Using Ilford Multigrade below lens

"Mike" wrote

Kodak filters, Ilford paper: going from 2-2.5 is not much,
but going from 2.5-3 is huge.

For illustrative purposes only. These are relative numbers
applicable to a specific setup and measurement technique.
Your mileage will be way different, but they give a good idea
of what is going on.

The first is RC pearl, the other FB glossy w/ferrotyping and
Selenium. The illumination measurement technique is different
between the two. The reason for presenting disparit data is that
the first set is the only set I have with Kodak filters and
Ilford paper.

Polymax filters. Only filters with a meaningful difference are
shown:

Filter -1.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

..13-1.9 OD 4.9 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.5 1.9 1.4 stops of exposure
on the paper
(Zone I-VIII)


Things are a bit better with Ilford filters/Ilford paper, unedited:

Filter 00 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0

..13-1.9 OD 4.8 4.4 4.2 3.8 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.0
1.6 1.6
on the paper

-Wonder why a timer and baseboard light meter that work in stops
would be so useful here ...-

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Mike wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:
Why not buy the real thing? Ilford offers a set of Multigrade filters
that are specifically designed to be used below the lens.

Because I bought a 3.5" set for really cheap.


Like $27 is expensive? OK, it is $27 plus shipping,

"Tony Polson" wrote

Like $27 is expensive? OK, it is $27 plus shipping,

I think we have all been in the place where $27 is expensive
at sometime in our lives.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Mike wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:50:58 +0000, Tony Polson wrote:

Mike wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:
Why not buy the real thing? Ilford offers a set of Multigrade filters
that are specifically designed to be used below the lens.

Because I bought a 3.5" set for really cheap.


Like $27 is expensive? OK, it is $27 plus shipping,

I got them for $5. If I can save $30 by spending 30 minutes to cut them
down to size and fit in my existing below-the-lens carrier, then yeah, it
is worth it to me.


Fair comment, especially as you already have the carrier.

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

== On a related matter ==

I once cleaned an under-lens Polymax with water & stuff. I can't
vouch what the stuff was, probably Windex or distilled water
on the end of a Q-tip.

I once handled a standard above-the-lens filter with moist fingers. the
dyes comes off like watercolour :-(
Now, I never let them get close anything liquid.


I wondered where the yellow went
When I examined the Q-tip it was evident

Don't apply anything waterish to below lens filters. Any one
want a perfectly clear filter labeled "2 1/2"?


Mine being a "3 1/2" with a clear patch :-)