Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,299   Posts: 1,535,794   Online: 682
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    28
    Based on these posts, I'm going to try to use under-the-lens filters instead of putting priority on finding a color head. My enlarger does not have provisions for filters so there is no filter drawer or anything else of that type. However, there is an arm next to the lens with a holder that flips into the light path. That holder has a red filter in it which is designed to be removable. It would be possible to place a filter on top of that surface.

    Is that the recommended approach? Or should I search for something more secure. I see the rectangular trays that might be adapted to go onto the same arm as the red filter and the Ilford filter holder that attaches to the lens. It appears to be hard to get the Ilford holder without buying it as part of a kit that includes the filters. That is not a problem though as I currently have an inexpensive set of 3" x 3" cut gelatin filters so buying the kit is fine by me.

    I would try what I have with the red filter holder to see if it works for me but the project of building a base/work bench for the enlarger is taking longer than expected and I need to mail order almost everything. Thank you for the excellent advice.

  2. #22
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,182
    I spent about 9 months searching for 8x10 options for MG printing to avoid having any filter in the light path. I gave up and just went with the 6"x6" Ilford filters under the lens and I can say it is working excellent (and I'm using an Aristo W45). To get the quarter steps, splitting the exposure between two adjacent filters works for me.

  3. #23
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,462
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    I spent about 9 months searching for 8x10 options for MG printing to avoid having any filter in the light path. I gave up and just went with the 6"x6" Ilford filters under the lens and I can say it is working excellent (and I'm using an Aristo W45). To get the quarter steps, splitting the exposure between two adjacent filters works for me.
    I think, being able to print in 1/4-grade increments is fine enough. I try to print down to 1/8 of a grade with dichroic heads and sometimes wonder if I'm not overdoing it a bit, but as long as I can see the difference, I'll continue to do it. However, some filter/paper combinations have almost a grade between 1/2-'grade' filter numbers. Then, 1/4 increments become a must.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Ont, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Cymen View Post
    I would try what I have with the red filter holder to see if it works for me but the project of building a base/work bench for the enlarger is taking longer than expected and I need to mail order almost everything. Thank you for the excellent advice.
    Part of the below the lens technique involves constantly moving the filter to avoid projection of any gross defects, in the same way one moves a dodge or burn tool. In theory at least
    "There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).

    Regards
    Bill

  5. #25
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,462
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by cowanw View Post
    Part of the below the lens technique involves constantly moving the filter to avoid projection of any gross defects, in the same way one moves a dodge or burn tool. In theory at least
    Bill

    That is not my understanding. The under-the-lens filters, I'm referring to, are stationary and kept in a filter holder, which is typically clipped onto the lens. What kind are you talking about?
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  6. #26
    Ken N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Creston and Newton, Iowa.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    389
    Images
    8
    I almost exclusively use the dichroic enlarger head for B&W printing because I prefer the diffuse light source. Others prefer a more traditional B&W head as there is a sense of increased sharpness. Whether you use a dichroic head for grade selection is a matter of logistical choice, but one must recognize that the dichroic head produces a print with substantial differences in print asthetics. I even modified my B&W head with diffusion to soften the grain and minimize scratches on the negs.
    http://www.zone-10.com

    When you turn your camera on, does it return the favor?

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Ont, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,002
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    Bill

    That is not my understanding. The under-the-lens filters, I'm referring to, are stationary and kept in a filter holder, which is typically clipped onto the lens. What kind are you talking about?
    I have a set of kodak filters that clip on also, mainly used by me for its strong #5.
    But I was really referring to using using the red swing in filter for contrast filters. If the filters are bent or damaged in the process of exchanging these frequently they might affect the optical path if they are not in motion thoughout the exposure.
    "There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).

    Regards
    Bill

  8. #28
    jeroldharter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,958
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cymen View Post
    No, I'm talking about the Omega/Saunders/LPL 4500-II. It comes with the option of a "B&W module" which is an empty box, a color module or a VCCE module...
    Do you own this already or are you planning to buy it? $262 for an empty box seems pricey. If it is not pricey, then spend the extra $300-350 for either the dichroic or VCCE module.

    Integrated filtration in the light source is better than below the lens filters. The settings are infinitely adjustable within their ranges. There is no possibility for introducing image degradation by dust, scratches on filters, or vignetting the image with a below the lens filter holder. You don't have 12 filters to keep track of and keep clean and dust free. Turning the knobs is a minor nuisance, but I call that my workout for the day and feel satisfied with myself.
    Jerold Harter MD

  9. #29
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,462
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by cowanw View Post
    I have a set of kodak filters that clip on also, mainly used by me for its strong #5.
    But I was really referring to using using the red swing in filter for contrast filters. If the filters are bent or damaged in the process of exchanging these frequently they might affect the optical path if they are not in motion thoughout the exposure.
    If they are bend or damaged, I'd through them out. Under-the-lens filters must be clean, dent and scratch free, or, as you say, they may affect image quality.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  10. #30
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,462
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken N View Post
    ..., but one must recognize that the dichroic head produces a print with substantial differences in print asthetics. ...
    Well, I don't think so, but you are correct as long as you're talking about the very same negative. Different light-source designs have different degrees of diffusion. A condenser produces more contrast than a diffusion enlarger. But, as long as the negative is developed for that situation, both enlargers produce two identical prints on the same paper with the same developer and filtration.

    I develop my negatives to a gamma of 0.57 for my dichroic head. If I had to switch to a condenser, I would just develop the negative to a lower gamma.

    Interestingly enough, micro contrast is indeed different between the two enlarger types, hence the scratch and dust surpression characteristics of diffusion enlargers, and the apparently increased sharpness with condensers, but that difference is minor and does not affect print esthetics in my opinion.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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