[pure-silver] Re: Calibrating a colour enlarger to ISO paper grades wrt Way Beyond Monochrome
- From: "mail1" <mail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:40:03 -0800
I noticed Steve Anchell in his book ?The Variable Contrast printing manual?
covered a lot of information regarding light sources, filters and the
different responses from quite a number of papers. His techniques on
calibrating variable contrast papers are simple and effective. I felt to
book was an easy read with lots of information.
Jonathan
_____
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ralph W. Lambrecht
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:19 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Calibrating a colour enlarger to ISO paper grades
wrt Way Beyond Monochrome
No, they are all different enough to justify having their own test.
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
http://www.darkroomagic.com
This electronic message contains information that is confidential, legally
privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on,
the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy
the original message immediately.
P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
On Dec 11, 2009, at 22:40, Tom Kershaw wrote:
Ralph,
Thanks for confirming that. Although ILFORD gives figures for 'Kodak' type
filtration on 'Multigrade' papers, using MGIVRC could be a good test case,
before breaking out the expensive Adox MCC. In your experience do all the
ILFORD Multigrade emulsion papers respond in the same way to filtration?
i.e. cooltone, MGIV, and warmtone.
regards,
Tom
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
Tom
Yes, spread your range from the softest yellow to the hardest magenta you
need.
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
http://www.darkroomagic.com
This electronic message contains information that is confidential, legally
privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on,
the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy
the original message immediately.
P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
On Dec 11, 2009, at 20:39, Tom Kershaw wrote:
Whether I should test the range of 0-100 yellow but 0-200 magenta; i.e.
start with '100Y, 0M' and finish with '0Y, 200M'?
Tom
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
Yes. What are you hinting at?
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
http://www.darkroomagic.com
This electronic message contains information that is confidential, legally
privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on,
the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy
the original message immediately.
P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
On Dec 11, 2009, at 15:39, Tom Kershaw wrote:
Ralph,
Have you seen my most recent post on this topic dated December 8th, with
regard to inconsistencies in ILFORD documentation?
Tom
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
Tom
Correct. Combining the Durst Y/M filtration values (0-130) achieves very
practical contrast with Ilford, Kodak and Agfa papers. Typically, I can get
around ISO grade 0 (130Y/0M) and around grade 5 with (0Y/130M). If would
ignore any filtration values which gives you much softer or harder grades.
You won't need them.
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
http://www.darkroomagic.com
This electronic message contains information that is confidential, legally
privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on,
the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy
the original message immediately.
P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
On Dec 08, 2009, at 12:37, Tom Kershaw wrote:
Ralph,
I've just got back to this topic, and will probably start performing the
tests soon. Does your comment with regard to the DeVere 5108 yellow
filtration levels suggest there is little or no practical application to
using 200 units yellow, even if the ILFORD MGIV RC GLOSS paper can respond
to such reduced contrast levels? I read your comment in the context of tone
reproduction from a practical pictorial negative.
I intend to calibrate ILFORD MG and Adox MCC.
regards,
Tom
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
Tom
Typical paper contrast ranges from grade 0 to grade 5. Calibrating an
enlarger far outside this range has little practical application. Grade 0
and 5 are roughly equivalent to exposure ranges of 1.55 and 0.58,
respectively (see page 62). Since you see differentiation across the entire
step tablet, as in your scan, this suggests an exposure range of up to 3.0!
This is far more than you ever need.
I suggest that you back off the yellow filtration until you get an exp range
of no more than 1.8 and call that your new yellow limit.
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
http://www.darkroomagic.com
This electronic message contains information that is confidential, legally
privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on,
the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy
the original message immediately.
P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
On Nov 28, 2009, at 20:41, Tom Kershaw wrote:
Made a few inroads in the calibration process today, starting with fibre
base but over to resin coated paper for experimental purposes: The book
chapter suggests that the print made from the step wedge should show areas
of solid black and white before any tone variation is apparent. My own print
using maximum yellow clearly shows (at least in the print) clear tonal
variation between wedges 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. However the white zone doesn't
show differentiation between wedges 30 and 31. Increasing exposure (keeping
in mind the DeVere is projecting a significant amount of light) makes the
print look muddier, with bleeding around the text increasing. Perhaps this
means maximum yellow on the DeVere produces a lower contrast than maximum
yellow on a '130' unit Durst.
See scan:
http://www.tomkershaw.com/files/tp31_45_sw_2009_11_28.jpg
Tom
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
Tom
Thanks for asking. The 2nd edition is done. It's going through English edit
and indexing at the moment. Everything has to be at the printer before
Christmas, but I don't know the actual publication date yet.
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
http://www.darkroomagic.com
This electronic message contains information that is confidential, legally
privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on,
the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy
the original message immediately.
P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
On Nov 27, 2009, at 20:51, Tom Kershaw wrote:
Ralph,
Thanks for explaining how you arrived at the figures. I don't possess a
densitometer so would be making comparisons against the R2110 reflective
wedge.
How is the second edition of the book coming along?
Regards,
Tom
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
Tom
I picked eleven evenly distributed points across the filtration values to
get the smoothest curve possible, but don't take that too seriously. Spread
them out any way you like.
Nevertheless, here is what I did:
I made two series of prints from the lowest to the highest filter setting,
one for magenta and one for yellow only. Then I determined the log exposure
range for all test prints and got the curves in fig.1, ranging from 0.6 to
1.6 log exp range. I picked the filter values for every 0.1 log exp exp
range increase, and that's how I got the eleven values, but these test input
values have little influence on the test results. They just assure a smooth
test curve.
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
http://www.darkroomagic.com
This electronic message contains information that is confidential, legally
privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on,
the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy
the original message immediately.
P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to
On Nov 27, 2009, at 14:39, Tom Kershaw wrote:
Claudio,
I'm currently using dual filtration from the ILFORD Multigrade data sheet,
not from real-world testing. Figure 1 of the 'Contrast Control with Color
Enlargers' chapter in 'Way Beyond Monochrome' gives 'Test settings' to make
eleven prints from a projection step wedge as follows:
Test 1. Y 130, M 0
Test 2. Y 110, M 2
Test 3. Y 95, M 4
Test 4. Y 80, M 8
Test 5. Y 65, M 12
Test 6. Y 50, M 20
Test 7. Y 35, M 30
Test 8. Y 20, M 50
Test 9. Y 10, M 70
Test 10. Y 4, M 95
Test 11. Y 0, M 130
The prints from the step wedge are then assessed with either a densitometer
or a reflective step wedge, and graphed to provide the data on contrast and
exposure performance. In the case of 'Way Beyond Monchrome' the end point in
filtration terms is then given for the test paper (Kodak Polymax), e.g. 'ISO
Grade 2' is given as Y 59, M 15. So the multiplication factor I applied is
for the starting point of testing e.g. Y 65*1.54 = 100.1, M 12*1.54 = 18.48.
Tom
Claudio Bonavolta wrote:
----- Message d'origine -----
De: Tom Kershaw <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:35:55 +0000
Sujet: [pure-silver] Calibrating a colour enlarger to ISO paper grades wrt
Way Beyond Monochrome
À: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I suspect this message may be best directed towards Ralph W. Lambrecht.
Reading through the calibrating chapter in 'Way Beyond Monochrome' I noticed
the suggested filtration values given for a Durst max. 130 unit enlarger are
not symmetrical across yellow and magenta. i.e. the step progressions
between each value are not numerically equivalent; is this correct, and how
variable are these values relatively across different manufacturers of
enlargers? For my DeVere 5108 model I applied a multiplication factor of
1.54, i.e. 130 becomes 200.2 units as the filtration values go upto '200'.
Tom
It's rare to have a symmetry or constant progression in the values of yellow
and magenta with a color head when used for BW multigrade paper.
Another example with my Focomat V35 (YMC filters go up to 200) with simple
filtering:
00 Y200 2.24
0 Y90 2.24
0.5 Y65 2
1 Y50 1.78
1.5 Y25 1.41
2 ---- 1
2.5 M20 1.41
3 M40 1.78
3.5 M65 2.24
4 M100 2.82
4.5 M140 3.16
5 M200 3.16
Column 1: grade with Ilford Multigrade IV Fiber
Column 2: filtration
Column 3: exposure compensation (ref. density of 0.60)
Here too, you can see there is no symmetry and no linear progression either.
The factor you applied based on Ralph's own enlarger values may or may not
be correct. If you want a progressive scale of contrasts, you've better to
test it with a step wedge.
Keep in mind these filters values are not really standardized, there are
some big groups where results are similar, but, for precise work, you must
fine-tune your enlarger. And because filters may fade with time you have to
re-do it from time to time.
Note also that you may have simple filtering, i.e. using a single filter at
a time but this requires time compensation, or double-filtering, i.e. using
a mix of yellow and magenta as to keep constant exposure, or split-grade
filtering, i.e. 2 different exposures done with either full magenta or full
yellow.
Claudio Bonavolta
http://www.bonavolta.ch
============================================================================
==============================To unsubscribe from this list, go to
www.freelists.org <//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the
same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
<//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the same e-mail
address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from
there.
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
<//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the same e-mail
address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from
there.
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
<//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the same e-mail
address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from
there.
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
<//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the same e-mail
address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from
there.
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
<//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the same e-mail
address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from
there.
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
<//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the same e-mail
address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from
there.
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
