Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,982   Posts: 1,523,865   Online: 1062
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by jeroldharter View Post
    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.
    I already own it. I brought the enlarger from eBay for relatively good price ($350) even considering it had the B&W module. I wasn't aware that the B&W module was offered though as it seems uncommon compared to the dichroic color or VCCE modules.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeroldharter View Post
    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.
    My choice was between buying a filter set (say $70 for the Ilford set with holder) or a different filtration module. B&H sells the modules but they are expensive (over $550 for the color, similar for the VCCE). As I'm a beginner, based on this thread I decided to buy the Ilford filter set. I'll keep my eye out for a different filter module and I realized I can also see the difference by experimenting with smaller negatives on the Durst AC 707 Autocolor enlarger. The Durst needs a small repair first though.

    Last night, I finished reading the Variable Contrast Printing Manual and it too addressed my questions. One interesting thing not mentioned here was that it suggested putting the filters at most 1.5" from the enlarger lens surface for under-the-lens filters to avoid impact on image quality (at least I think I have that right, I'll double check this evening).

  2. #32
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cymen View Post
    Last night, I finished reading the Variable Contrast Printing Manual and it too addressed my questions. One interesting thing not mentioned here was that it suggested putting the filters at most 1.5" from the enlarger lens surface for under-the-lens filters to avoid impact on image quality (at least I think I have that right, I'll double check this evening).
    It don't see how that would improve image quality.
    Regards

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

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    It don't see how that would improve image quality.
    I'm glad to hear it -- unfortunately, there was no source or reasoning behind the statement. My memory was incorrect. The actual passage is:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Variable Contrast Printing Manual, p61
    One thing is for certain, if a filter is placed below [the lens], it should be as close as possible to the lens. The farther the filter is from the lens, the more likely it will degrade image sharpness. The universal filter holders found on older enlargers, and some economy models, should never be used. Never place a filter more than 1/4 inch below the lens.
    Do you discuss filtration in your book? I emailed the publisher and they mentioned a second edition in 2010. Thankfully, I was able to find a library with a copy within reasonable distance for intra-library loan.
    Last edited by Cymen; 04-21-2009 at 07:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Woodend, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    It don't see how that would improve image quality.
    Try this, get a sheet of clear film and put a mark on it, draw on it with a sharpie, then hold it against the lens, you wont see the mark, now move it closer to the enlarging easel, the closer it gets to the easel the mark will start coming into focus, I believe that this is the reason for the advice and I agree with the advice. I would never put anything between the lens and the paper but that's just me. Anything between the lens and the paper has the potential to degrade image quality.

    Mark
    It is said that we remember the important things, if true, why photograph? I forget, so I photograph.

  5. #35
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,133
    Quote Originally Posted by markbau View Post
    . Personally I would never put a filter under the lens.

    Mark
    I felt that way for 30 years. I recently spend almost one year beating my head against the wall, searching for a good multigrade option for my 8x10 Durst that avoided anything under the lens.

    Then I tried the under-the-lens filters and I don't know what I was so afraid of. It really works great. In my case, it is the best solution.

    (So I can confirm that the posters that write there is no image degradation are not blind )

  6. #36
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    I felt that way for 30 years. I recently spend almost one year beating my head against the wall, searching for a good multigrade option for my 8x10 Durst that avoided anything under the lens.

    Then I tried the under-the-lens filters and I don't know what I was so afraid of. It really works great. In my case, it is the best solution.

    (So I can confirm that the posters that write there is no image degradation are not blind )
    That is exactly my experience. Logic suggests what markbau suggested, but there is no evidence of any degradation from under-the-lens filters, none.
    Regards

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

  7. #37
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by markbau View Post
    Try this, get a sheet of clear film and put a mark on it, draw on it with a sharpie, then hold it against the lens, you wont see the mark, now move it closer to the enlarging easel, the closer it gets to the easel the mark will start coming into focus, I believe that this is the reason for the advice and I agree with the advice. I would never put anything between the lens and the paper but that's just me. Anything between the lens and the paper has the potential to degrade image quality.

    Mark
    I see what you mean, but do you think directly under the lens or 1/2 inch below the lens makes a difference?
    Regards

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

  8. #38
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cymen View Post
    Do you discuss filtration in your book? I emailed the publisher and they mentioned a second edition in 2010. Thankfully, I was able to find a library with a copy within reasonable distance for intra-library loan.
    I rather not discuss issues about the book here, but if you post the question in my section under the 'Sponsors' tab, I'm happy to answer it quickly.

    Thanks for understanding.
    Regards

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

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Woodend, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    I see what you mean, but do you think directly under the lens or 1/2 inch below the lens makes a difference?
    I suppose it could make a difference if printing 5 x 7 's compared to printing say 11 x 14's because as we all know, the smaller the print the closer to the paper the lens is. When I was learning the fundamentals I had it lodged in my brain that the space between the lens and the paper was sacred. The only way to find out definitively would be to test, scratch a filter and see if it is noticeable on a print when the filter was 1/2 inch from the lens compared to up against the lens. For me its a moot point as I've always printed with a colour head and never had a need to print with a filtration other than what the colour head could deliver.
    It is said that we remember the important things, if true, why photograph? I forget, so I photograph.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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