[pure-silver] Re: VC printing equipment Was: Replacement forBromofort paper;
- From: DarkroomMagic <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: PureSilverNew <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:56:10 +0200
Jim
There is confusion about paper contrast nomenclature within the industry.
Paper grades (as in grade 0 to 5) should not be confused with filter number=
s
(as in filter #00 or #-1 to #5 or #5+). A certain filter number creates a
certain paper contrast depending on paper, developer and developing time. A
certain paper grade, on the other hand, always has the same exposure range,
and consequently, paper contrast.
Prior to 1966, photographic papers were missing a standard nomenclature for
paper grades, because each manufacturer had a different system. The first
standard concerned with paper grades was listed as an appendix to ANSI PH
2.2 from 1966. It divided the log exposure range from 0.50 to 1.70 into six
grades, which were given numbers from 0 through 5 and labels from =8Cvery
soft=B9 to =8Cextra hard=B9. Agfa, Ilford and Kodak had used very similar
systems
up to that time. A never released draft of the standard from 1978 added the
log exposure range from 0.35 to 0.50 as grade 6 without a label. In 1981,
the standard was revised, and the numbering and labeling system for grades
was replaced. In this ANSI standard as well as the current ISO 6846 from
1992, different contrast grades of photographic papers are expressed in
terms of useful log exposure ranges. The useful log exposure range reaches
from the minimum to the maximum usable density on the characteristic curve.
In the standard, the useful exposure ranges are grouped into segments
referred to as paper ranges, which are 0.1 log units wide and expressed as
values from ISO R40 to ISO R190. In order to avoid decimal points in
expressing the ISO paper ranges, the differences in log exposure values are
multiplied by 100.
=20
A comparison of the variable contrast filter numbers used by Agfa, Ilford
and Kodak, shows that there is only a vague relationship between filter
numbers and the old standards. Manufacturer dependent variable contrast (VC=
)
filter numbers should not be confused with standard paper grades. They
should always be referred to as =8Cfilters=B9 or =8Cfilter numbers=B9, to
eliminate
any possible misunderstanding.
Manufacturers do not use their own grading systems anymore, but they have
not switched completely to the new standard either. Graded papers are still
available in grades from 0 to 5, even though standard paper ranges are
typically also given for graded and variable contrast papers. In addition,
photographers seem to be much more comfortable communicating paper grades
than paper ranges, and the confusion between filter numbers and paper grade=
s
has not helped to speed up the acceptance of standard paper ranges.
Now to your questions.
With VC papers and very low contrast settings (grade 0), it is indeed
difficult to reach maximum density (Dmax and typically around 2.1) with
filters or color heads alike. This is not the case at grade 1 or above, and
all grade settings reach the maximum usable density of 1.9 with ease.
None of the papers, I tested (Ilford, Kodak and Agfa, RC and FB), have any
difficulty to reach grade 5 or at least 4.5 with color head filtration, but
it is true that they don't reach the extreme paper contrast provided by
filter numbers 5 or 5+, which are often at grade 6 or above.
Under-the-lens filtration does not degrade image quality as far as I could
see or measure. They must, of course, be kept clean and dust free. You coul=
d
use filters in a drawer above the 'optical' path, but at the disadvantage o=
f
having to 'disturb' the set-up somewhat when changing filtration to burn a
local area with a softer or harder filtration. This is also true for color
heads, by the way. Split-grade printing is easiest with under-the-lens
filters.
My personal set-up consists of a color head for smooth contrast intervals,
and in addition, I use a filter #0 and a filter #5 as under-the-lens filter=
s
for local contrast control and split-grade printing, so I don't have to
'mess' with the dials when making a complex print. This gives me simple,
straight or main exposures with creative control for local areas.
I have never missed the extreme contrast of a filter #00 or #5+. I have the
suspicion that negatives requiring such a filtration are unlikely to make
fine prints or are just too rare to give up on the fine control of a color
head. Nevertheless, split-grade printing would handle even such a negative.
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
On 9/19/04 12:28 AM, "J. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks, Ralph. I read on photo.net that VC FB falls a bit short when you
> need long scale, e.g., a #1 paper grade. Do you find that to be true?
> Also, I suspected under the lens filtration would degrade quality, but is=
it
> noticeable? Thanks!
>=20
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DarkroomMagic" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "PureSilverNew" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:34 AM
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: VC printing equipment Was: Replacement
> forBromofort paper;
>=20
>=20
>> I prefer a color head to do VC enlarging, but your cold light head in
>> combination with under-the-lens filters would work fine without a major
>> investment. You need to test the quality difference and see if you can
> live
>> with it. However, the ability of getting several contrasts within the sa=
me
>> sheet of paper is an unbeatable creativity increase. IMHO, modern FB-VC
>> papers are of supreme quality with bright highlights and rich blacks.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Regards
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 9/18/04 4:23 PM, "J. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>=20
>>> I've been wondering lately whether I ought to go the route of convertin=
g
> to
>>> variable contrast. I used VC years ago, using filters (not a color
> head).
>>> I'm a bit reluctant to return.. the quality in those days wasn't near
> the
>>> quality of graded papers. Has that changed in the last 10 years or so?
> ....
>>> I know a lot of really good photographers are using VC. Plus, I think
> I'd
>>> like the ability to do split grade printing, and I sometimes like softe=
r
>>> papers than anyone can get in a graded form.
>>>=20
>>> I have a 4x5 D2 with cold lite head as my main enlarger.. standard ligh=
t
>>> source (i.e., not the VC). Would it be a major investment to equip
> myself
>>> with the gear to use VC?
>>>=20
>>> Jim
>>>=20
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: <XRadar@xxxxxxx>
>>> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:04 AM
>>> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Replacement for Bromofort paper
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> In a message dated 9/17/04 10:09:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
>>>> jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>>>> Can anyone recommend a close replacement for Bromofort graded fiber
> base
>>>>> paper?
>>>>=20
>>>> Have you tried Bergger graded paper? Not much choice for graded.
> Ilford
>>>> Gallerie, Oriental Seagull and the Bergger for cold tone. Probably
> some
>>> that I
>>>> haven't seen. Guess I'm contributing to the decline as I'm using
> mostly
>>> VC
>>>> now. Just so much easier and easy to keep fresh supply. But still
> have a
>>> lot of
>>>> the old Seagull #1 in the freezer for the right image.
>>>> Chuck
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>> 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.
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
> =3D=3D
>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to you=
r
>>> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,)
>>> and unsubscribe from there.
>>=20
>>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> 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.
>>=20
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 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 subscri=
bed,)
> 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:
