A colour enlarger can do BW, is that right?

[Vickko]

A colour enlarger can do BW, is that right?

It just isn't optimized for BW, but with the right filter settings, it can do BW? And, with the yellow/magenta adjustments, it should do VC paper.

regards
Vick

[froyd]

Originally Posted by Vickko

A colour enlarger can do BW, is that right?

It just isn't optimized for BW, but with the right filter settings, it can do BW? And, with the yellow/magenta adjustments, it should do VC paper.

regards
Vick

Correct. They make thinks easier for VC papers because the filters are built-in.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Vickko

A colour enlarger can do BW, is that right?

It just isn't optimized for BW, but with the right filter settings, it can do BW? And, with the yellow/magenta adjustments, it should do VC paper.

Yes. And there are very few enlargers "optimized for BW". The colour head has an extra filter unit for the colours, but if you leave those at zero you have a BW enlarger.

In addition, as you point out, you can use the yellow/magenta adjustments as replacement for yellow and magenta contrast filters. (You have to do some fiddling until you find the right values, though.)

[sevo]

Originally Posted by rxmd

Yes. And there are very few enlargers "optimized for BW". The colour head has an extra filter unit for the colours, but if you leave those at zero you have a BW enlarger.

Well, sort of. Colour heads generally have a diffuse light source, while classic black and white enlarger heads have condenser lamps - the latter deliver about one grade higher contrast, and enhance grain (and dust).

But what with the growing dominance of variable contrast paper, you'll nowadays mostly want a colour head for black and white as well.

[BobYIL]

Yes.. especially for B&W printing on regular B&W papers we used to employ blue filter for sharper results in large enlargements (in the filter-drawer of Focomats, for example).. All hi-end enlarger lenses are calculated for reproduction ratios (i.e. for near-plan work) however very very few of them are of apochromatic design; and if they are then they cost a lot.. Blue cuts-off all other off-rays to cause CA "wooliness", you see tack-sharp grains with first-class enlarging lenses.

[sig]

Originally Posted by rxmd

Yes. And there are very few enlargers "optimized for BW". The colour head has an extra filter unit for the colours, but if you leave those at zero you have a BW enlarger.

In addition, as you point out, you can use the yellow/magenta adjustments as replacement for yellow and magenta contrast filters. (You have to do some fiddling until you find the right values, though.)

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/...8932591755.pdf
This should help with the fiddling

[ooze]

Originally Posted by Vickko

A colour enlarger can do BW, is that right?

It just isn't optimized for BW, but with the right filter settings, it can do BW? And, with the yellow/magenta adjustments, it should do VC paper.

regards
Vick

It can do BW, however the filters in a color head usually can't provide the hardest contrast grade (i.e. grade 5). That shouldn't be a problem though, as you can always use under the lens filters (and swing out the built-in color ones).

One other "problem" with color heads is that any contrast change via the built in filters is accompanied by a change in exposure time, which means a bit more fiddling around. This does not happen with a dedicated BW multigrade head; here the exposure time remains constant...although I still prefer to do a few test strips around the established exposure if I change contrast settings (I work with a dedicated BW multigrade diffusion head).

[135format]

Originally Posted by ooze

It can do BW, however the filters in a color head usually can't provide the hardest contrast grade (i.e. grade 5).

Myth created by some fool who used old paper to do their testing. Use fresh paper and you will get grade 5 easily providing your enlarger isn't a pile of junk.

[Steve M.]

Condenser enlargers will show every tiny speck of dust, so figure on doing a lot of spotting to fix your prints. That said, a lot of people, myself included, prefer them for B&W.

[sevo]

Originally Posted by 135format

Myth created by some fool who used old paper to do their testing. Use fresh paper and you will get grade 5 easily providing your enlarger isn't a pile of junk.

It probably originated with someone who did not know about the difference between the D values used by Durst (and other makers with a leg in the pro printer industry) and the CC values used by the majority of consumer enlarger makers. Ilford specified CC 180M as the needed filtration for grade 5 on Multigrade, while the Durst scale on their pro heads only goes to D 130. But the latter is equivalent to CC 190 something...

[135format]

Originally Posted by sevo

It probably originated with someone who did not know about the difference between the D values used by Durst (and other makers with a leg in the pro printer industry) and the CC values used by the majority of consumer enlarger makers. Ilford specified CC 180M as the needed filtration for grade 5 on Multigrade, while the Durst scale on their pro heads only goes to D 130. But the latter is equivalent to CC 190 something...

Thats even worse, it means they didn't even verify what they were claiming but that's how myths start I guess.

[Chris101]

Originally Posted by 135format

Myth created by some fool who used old paper to do their testing. Use fresh paper and you will get grade 5 easily providing your enlarger isn't a pile of junk.

At my school we use LPL enlargers with their colorhead. Using the integral filters, with yellow and cyan zeroed out, and magenta all the way up, it goes to about a 4.7 grade. Using the Ilford supplied 5.0 gel filter does have a bit more contrast to my eye.

The paper is not old, the enlarger is nearly new, however I do not claim not to be a fool.

[135format]

Originally Posted by Chris101

At my school we use LPL enlargers with their colorhead. Using the integral filters, with yellow and cyan zeroed out, and magenta all the way up, it goes to about a 4.7 grade. Using the Ilford supplied 5.0 gel filter does have a bit more contrast to my eye.

The paper is not old, the enlarger is nearly new, however I do not claim not to be a fool.

Your enlarger must be a pile of junk then

[135format]

developer makes a difference too. It's all fairly arbitrary really but it just annoys me that these myths are are perpetuated causing people to believe that colour heads aren't capable when they are (on decent kit).

[BobYIL]

I know that Dektol 1:1 instead of 1:2 and a tad less exposure with longer development can increase contrast up to one grade..

[Chris101]

Originally Posted by 135format

Your enlarger must be a pile of junk then

You might be right - I am no fan of LPL enlargers (they tend to fall apart all by themselves.) That however is only my opinion, man. According to Ilford's pdf referenced above, the LPL, along with many other popular enlargers, do not attain 5.0 filtration.

It's not a myth, it's just the way it is.

[Vickko]

I'm hoping to snag a Durst L1200. Looks like it has a colour head from the photo.

I had an LPL4500XL once, but really didn't like how it leaked light at every seam of its head. I covered it with a blanket when I exposed the paper.

Vick

[135format]

yes the L1200 does it, well at least my CLS501 head does.

[Vickko]

Are you saying that the CLS501 leaks light at the seams too?

..Vick

Originally Posted by 135format

yes the L1200 does it, well at least my CLS501 head does.

[135format]

Originally Posted by Vickko

Are you saying that the CLS501 leaks light at the seams too?

..Vick

No I'm saying it does G5 without a problem. It doesn't leak light.

[135format]

Originally Posted by Chris101

You might be right - I am no fan of LPL enlargers (they tend to fall apart all by themselves.) That however is only my opinion, man. According to Ilford's pdf referenced above, the LPL, along with many other popular enlargers, do not attain 5.0 filtration.

It's not a myth, it's just the way it is.

Ahem, I just took the trouble to look at the referenced Ilford pdf above.

And if you look carefully you find that Kodak filtration goes to 200 and 199M gives grade 5. You don't get that if you are trying to use combined Y+M figures but if you use single filtration then you do. So we now have a Myth that LPL isn't capable when the durst document says it is.

they only show it as G 4 1/2 for Kodak because those figures are provided for contrast changes with NO time change. With single filters there is a time change with each filtration setting. i.e. going from 0Y/150M to 199M would require a time change.

The fact you've tested it to G4.7 just says your particular test/enlarger didn't achieve it and that might be because your enlarger is infact a pile of junk or because your developer wasn't upto it. Again its fairly arbitrary since 4.7 to 5 is such a small difference. But Ilford do say LPL can achieve it.

As per Ilfords caveat, some enlargers only go to 170 kodak units which means you are stuffed. What does LPL goto?

[Chris101]

Look here. You are reading from the Durst column in the Ilford document. In the previous chart, you will notice that LPL is in the Kodak column. Notice the Kodak column has a dash in the #5 filter row.

I am the science technician at the school and have calibrated the enlargers three years ago when the school replaced the 25 Bessler 45s with LPLs.

However the information I've brought is no myth. Saunders/Omega LPL's standard colorhead does not simulate a full #5 filter.

On one point you are correct: few would notice any difference between 4.7 and 5 contrast.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by 135format

Myth created by some fool who used old paper to do their testing. Use fresh paper and you will get grade 5 easily providing your enlarger isn't a pile of junk.

Don't think so. What enlarger are you using? And how much experience have you? I use fresh paper and Meopta Magnifaxes/De Vere colour head. Talk to the manufacturers of paper and enlargers and you'll get the same answer.

Chers,

R.

[nikon_sam]

A plus with having a Color Head on your enlarger is that they usually come with a Power Regulator...That way no matter what's going on elsewhere the power is stable during exposure...
I also prefer using a digital timer instead of the mechanical...granted I have both I would like to replace the mechanical one someday...
Power Regulator + Digital Timer = Consistent Printing (if doing multiple prints)

[135format]

Originally Posted by Chris101

Look here. You are reading from the Durst column in the Ilford document. In the previous chart, you will notice that LPL is in the Kodak column. Notice the Kodak column has a dash in the #5 filter row.

I am the science technician at the school and have calibrated the enlargers three years ago when the school replaced the 25 Bessler 45s with LPLs.

However the information I've brought is no myth. Saunders/Omega LPL's standard colorhead does not simulate a full #5 filter.

On one point you are correct: few would notice any difference between 4.7 and 5 contrast.

Now look under the single filter kodak column further down the page and at Ilfords caveat at the bottom of that chart.

I'm not arguing that you only got 4.7. I'm just saying the chart says that 199M gives grade 5. It doesn't say how much Magenta filtration an LPL has, it says LPL use Kodak filtration units.