Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,012   Posts: 1,524,693   Online: 727
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,876
    Makes complete sense, Simon, but could you say whether MGII filters can in fact be used with MGIV paper in respect of their speed matching and whether the change that came about with MGIV filters, namely the change to double exposure from grade 3 instead of 3.5 as with the older speed matched(I hope) filters is correct.

    I have acquired a set of MGII filters complete and in their box, recently and believe they were used very little so fading may not be an issued.

    Thanks

    pentaxuser

  2. #12
    mfohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westerville, Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    378
    Images
    51
    I just want to add a couple of things, I guess to my original post. First, I never, and I mean never touch my filters with wet fingers. My darkroom has a wet side and a dry side, and never the twain doth meet. Also, I always keep my filters in the box, actually in that Rolodex type thing with the index tabs. I don't think fading is an issue, but if it was, I would have expected the lower numbered filters to have faded more since they were used more.

    One interesting thing is that with the Ilford filters, the 4, 4 1/2, and 5 are noticebly lighter; they are more pink, and clearly (to me) pass more light through. Hence the lower exposure required. The Kodak filters are the opposite. The higher numbered filters are darker, and definitely require more exposure. Regarding the Ilford filters, when I used the number 4 earlier this week, I checked the actual number on the filter, just to guard against my having misfiled one or more of the filters. I checked, and it was the number 4.

    So I have two possibilities. One is to experiment with the Kodak filters. The other is to buy a new set, and I have already placed a bid on eBay. And speed matching is not an issue. I always do test strips, and I at least put a quarter or eighth sheet in for a test exposure when I change filters.

    So I will experiment again next week or so, and I'll report back. Thanks again for all the comments.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    869
    If the filters are coming from ebay then one can't really say they are 'new'. It would be worth buying some new ones, even a generic brand. The Kodak ones would probably do the job too.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,561
    mfohl - I have an extra set of new (never used) Ilford Multigrade (3.5"x3.5") I would be willing to give you for free. You'd just have to pay the shipping (depending on how fast you need them the shipping could be as low as ~$7 based on experience). If you want them let me know.

  5. #15
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    I've worked with a MG II filter set for about 8 years. The filters came with my most-used enlarger (Durst M800). They did a fine job with different brands and types of MG paper.

    Then I read this thread earlier this year and decided to replace the MG II filters.

    Well, in the grade range that I regularly use (1-2.5) the new filters work the exact same way, judged from the prints, with a not so scientific eye.

    There may be a visible difference at higher grades, I have yet to try.

    Sander

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ilford_mg_filtersets.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	63.5 KB 
ID:	60879

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,876
    sandermarijn, it was you I was referring to in my post as I had spotted in a search that you had used MGII filters with later MG paper successfully as you have confirmed.

    I think you are saying that your old MGII filters are in fact producing exactly the same grades as your new MGIV set? Maybe they haven't yet faded.

    As I said in my above post my MGII filters seem to show little use as well but I have yet to test them

    pentaxuser

  7. #17
    mfohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westerville, Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    378
    Images
    51
    Hey Michael R, thanks for the offer. But I need the larger filters, 6 inch or 5 1/2 inch or whatever. And I have that bid on the ebay things.

    Also I read the other thread, and it seems that other folks have had my experience. I'm looking forward to trying the Kodak filters.

    And I hope I get outbid on my eBay filters!

  8. #18
    mfohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westerville, Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    378
    Images
    51
    Hello Folks, I did a quick test last night with a Kodak 4 1/2 filter and Oriental Seagull RC. Much better: much higher contrast. More experimenting in order, but it looks like higher contrast is within reach.

    Thanks for all the suggestions.

  9. #19
    Martin Aislabie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stratford-upon-Avon, England
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by mfohl View Post
    Hello Folks, once again I seek the wisdom of the net. The issue is Ilford Multigrade filters. I have had a set for a long time, and on the box is “Ilford Multigrade II”. They have been there for a long time because I was primarily a Kodak paper user. Now I use Ilford fiber and Ilford and Oriental Seagull RC paper. And with all the papers, probably 95% of my printing was done with grades 2 through 3 ½. But I was printing with Ilford recently and got the impression that printing with the 4 and 4 ½ filters actually gave lower contrast than printing with the 3 ½ filter. And I printed something with some old Kodak paper that I had in the freezer; I printed with a Kodak 4 ½ filter, and it was way higher contrast. Also, with higher number Ilford filters, I need less exposure. I either close down a stop, or I have to cut exposure time by about half. This is the opposite of the Kodak filters; more exposure is needed with higher number filters.

    So what’s up with the apparent low contrast with the Ilford higher number filters? I notice this on both fiber and RC. Are my filters out of date; that is, is there a newer version around? I checked the B&H web site, and there is no designation on the filters. Any ideas out there?

    Thanks in advance,

    -- Mark
    I had pretty much the same experience with old MG Filters (10+ years old) - so tested it with my Step Wedge - and I found I got the highest contrast with G3.5, with G4, G4.5 & G5 all giving lower contrast by varying amounts.

    A new box of MG Filters was bought and retested

    All the steps were a bit more contrasty - but the difference was larger the higher up the contrast scale you got.

    Martin

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Long Island NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    17
    Hi, I've never not used Kodak filters - Polycontrast then Polymax - on Ilford MG and then Oriental Seagull RC papers. This covers about a 30-year period. The filters work in an entirely predictable way in providing appropriate contrast grades at predictable exposure times. Only recently it seems that my most frequently used filters are wearing out, resulting in lesser sharpness. But Kodak filters work great on most brands of VC paper.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin