Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)

Did 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

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)

In article <13oljep59cmg16b@news.supernews . com >,
<jjs> says...
> 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?

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.

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)


<jjs> wrote in message news:13oljep59cmg16b@news.supernews . com ...
> 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
>
>

_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...)

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)

In article <fmep98$2gl$1@aioe.org>, Ken Hart
kwhart1@verizon . net says...

> 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.

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)


<jjs> wrote in message news:13oljep59cmg16b@news.supernews . com ...
> 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.

Spare yourself. A bit of research on the net dug up the following:

* w w w .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."

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)

In article <13oljep59cmg16b@news.supernews . com >, <jjs> wrote:

> 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

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.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)

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.

--
Geoffrey 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 * geoffstechno.livejournal . com /

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)


"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson . com > wrote in message
news:slrnfoojrg.vkr.gsm@cable.mendelson . com ...
> 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.
>
> --
> Geoffrey 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 * geoffstechno.livejournal . com /

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.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)

In article <13opmb6kcp1rsdf@corp.supernews . com >,
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix . net com . com > wrote:

> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson . com > wrote in message
> news:slrnfoojrg.vkr.gsm@cable.mendelson . com ...
> > 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.
> >
> > --
> > Geoffrey 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 * geoffstechno.livejournal . com /
>
> 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.

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.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)


"____" <internetphobic@deletedmail . com > wrote in message
news:internetphobic-3F34E0.18471815012008@newsgroups . com cast . net ...
> In article <13opmb6kcp1rsdf@corp.supernews . com >,
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix . net com . com > wrote:
>
>> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson . com > wrote in
>> message
>> news:slrnfoojrg.vkr.gsm@cable.mendelson . com ...
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Geoffrey 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 * geoffstechno.livejournal . com /
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> --
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.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)

In article <13oqv37s0m22i7e@corp.supernews . com >,
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix . net com . com > wrote:

> > 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.
> >
> > --
> 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.

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.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)


"____" <internetphobic@deletedmail . com > wrote in message
news:internetphobic-EE2BA3.22495615012008@newsgroups . com cast . net ...
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
> 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.
>
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!

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)


"____" <internetphobic@deletedmail . com > wrote in message
news:internetphobic-EE2BA3.22495615012008@newsgroups . com cast . net ...
> In article <13oqv37s0m22i7e@corp.supernews . com >,
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix . net com . com > wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > --
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>

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.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)

"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix . net com . com > wrote

> 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.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
* w w w .darkroomautomation . com /index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)


"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig . com > wrote in message
news:13ot9b58l56ii1e@corp.supernews . com ...
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix . net com . com > wrote
>
>> 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.
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
> * w w w .darkroomautomation . com /index.htm
> n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
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.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com