RH Designs Analyzer Pro Calibration Question

[logan2z]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not sure if anyone here is currently using the Analyzer Pro, but I finally got around to performing a calibration and am wondering if my exposure compensation results make sense.  I calibrated for Ilford Multigrade Fiber Classic and ended up with positive exposure offsets for all filter grades.  This is a bit unexpected since the Analyzer is calibrated for Ilford MG IV RC paper and, given the data sheet for both papers, MG IV RC is a slower paper than the Fiber Classic.  I would think that would lead to negative exposure offsets rather than positive ones.  I realize there are lots of variables at play here but I invested a significant time in the calibration procedure and want to make sure the data I came up with is reasonably accurate.  I haven't gotten around to making a print since performing the calibration so perhaps all is fine, just wanted to see if others have had a similar experience when calibrating for this paper.

[Michael Hiles]

I found that the calibration procedure for the Analyzer Pro gave me odd-ish results. Most certainly my all-thumbs approach.

In the calibration instructions near the end, there are instructions as to how make adjustments based on sensitivity/contrast information provided by the paper manufacturer. This information is available in the data sheet that comes with the Ilford Classic FB paper. If you do the simple calculations, the adjustments for grades oo to 3 are all -2 and for grades 4 and 5 the adjustment is -1. The contrast offsets are 170, 140, 110, 95, 80, 60 and 50.

These settings work quite well, and can be slightly adjusted if necessary. They also make sense.

What a terrific unit.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Michael Hiles

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[logan2z]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hiles said:

I found that the calibration procedure for the Analyzer Pro gave me odd-ish results. Most certainly my all-thumbs approach.

In the calibration instructions near the end, there are instructions as to how make adjustments based on sensitivity/contrast information provided by the paper manufacturer. This information is available in the data sheet that comes with the Ilford Classic FB paper. If you do the simple calculations, the adjustments for grades oo to 3 are all -2 and for grades 4 and 5 the adjustment is -1. The contrast offsets are 170, 140, 110, 95, 80, 60 and 50.

These settings work quite well, and can be slightly adjusted if necessary. They also make sense.

What a terrific unit.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your post.   I decided to make a print using the offset values that I arrived at during calibration and, not surprisingly, the print was very overexposed.  I'm not sure where I went wrong during the calibration procedure, but the offsets I came up with appear to be very wrong.  

Funny you should mention the data sheets, because earlier today I decided to do exactly as you described and came up with offsets from the data sheets for MG IV RC (the Analyzer's default) and MG Classic FB.  I made a print with those offsets and it's MUCH better.   Interestingly my contrast numbers are almost exactly those specified in the data sheet, so I didn't completely screw up during calibration.  I wish I would have just used the data sheets rather than wasting hours doing the manual calibration.  Live and learn   

[Michael Hiles]

Hello Andrew,

My approach was to use the instruction at the top of page 12 of the calibration manual (para 5), plus the ISO information in the Ilford Multigrade Papers data sheet that came in the MG FB Classic paper box.

I was also told by Richard Ross that the new MG RC Classic uses the same settings as the old MG IV RC paper. I assumed that the offsets for the MG FB Classic would be similar to the MG IV FB, or at least not unrelated or wildly different (see table on page 12).

Therefore, using the ISO(P) information from the Ilford sheet (gr oo-3 ; 230) and (gr 4,5 ; 210) from the table in para 5, I interpolated the offsets to be -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, and -1, -1. While different from MG IV FB, the offsets make some sense and are credible (at least to me).

The ISO(R) contrast offsets I just entered “as is” as instructed in para 6.

It all seems to work out, more or less. I find that the unit needs some learning. Determining the highlight point and shadow point requires some practice, and IMO is just a starting point for a fine print. I think the designers might agree. Considering what goes into the creation of a subtle print – regardless of available technology – to expect a wall-ready print from two measurements is wishful thinking IMO. I mainly use a split grade approach, and I find that the basic measurements provided by the unit are the starting point for finely tuned test strips (for which the Analyzer Pro is fantastic) using the Gr0 and GR5 filters.

I have also instructions for using the measurement system to determine exposure times for split grade printing – if you are interested, I can pass them on. Notwithstanding the claims, I think test strips continue to be unavoidable for fine tuning. But the Analyzer Pro makes them simpler and puts some powerful order and logic into the process – and is money well spent.

I hope this is at least a little help, and does not add to the confusion.

Best,

Michael

[chema]

Hello Michael
I am recovering my laboratory and I have an V35 enlarger and a RHAnalyser (not Pro).
With the factory settings and Ilford MGlV paper I get valid results that I adjust with a test strip.
I would like to practice the splitgrade technique and for now what I do is "distribute" the exposure measured between grades 0 (or1) and 5 depending on the contrast (if the measured is G2.5 half the time at G0 and half at G5 , if the measured is G4, 80% at G5 and 20% at G0, and so on ..)
Can you tell me how you do it?
Thank you very much and sorry for my poor English

[Michael Hiles]

Hello Chema,

In actual practice, I use the analyzer to estimate the grade 0 exposure of a highlight. I then make a test strip to fine tune the grade 0 exposure, which nails down the highlights. I use the Analyzer’s test strip function, which gives very reliable results.

I then use the Analyzer set to Gr 5 and estimate the Gr 5 exposure for a shadow area. I then make a Gr 5 test strip based on my estimate of a shadow time. First I use the Gr 0 filter and time determined by the first test strip as a base exposure (the Gr 0 exposure adds a little to the shadows), and then using the Gr 5 filter and add Gr 5 light to make a test strip, which tells me the exposure time for the Gr 5 filter and shadows.

I hope this is clear-ish. RH designs says “no more test strips” – I think that is wrong. The unit is excellent, but it does not give a wall-worthy print on its own. It does give excellent ball park times and the f-stop timer function is a god-send. Fine tuning is required – by you.

Any questions – I am happy to try and help (or add more confusion).

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Personally, I spent a lot of time setting it up and building a calibration. I had a bit of a time of it, and asked Richard for help. He was very helpful. That said, I think that this is a product that is more suited to people interested in the process of darkroom printing than in the art of it. I realize that that might not be fair to Richard or the people who use this, but what I mean by that is that it is mostly suited to people who are extremely process oriented... By analogy it is more for bakers than cooks. If you like to approach each print with variations depending on your judgement and mood, it is not for you. If you are more interested in standardizing, maximizing a theoretical contrast range, and making things consistent, it might be for you. I am sure that if you are printing all the time and only with the exact same papers and developer, it might work brilliantly, but personally I kind of find myself wishing for a simple timer like I had in the Ilford Multigrade 500. I switched from a Omega D5 with the Multigrade to a Durst L1200 with the VC head and the RH Designs timer. While I love the ergonomics and quality of the enlarger, I kind of wish I still had the 500 on there...I feel like I still need to do test strips with the RH Designs, and I miss being able to just "eyeball it" and put in a few more seconds and use round numbers etc. Now all my times are weird numbers that are hard to replicate if I need to print again etc. I am sure if I were printing more often in the darkroom, I would get used to it, but it seems like a massive amount of work to get it all set up, without really making my workflow any easier. Perhaps it is just the whole "teaching an old dog new tricks". On the other hand, I absolutely adore his process timer...one of the best purchases I made for the darkroom. I also like the print flasher.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Stuart Richardson

[chema]

Thank you very much Michael and Stuart, I will follow your advice.

I see that the great help of the Analyser is to approximate the base time of the test strips and make them.

Regards

chema

[Michael Hiles]

That is how I use it - and I am very happy with it. Money well spent IMO.

[Silver Pr]

On 11/5/2019 at 9:37 PM, Michael Hiles said:

Hello Chema,

In actual practice, I use the analyzer to estimate the grade 0 exposure of a highlight. I then make a test strip to fine tune the grade 0 exposure, which nails down the highlights. I use the Analyzer’s test strip function, which gives very reliable results.

I then use the Analyzer set to Gr 5 and estimate the Gr 5 exposure for a shadow area. I then make a Gr 5 test strip based on my estimate of a shadow time. First I use the Gr 0 filter and time determined by the first test strip as a base exposure (the Gr 0 exposure adds a little to the shadows), and then using the Gr 5 filter and add Gr 5 light to make a test strip, which tells me the exposure time for the Gr 5 filter and shadows.

I hope this is clear-ish. RH designs says “no more test strips” – I think that is wrong. The unit is excellent, but it does not give a wall-worthy print on its own. It does give excellent ball park times and the f-stop timer function is a god-send. Fine tuning is required – by you.

Any questions – I am happy to try and help (or add more confusion).

Hi Micheal,

Thank you for that post. For last 3 weeks I have been trying to figure out which of RH Desings products I should buy. First I was sure that I should buy Stopclock but later  after so many positive opinions about Analyser I change my mind and decided to focus on it. I read most of the posts about calibrating Analyser Pro and wanted to know if I can use it for split grading... which is my usual procedure. It's not easy to understand the possibilities of the device if you don't have it in hand. In this post you partly confirmed my way of thinking how can I use it for Split grade. But just one more conclusion or question comes to me... even for this procedure it's better /necessary to calibrate  to your paper....?

[Michael Hiles]

Calibrate paper for split grade application? Yes in my opinion. As I may have said in a prior post, I have calibrated by applying factors provided by Ilford in their document sheet included with the paper (Classic).

I had some issues doing the calibration procedure outlined in the Analyzer calibration manual, so I applied the factors using the method set out at the end of the calibration manual. It worked out very well.

I think calibrating is important so as to assure that you get what you expect (and what you are told by the machine) and there is a true and believable relation between what the machine says and what you get. You don’t want to be in a situation where you have to do some mental hocus pocus while trying to determine what are the correct exposures. That does not mean that you won’t need to fine tune – you just do not want to be misled by your measurements.

Hope this is a little helpful.