 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / January 2008Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)
I'm on the edge of beating myself up. I got a very clean Ilford 400 enlarging head. It mounted properly to my enlarger. Tomorrow I will get some more paper with the intent of using it. But the filters are Yellow and Magenta. Are these not the filters used for Ilford MC? I ask because a friend suggested they are not. Let me have it. I deserve it. jj > I'm on the edge of beating myself up. I got a very clean Ilford 400 > enlarging head. It mounted properly to my enlarger. Tomorrow I will get some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are these not the filters used for Ilford MC? They're the right colours, but they might not give a full or evenly- spaced range of grades, or consistent exposure. Try it and see. > I'm on the edge of beating myself up. I got a very clean Ilford 400 > enlarging head. It mounted properly to my enlarger. Tomorrow I will get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > jj _Generally_, if you have to use cyan, you screwed up (I've never done reversal color, where I suspect cyan would be used). Remember, if you add all three colors, you get neutral density (less light across the spectrum). I have a set of color printing filters for my Omega D2V. The set as purchased included perhaps a dozen each of yellow and magenta in different densities, but only four or five cyan densities. The old Polycontrast filters each required a different exposure. If you had a perfect density print with a grade 2 filter, and wanted to change to grade four, you had to come up with a new exposure, using your Kodak Darkroom Dataguide. The newer filters have neutral density added (cyan) so that the exposure changes only once (when you switch from 3 to 4, IIRC. I could go downstairs to check, but...) > The old Polycontrast filters each required a different exposure. If you had > a perfect density print with a grade 2 filter, and wanted to change to grade > four, you had to come up with a new exposure, using your Kodak Darkroom > Dataguide. The newer filters have neutral density added (cyan) so that the > exposure changes only once (when you switch from 3 to 4, IIRC. I could go > downstairs to check, but...) With this head the control unit should compensate for exposure when you change the grade. > I'm on the edge of beating myself up. I got a very clean Ilford 400 > enlarging head. It mounted properly to my enlarger. Tomorrow I will get [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Let me have it. I deserve it. Spare yourself. A bit of research on the net dug up the following: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20062111029251325.pdf in which is - "The simplest way of controlling the colour of the light reaching the emulsion during exposure is by the use of filters: a magenta filter absorbs green light and transmits blue; a yellow filter absorbs blue light and transmits green." > I'm on the edge of beating myself up. I got a very clean Ilford 400 > enlarging head. It mounted properly to my enlarger. Tomorrow I will get some [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > jj Ilford uses a slightly different scheme of filtration for their papers than say Kodak does. They do use yellow and magenta filtration, however I seem to recall its about 1 filter grade difference from Kodak values. That is the Ilford filtration when dialed in versus using the gels requires about 1 filter grade more filtration. Some of their middle 2-3 values in the gels do look somewhat odd being salmon colored "orange". Ilford also measures beginning at 00.....for the gels. Based on no real hard tests I concluded many years ago that Ilford papers are softer- and nicer for my work than Kodak papers, Kodak papers tended to my eye to have a lot more inherent contrast.....just my perception. The one note I would add is that in doing my printing Dekol was at that point my primary developer regardless of the paper.  SignatureReality is a picture perfected and never looking back. internetphobic@deletedmail.com wrote: > They do use yellow and magenta filtration, however I seem to recall its > about 1 filter grade difference from Kodak values. That is the Ilford > filtration when dialed in versus using the gels requires about 1 filter > grade more filtration. Some of their middle 2-3 values in the gels do > look somewhat odd being salmon colored "orange". That may be because European filter grades are about 1 lower than the equivalent U.S. papers. In the 1960's (in Philly) when I was buying whatever I could get my hands on cheaply, I quickly found out that Agfa Brovira 3 was what I wanted, and Kodak Kodabromide 2 was a more expensive second choice. Some local stores carried Luminous paper, no one carried Ilford until Multigrade came out in the 1970s. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ > internetphobic@deletedmail.com wrote: >> They do use yellow and magenta filtration, however I seem [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Geoff. AFAIK paper grades are established by an ISO standard that is world wide. Quite some years ago Agfa used a system of labeling paper grades which was about one paper grade softer per number than the system used in the US or England. Hense Agfa Grade-3 was about equal to Kodak Grade-2. I am not sure what year Agfa adopted the standard system but it must have been about 20 years ago. Now, paper grades are approximate. The maximum density is dependant on the paper surface and texture so that a matte surface will have lower contrast for the same emulsion contrast than glossy paper. This is indicated in some manufacturer's date, particularly in some Kodak data sheets. Some of these may still be available on the Kodak web site. Another variation is in the relative exposures needed for various grades on variable contrast paper. These vary a bit among various brands. One clue is to look at the color head settings recommended for a given grade and different papers. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > > internetphobic@deletedmail.com wrote: > >> They do use yellow and magenta filtration, however I seem [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > head settings recommended for a given grade and different > papers. In my experience: Many times the matte surface paper will have a dmax of 1.50-1.55 and quite a long ascent to get to it for a "NF" <no filter exposure>. The matte papers tend to have about three/three and one half usable grades. Whereas glossy papers tend to have a dmax around 2.00 to 2.10 for a "NF" exposure.....using a 21 step wedge. Seem to have 4.5 grades maybe five if its a good paper. SignatureReality is a picture perfected and never looking back. >> > internetphobic@deletedmail.com wrote: >> >> They do use yellow and magenta filtration, however I [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > grades maybe > five if its a good paper. I agree. This is also obvious from some Kodak data on their older papers. The visual contrast is affected by the density or perhaps its better to call it the reflective range of the paper. Glossy RC and ferrotyped glossy fiber have the longet range of all at both ends. Very few papers are capable of Dmax greater than about 2.0. This is better than the Dmax of some of the classic papers of the past (Azo for instance) which even in ferrotyped glossy had Dmax of no more than perhaps 1.8. Textured or matt surfaces reduce this a lot due to light scatter throughout the scale. I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces which I think would be completely unacceptable today. Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as destructive to the image. For the most part these highly textured papers were intended to reduce the amount of retouching needed on portraits by simply supressing fine detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so much soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make the image nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the person. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > > In my experience: > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > retouching, has been done as to make the image nearly > generic, i.e., you can't recognize the person. Ah ferrotyping! The very first enlarger I ever used was a Durst 670M I got it used with a ferro type platen and a rather seemly large box 500 sheets of Medalist paper. The paper almost predated me! In someways I remember the smell of that musty paper in fond memory of learning how to develop and process hit and miss. I never liked the spotty results I got from ferrotyping my prints. SignatureReality is a picture perfected and never looking back. snip> > Ah ferrotyping! The very first enlarger I ever used was a Durst 670M > I got it used with a ferro type platen and a rather seemly large box [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I never liked the spotty results I got from ferrotyping my prints. I remember ferrotyping fondly! I found the my secret to getting good finish and flat prints, using one of those flip-over type dryers. I ran cold water over a plate, floated the print onto it, rollered it with fair pressure, put it in the dryer, and flipped it over so it was on the bottom. Three minutes later, I did the same thing with the second plate. After the print dried for three minutes on the top, it came loose from the plate. I took it out, put it face down on a cool surface under weight (My college Calculus textbook worked great-- it was good to finally get some worthwhile value from it!) I still have that dryer and the plates in my darkroom. I wish I could find some use for it; it's not even good as a space heater. Make an offer! >> > In my experience: >> > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > I never liked the spotty results I got from ferrotyping my > prints. Ferrotyping is a bit of an art but was a standard finish for commercial and photo-finisher prints. Part of the secret is to have very good plates. The best IMO are chrome plated but others claim to get better results from enamelled plates with the right sort of wax. I used to ferrotype frequently many years ago but have had trouble with modern papers, perhaps the emulsion is too hard. On a good plate the print should have a very uniform finish and should just pop off the plate when dry. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > I used to ferrotype frequently many years ago but have had trouble with > modern papers, perhaps the emulsion is too hard. That's good to know - I haven't been able to get a good ferrotype finish - and I was blaming it on the modern me. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> I used to ferrotype frequently many years ago but have >> had trouble with modern papers, perhaps the emulsion is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > get a good ferrotype finish - and I was > blaming it on the modern me. I'm not sure what the problem is. When I first took up photography seriously in the mid 1950's I did a lot of ferrotyping mainly because the print dried fast. I used chromium plates with a bright mirror finish. The prints were soaked in wetting agent for a few minutes and put on the plates sopping wet as the instructions required. I don't remember what sort of squeegee I used and I don't think it matters. I got pretty good results consistently. My more recent attempts have not been so good. Mostly problems with small areas of the print not sticking to the plate. I think this is partly the quality of the plates but am not sure. Chrome plates must be absolutely clean adn free of any oil. Since even very small particals under the print can cause a gap in the finish its probably worth sponging off the surface and dipping it again in the wetting agent. When they work right the prints will just pop off the plate when dry and have a perfectly uniform finish as glossy as RC glossy. The finish of the plate is very important because it is essentially molded into the surface of the paper. Some years ago I bought a couple of plates which I found had a sort of dull chrome finish. Of course, the print surface is the same, a sort of dull gloss. It takes a very even mirror finish to make good ferrotype surfaces. Since I can get very good glossy surfaces from RC paper when I want that finish the discussion is sort of academic but I still like to be able to make processes work right. A note: I've tried a few times in the past to use glass for ferrotyping. Glass must be properly waxed or the prints will stick and can't be removed without destroying them. I did get a sheet of glass so that the prints didn't stick but the finish was not very good. I know this process can be done but have never been successful. I tried it years ago because I simply couldn't afford proper ferrotype plates at the time. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > Since I can get very good glossy surfaces from RC paper >when I want that finish the discussion is sort of academic >but I still like to be able to make processes work right. Aren't those big drum dryers for FB paper which everyone uses with the emulsion facing the canvas these days really meant for ferrotyping with the emulsion facing the drum? We had several at Tisch (I have never cared for them since the canvas gets dirty and spreads contaminants to other prints) one of which was seldom switched on, gleamed a bit more brightly from the drum than the others, and was marked "Ferrotype -- emulsion side DOWN only". I tried it once and it did seem to produce the advertised results... SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky >> Since I can get very good glossy surfaces from RC >> paper [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to produce > the advertised results... Yes, these large dryers were meant to operate continuously on a photofinishing line although there were smaller ones for home darkrooms. The large ones were available with gas heat as well as electric. The manufacturers of these things also supplied a post washing treatment for the paper. I think this was mainly a wetting agent. The chrome must be absolutely perfect for the finish to be good. As you say the paper is put in the dryer with the emulsion side against the drum for glossy and with the support side against the drum for matte finish. If the prints are well washed the canvas will not pick up much of anything but they should be cleaned every so often. Its interesting just how good the finish quality of "drugstore" photofinished print was. The longevity varies all over the place because some plants were careful about fixing and washing and some were not. Since very small amounts of residual hypo can reduce oxidation of image silver these prints may actually have been more stable and long lived than those given "archival" processing. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com snip > I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample books. Agfa and > Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces which I think would be completely [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > much soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make the image > nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the person. I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's. It has a selection of paper samples bound in it. I knida wish some of those papers were still available, like the canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from the usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces. > snip >> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from the > usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces. At one time Kodak had something like 25 combinations of surfaces, textures, and stock tints available. Of course, not all combinations for all papers. Some of this went away with the introduction of economical color printing methods and others due to simple lack of market. There were some unique surfaces available in some papers. One famous one was Gevaert Gevaluxe Velours which had a velvet surface supposedly made with rabbit fur. It looked like a velvet painting. The stock tint was ivory and if used for low key portraits looked almost like a color print. I've not seen a print on this stuff for 40 years. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > > snip > >> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > portraits looked almost like a color print. I've not seen a > print on this stuff for 40 years. Yes they hare one day and gone the other :) SignatureReality is a picture perfected and never looking back. > I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's. So the thread is dead. Are you so friggin clueless that you don't know how to make a new subject line? On 1/16/2008 6:11 PM jjs spake thus: >> I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's. > > So the thread is dead. Are you so friggin clueless that you don't know how > to make a new subject line? JJ! Did you forget to take your Geritol this morning? Poor baby. > On 1/16/2008 6:11 PM jjs spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > JJ! Did you forget to take your Geritol this morning? Poor baby. Okay for you, ya big baby. Arm wrestling tomorrow at Kennedy's Pub. Eh? :) Okay, it's not my favorite place, either. A biker bar maybe? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.