A colour enlarger can do BW, is that right?

[135format]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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

Like Ilford XP being banned from labs because technicians see "C-41" and freak out that the photos turn out pinkish/magenta (or worse yet, in ::gasp:: black and white)? Or that Portra NC has a "saturation issue"? Or a bicycle being faulty for not having an engine just like those of all those other kids' bikes in the neighborhood? 😀

 

[sevo]

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.

The requirements for multigrade and colour paper aren't quite the same, the numerical values for magenta might be higher than the value that would be measured if the filter is evaluated as a green bandstop. Whether and at what exposure compensation colour heads can reach the full range of multigrade papers always is somewhat debatable.

But it is not really a practical issue - if you need a gradation of 5 over 4.7 (or 1 over 1.3), your negative has issues that are rather beyond the scope of silver printing, and you'd better rescue it in a digital post. Most currently available fixed-grade papers aren't even made in these extreme grades.

 

[135format]

The requirements for multigrade and colour paper aren't quite the same, the numerical values for magenta might be higher than the value that would be measured if the filter is evaluated as a green bandstop. Whether and at what exposure compensation colour heads can reach the full range of multigrade papers always is somewhat debatable.

But it is not really a practical issue - if you need a gradation of 5 over 4.7 (or 1 over 1.3), your negative has issues that are rather beyond the scope of silver printing, and you'd better rescue it in a digital post. Most currently available fixed-grade papers aren't even made in these extreme grades.

Yes I know its rarely used but what started this was the suggestion that colour heads can't do grade 5 and they can if they are decent enlargers.
And then there is split grade printing, not that 4.7 wouldn't work just as well as 5 but that isn't the point. The point is that telling people G5 is not achievable with a colour head simply isn't true.

 

[Chris101]

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.

My "look here" link was to the specs for LPL filters. Through that link you would have seen that "the standard features of 4500-II with Dichroic Filtration Module: 0-200 Yellow, 0-200 Cyan and 0-170 Magenta stepless and continuously variable filtration."

170 magenta is not enough magenta to get to a 5. But as sevo points out in real world terms 4.7 is "good enough" for anything one would want to print in a darkroom. However I felt compelled to be precise since you insisted this is a myth, when it is true that many dichroic color heads do not have enough magenta to get to a full five.

 

[135format]

My "look here" link was to the specs for LPL filters. Through that link you would have seen that "the standard features of 4500-II with Dichroic Filtration Module: 0-200 Yellow, 0-200 Cyan and 0-170 Magenta stepless and continuously variable filtration."

170 magenta is not enough magenta to get to a 5. But as sevo points out in real world terms 4.7 is "good enough" for anything one would want to print in a darkroom. However I felt compelled to be precise since you insisted this is a myth, when it is true that many dichroic color heads do not have enough magenta to get to a full five.

OK I now understand that LPL can't do it. Some, such as my Durst CLS501 head can. So it is a myth that dichroic head can't do grade 5. Some can snd some can't.

 

[rxmd]

The point is that telling people G5 is not achievable with a colour head simply isn't true.

And the other point is that this simply isn't relevant at all.

It's like a discussion which car goes faster if nobody you know or are ever going to know drives this car. It may be true, or it may not be true, but it's irrelevant either way.