Analyzer Pro questions

[ymc226]

I just purchased an RHDesigns Analyser Pro based on all the positive opinions that I have read on this forum and have a question.

I am a novice and currently use a Beseler 67 enlarger with a color diffusion head for B&W printing using the spit grade method but will have to return to the more conventional printing method with the Analyser Pro.

The Beseler 67 has both a 35mm and MF light box which I can switch out depending on the format of the negative although I use MF more. Being rather lazy, I do not want to calibrate each type of FB paper that I use twice, using either the 35mm or MF light box separately. Can I use the MF lightbox to print 35mm negatives? Will this give me less light on the smaller negative and increase printing times without affecting the final print otherwise?

Is there a way to continue to use the spit grade method using the Analyser Pro? I downloaded the manual but did not see an way in how to accomplish this.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Lawrence,

My wife Frances Schultz and I just use the MF boxes all the time; your analysis is correct.

What advantage do you see in split-grade? There is always a single grade that will duplicate split-grade UNLESS you dodge or burn differentially of course. But the Analyzer will get you to an excellent work-print very quickly, after which you can dodge or burn at whatever contrast grades you choose.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[jstraw]

There is always a single grade that will duplicate split-grade UNLESS you dodge or burn differentially of course.

I suppose that's true if you're using a color head or a VC head. Then you can dial in grades that are more subtle than a filter set can provide. Otherwise, it's not true. I would imagine that you're on the mark and most split-grade printers do dodge and/or burn separately for hard and soft exposures.

I have a Stop Clock Pro and it's made split grade printing much easier than a timer, whether linear or f-stop could do, that lacked the Pro's separate hard and soft channels.

 

[frugal]

What advantage do you see in split-grade? There is always a single grade that will duplicate split-grade UNLESS you dodge or burn differentially of course. But the Analyzer will get you to an excellent work-print very quickly, after which you can dodge or burn at whatever contrast grades you choose.

I used to think that's how it worked but after doing a printing session with Les McLean I'm less sure. He showed me how I can print the same neg and get very different characteristics to the print by varying the soft and hard exposures, particularly with the characteristics of the shadows.

Now I'll admit that my understanding of split-grade is still pretty minimal so I'll explain my understanding and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

With the 0 (or 00) filter increased time will build density but also reduce contrast. You'll probably never get a true black (well, unless you really nuke the paper) but increasing the exposure will gradually push everything toward the same grey tone.

With the 5 filter, you get prety much just black and white (not entirely true, but close), so increased exposure will mostly affect your shadows but will have little effect on the mid-tones or highlights since they're effectively "masked" by the filter.

So with split-grade you're able to place your highlights and mid-tones where you want with the soft filtration and then build up the shadows with hard filtration independently.

Again, I could be missing something here but I'm pretty sure that if you just used a single grade you'd find that increasing the grade will increase your contrast but also sacrifice some of the tonality and reducing the filter would give you smoother tonality but sacrifice the contrast.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I used to think that's how it worked but after doing a printing session with Les McLean I'm less sure. He showed me how I can print the same neg and get very different characteristics to the print by varying the soft and hard exposures, particularly with the characteristics of the shadows.

Now I'll admit that my understanding of split-grade is still pretty minimal so I'll explain my understanding and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

With the 0 (or 00) filter increased time will build density but also reduce contrast. You'll probably never get a true black (well, unless you really nuke the paper) but increasing the exposure will gradually push everything toward the same grey tone.

With the 5 filter, you get prety much just black and white (not entirely true, but close), so increased exposure will mostly affect your shadows but will have little effect on the mid-tones or highlights since they're effectively "masked" by the filter.

So with split-grade you're able to place your highlights and mid-tones where you want with the soft filtration and then build up the shadows with hard filtration independently.

Again, I could be missing something here but I'm pretty sure that if you just used a single grade you'd find that increasing the grade will increase your contrast but also sacrifice some of the tonality and reducing the filter would give you smoother tonality but sacrifice the contrast.

Dear Frugal,

To quote Mike Gristwood, late of Ilford, 'the paper is refreshingly ignorant about what is being printed on it'.

Your view is extremely seductive: my wife and I spent some time arguing in its favour with Mike before he convinced us that we were wrong. There is ALWAYS a single grade that will duplicate ANY combination of filters and timing in split grade. Look at the curves of the hard and soft emulsions, and reflect that both are always exposed to some degree, and this is inevitable.

If you find split-grade easier or more intuitive, those are good reasons for using it; but honestly, unless you dodge or burn during one or other of the exposures (hard and soft), you can use a single grade instead. It took me half an hour of arguing the viewpoint you espouse, against someone who knew more than I and drew the exposure curves, before I accepted this.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Nick Zentena]

I won't argue the point that a single grade can equal the final split grade. It's obviously true.

OTOH I never thought the point of split grade was to end up with a certain grade.

I like split filtering I get contrast and exposure with a couple of test prints. I get the chance to adjust local contrast by dodging/burning.

Could I do this without split filtering? I used to so it must be possible. But it seems so much easier this way. Much more visual.

BTW didn't Ilford invent split filtering?

 

[jstraw]

There is ALWAYS a single grade that will duplicate ANY combination of filters and timing in split grade.

Yes, but that may be grade 2.73...and I don't have that filter.

 

[frugal]

Dear Frugal,

To quote Mike Gristwood, late of Ilford, 'the paper is refreshingly ignorant about what is being printed on it'.

Your view is extremely seductive: my wife and I spent some time arguing in its favour with Mike before he convinced us that we were wrong. There is ALWAYS a single grade that will duplicate ANY combination of filters and timing in split grade. Look at the curves of the hard and soft emulsions, and reflect that both are always exposed to some degree, and this is inevitable.

If you find split-grade easier or more intuitive, those are good reasons for using it; but honestly, unless you dodge or burn during one or other of the exposures (hard and soft), you can use a single grade instead. It took me half an hour of arguing the viewpoint you espouse, against someone who knew more than I and drew the exposure curves, before I accepted this.

Cheers,

Roger

I'll leave it at that then, thanks for sharing that you were of the same mindset before as well, at least I don't feel like I'm totally off base then. I've never printed with a VC or dichro head so I haven't had the flexibility of dialing in very fine contrast adjustments so that could be the source of my "mental block", well that and I've only done the split-grade once with that session with Les (earlier this month at Elevator, haven't been in the darkroom since ). And yes, we were also using burning/dodging on the different exposures as well as post flashing as well so there's a lot of other variables as well.

You also mention the intuitiveness which is a point I had meant to make as well. I like that while you're doing your test strips you can see the effects of different mixtures of the hard exposure (we were doing soft first, then a hard test strip over the chosen soft exposure) which makes it easy to nail down exactly what you want, and also see some of the effects you'll get from burning/dodging areas. I think that for less experienced printers (myself included in this) it helps to see these variations on the paper so then you know if you want to go to more hard filtration, or possibly burn or dodge an area and what that might produce, which could come more naturally than figuring out when to tweak the contrast grade when using a single grade exposure (based on how many students I've seen who have trouble determining when to change paper grades vs. changing their exposure time).

 

[Roger Hicks]

I won't argue the point that a single grade can equal the final split grade. It's obviously true.

OTOH I never thought the point of split grade was to end up with a certain grade.

I like split filtering I get contrast and exposure with a couple of test prints. I get the chance to adjust local contrast by dodging/burning.

Could I do this without split filtering? I used to so it must be possible. But it seems so much easier this way. Much more visual.

BTW didn't Ilford invent split filtering?

Dear Nick,

I have been careful to point out that differential dodging or burning (with hard and soft filters) is a very different question from equaling a single grade. You are absolutely right. My only argument is with the mistaken belief that somehow you can expose the shadows and highlights differentially without differential dodging and burning.

Ilford invented Multigrade but unfortunately the Second World War intervened. In 1939 Ilford did not sell in the USA and made the Multigrade concept (and dyes) available to (I think) Defender as a result of personal froendship between senior scientists in the two companies. As a result, Defender and then I believe Du Pont, heirs to Defender, were first to market. When the USA eventually joined the war officially, the American manufacturer was well established.

I think too that Defender/Du Pomt reversed the dye sensitization (which colour was hard, and which soft) and made a better product, but my knowledge of the precise history is shaky. In my view, the Multigrade principle did not begin to equal graded papers until some time in the 80s.

Cheers.

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, but that may be grade 2.73...and I don't have that filter.

Fair enough. With a VC head, of course, it's different. Yours is another good argument for split-grade.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

You also mention the intuitiveness which is a point I had meant to make as well . . . I think that for less experienced printers (myself included in this) it helps to see these variations on the paper so then you know if you want to go to more hard filtration, or possibly burn or dodge an area and what that might produce, which could come more naturally than figuring out when to tweak the contrast grade when using a single grade exposure (based on how many students I've seen who have trouble determining when to change paper grades vs. changing their exposure time).

Not just experience. Some people find it a lot easier to think the way you describe, with or without experience, and in that case, it makes a lot of sense to continue with split-grade. Likewise, there are plenty of times it makes sense to burn or dodge at different grades, in which case, it is foolish not to print at two grades. Overall, I believe it's easier to use a single dialed-in grade except when you need differential dodging/burning. With good negs and most subjects, a single grade is easier; but maybe 10% of the time, split grade and differential printing is so much better that there's no contest.

Cheers,

Roger