodak values are now in the Durst camp, likewise Dunco. Now let me turn to the actual filtration values themselves, for simplicity sticking to Kodak values (My LPL is Kodak). For single grade '00' it requires 199Y. Using dual filtration Grade '00' is quoted as 162y and 0m. Now if single filtration grade 00 needs 199y. Because there is no magenta included should not dual filtration should also be the same? However, single filter Gd '0' is quoted as 90y and with dual filtration it is exactly the same, 90y again, with no Magenta needed. So this begs the question, why does single filtration need 199Y and not 162y to get grade '00' At the other end of the scale, Gd4.5 is quoted as needing 140m with single magenta filtration. but with the dual filtration it needs 150m only. There is no quote for G5 with Kodak values because I believe most enlargers using the Kodak scale don't go up that far. My LPL doesn't. I know that between certain grades using dual filtration means the exposure values remain roughly the same, or should do, but that is not not always been my experience. Grades 1.5 to 3.5 are OK-ish, but outside those parameters it gets a bit 'iffy'. Now going back to Leitz, bless 'em! As I said they are now in the Durst value filter camp, but are they? When it comes to using dual filtration they are off on a tangent of their own with a completely different set of filtration values to every other manufacturer. While this difference in values and filtration will not make one jot of difference to the way I print, it is a bit baffling why there are so many anomalies. I wonder what Ilford would have to say. These figures come from the Ilford Website dated 2010. Look at https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-co...Multigrade.pdf Last edited by John King; 25th April 2021 at 10:33 AM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
> why does single filtration need 199Y and not 162y to get grade '00'
At the very end of the scales most paper do not respond very well. I don't use yellow filtration often. But I don't find a contrast difference between 100 and 130 (Durst, where 130 is the largest value). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why?
Uwe, I agree, it doesn't make sense does it?
But there you are, it is printed in black and white on the Ilford website. I would call the technical help on Monday to see what they make of it, but I believe the non essential staff are still working from home so I may not get anything. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Yes I agree on your main point, John and on your point of the dual filtration being OK-ish on grades 1.5-3.5 but my own findings were that these are the extreme limits and most might see a difference at the extremes Grades 2-3 only might be as far apart as is accurate in terms of the same exposure.
I have a feeling that Ilford have simply been "careless" with its calibration as I can think of no logical reason why the single and dual values differ when there is only one filter in play Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
https://photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Multigrade.html
The above link takes you to a history of Ilford Multigrade Papers. It has a date for Multigrade RC III DELUXE of FEB 1990. I still have an instruction leaflet from a box of Multi. III. In Table 1 of the leaflet. DURST Durst Dunco Kaiser Keinzle Leitz Lupo. .............................. AGFA Agfa Meopta Krokus .............................................. KODAK Besseler Chromega De Vere IFF Jobo LPL Omega Paterson Simmard Vivitar For the Durst Values in Table 2 of the leaflet the filter values go from 0-5 and filtrations are from 110Y to 170M. No dual filtration values are given. I shall try to put up a couple of scans of the leaflet tomorrow. It doesn't answer your questions, but provides a nice bit of history for darkroom cranks such as ourselves. Cheers.
__________________
It will all be over by Christmas. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I may be wrong about the Kaiser enlarger being Kodak values, but absolutely certain Leitz V35 was on its own. I know because I had one and had to use the leaflet provided with MG4 which was quite new at the time and it was used to print my successful LRPS and ARPS panels in 1990 and 1992.
I don't know if the technical makeup of MG3 made the Leitz values more or less the same as Durst but differed with MG4 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
http://rhdesigns.co.uk/filter-settings/
An interesting chart from R.H.Designs that includes the V35 enlarger. They have some excellent information links on their site. Well worth browsing. Not to mention their brilliant equipment. No connections to them apart from being a very happy StopClock Pro owner. Full acknowledgement to RHDesigns. Cheers.
__________________
It will all be over by Christmas. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Different again
I have just opened a new box of MG5 A4 size and the values have differences to that on the website. I thought I wasn't mistaken when I mentioned that Leitz had a separate set of values for the V35 but the website lumps them with the Durst List.
I tried to call Ilford last week but could not get through. |
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 |
Durst Multigraph 600 / Ilford Multigrade 600 | Marcel Sauder | Darkroom | 6 | 20th November 2018 05:55 PM |
Leitz V35 and Multigrade filters | alexmuir | Monochrome printing techniques | 2 | 26th July 2015 07:22 PM |
Ilford Multigrade with dial in filtration? | kennethcooke | Monochrome printing techniques | 68 | 6th January 2014 11:40 AM |
WTB - Ilford Multigrade 500 head to Durst L1200 chassis adapter. | mpirie | Sale or Wanted | 0 | 4th January 2012 03:55 PM |
Durst Laborator 1200 and ILFOSPEED Multigrade System | Martin Aislabie | Auctions of Interest | 2 | 13th February 2011 07:31 PM |