|
|
|
-
Greetings,
I use an older Beseler 23C enlarger with a condenser head. The enlarger has a large filter drawer below the light source for 5.5"x5.5" filters, and has a smaller drawer of sorts between the negative and the lens. This smaller drawer holds filters that are approx 2.25"x2.25". I have an older set of Beseler VC filters that are mounted in a plastic frame with the filters themselves being plastic and somwhat concave (convex?) and I believe they go into this smaller drawer(?)They are very durable. There are no provisions for below the lens mounting of filters. My question: The Beseler filters are okay but limited in their ability to produce varying grades of contrast and besides, the set is incomplete (1-4 with .5 increments). Are there mounted filters available that would fit this drawer? This seems like and ideal situation for filters. Would I be better off using the larger filter drawer with the larger unmounted filters or would it be best to get a mount of sorts and use filters below the lens?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Ken
-
-
I cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of the filter drawers on the Beseler 23C enlarger but I thought I would suggest that you be careful on the choice of VC filters. Unfortunately not all paper manufacturers provide filters exclusively for the paper they market, generally it is suggested that you use either Ilford or Kodak (at least that's the situation in the UK). Some years ago when Agfa first released MCC they too suggested that Ilford or Kodak filters would be suitable for their paper. At the time I was writing for a British magazine and carried out comprehensive tests on the paper. I used both the filters suggested by Agfa and their published dial in filter factors if using a colour head on the enlarger. The results where significantly different so I spoke to Agfa who agreed, and promptly manufactured the correct filters and asked me to test them. They produced exactly the same result as the Afga dial in factors. I still have the filters although they are no longer made. The reason for relating this story is, I think quite clear, the filters should be designed exclusively for the paper.
Thankfully I don't have to use filters for I have a Zone VI VC enlarger, a Kaiser and an LPL colour head enlarger in my darkroom. When asked about VC enlarging when I teach workshops I recommend a colour head enlarger rather than a B&W head that requires filters. At least with a colour head you can work out filtration factors that best suit your tastes and when papers are tweaked by the manufacturer you can adjust those factors.
-
Roscoe makes filter material for stage lighting and I use the deep blue and green filters to replicate the color of the light sources that Zone VI and the Aristo VCL 4500 heads use. If you can find the real filters Kodak's numbers are Blue 47b and Green 58. I split filter print and before I got the Aristo VCL 4500 head for my Omega D2 I used those very same filters. The gist of the story is you might buy some of the blue and green filter material and cut it down to the 5.5x 5.5 size you need. Just a thought....
lee/c
-
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lee @ Jan 30 2003, 08:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Roscoe makes filter material for stage lighting and I use the deep blue and green filters to replicate the color of the light sources that Zone VI and the Aristo VCL 4500 heads use. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
How big are these? I need 7x7 and the only choice seems 12x12 and they cost more then my enlarger-))
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
If that is the case I would use filters below the lens. I have never had a problem with using filters that way. Seems to me that the filter material is about 8.5x11 inches. I don't remember what I paid for them but will check in a day or two. One of the professors at the local Jr college will know all about it.
I will get back to you on the price and all
lee\c
-
I'd think putting a filter between the negative and the lens is inviting distorted or otherwise degraded images. Far better to use the larger filters above the condenser. For this, I'd buy a set of Ilford or Kodak filters -- Ilford for Ilford paper, certainly. They're about 6 inches square and can be easily cut to fit the Beseler filter drawer. I wasn't aware that the 23C ever had a drawer between lens and negative. There is a slider that moves in and out from the lefthand side of the lens assembly just above the lensboard. In my 23C it held a thick red filter, which with some graded papers permits turning on the enlarger with the paper on the easel. I think this slider was not intended for use with VC filters.
-
With all due respect, Lemaster, I have used this technique for over 30 years and if there is distortion there, I cannot see it. I have heard this claim over and over but Omega never allowed for above the condenser filter installation and for me it is a non-issue. More to the point that it may be a old photographers tale. Stated but never proved. If you have postive evidence, I would like to see it. As for the red filter holder on the side, that is my understanding also.
lee\c
-
Lee: The concern I expressed had to do with distortion that might result from putting filters between the lens and the negative, not below the lens. I've never put filters between lens and negative and know of no enlarger that facilitates it. I just think that any waviness in or crud on the filter could only be bad for the image, plus there's no need to put the filter there in the first place. I had an old enlarger years ago that required placing filters below my enlarger lenses, and I was not aware of distortion in the images. Then I got a C23, which puts the filters above the condenser, and this seems like the simplest way to color the light without involving filter material in the image formation.
-
Sorry I misread your post and thought you were talking about putting the filter below the lens.
my bad!
lee\c
|
|
Adv Reply
