How would I test for this? (split grade printing, hype or real)

[Pieter12]

If you are so skeptical about the value of split grade printing, why bother? If you are happy with your straight, single-grade prints, that should be fine. If you think they might be improved by split-grade printing, jump in or have someone who is a good printer show you. Otherwise, this whole discussion is nonsense.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you have a densitometer, and know how to use it responsibly, split grade printing is essentially pointless. You have the correct tool to be able to define the optimal grade to start from & judge how you want to tackle areas you might want or need to dodge and burn at other grades. All of the various split-grade methodologies are workarounds for lack of a densitometer or trying to make enlargers essentially stepless in contrast grade. That's about all there is to it.

 

[Daniela]

I didn't know the claims about split grade printing's magical potential. I keep using it because it makes the printing process more logical and straightforward for me. Like @Sirius Glass said, it helps me arrive at the POP! faster and more simply and then I can slowly adjust the rest, if needed. I don't use it 100% of the time, but most of the time. I'm also happier with my prints more often than before, but I don't know if that necessarily means they're better.
As to how to go about testing that, I'd take one negative, print both ways. People here can probably tell you how to use those gadgets , but I'd also consider which process you enjoy the most, 'cause that's important too!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lachlan - if I'm going to bother with a densitometer, I might as well generate and mask and really do it thoroughly. Otherwise, split printing only needs a test strip or two just like most b&w exposure methodology. Most of the time, however, I just use regular light, and then if necessary, punch in more shadow depth with a blue filter, or alternately, bring in more upper mid tone gradation using a green filter. In other words, when I do split print, it's more likely to be a remedial act for sake of an early negative than what applies to the vast majority of my current negs, which are much easier to print in today's VC world than they would have been back in graded paper days.

 

[Pieter12]

For me, there are 2 main advantages to split-grade printing. First, I don't have to try to judge what grade to print at--that is determined by the 2 test strips. Second, it makes dodging and burning with 00 and 5 filters easier to determine and in my opinion, gives better looking prints that way. It takes a bit to get used to, but once you have the hang of it, there's no turning back.

 

[Craig]

I found that the microcontrast can be enhanced on a split grade print, compared to a straight print that is made to the same overall contrast. It's very dependent on the negative though, it doesn't always happen.

I have found split grade a way to achieve a good print with fewer test strips to arrive and both correct exposure and contrast simultaneously.

 

[pentaxuser]

markbau, have a look at this video and decide which print is the better. Assuming you decide that split grade gives you the better print, then you need to establish if a single grade including a very small fraction of a grade such as a third, quarter eighth etc can achieve what the split grade did Clearly for that you need a colour head and a fair amount of patience, time and test strips

If at the end you decide that a colour head is the way to go then hopefully you have enough information from the test strips to "nail" the right grade and fraction of a grade each time. Otherwise it looks to me from this video as if the split grade way using two multi-grade filters may be the way to go

I have seen several videos on the benefits of split grade printing but this one was the best at demonstrating the difference for me.

Can this kind of an improvement be achieved as easily with all prints? I don't know as I have not done anything like enough split grade printing but I recall that after having difficulty with a print of a black dog and near white dog playing together in fast flowing water which was also very dark in some areas and white in others I tried split grade and made a definite improvement in the print

Might I have achieved this with a lot of trial and error using my colour head? I don't know as I never tried

Here's the video:

pentaxuser

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Well, I skipped the last page of posts, but I'll add my thoughts anyway

If there is a difference between a single-filtration straight print and a split-grade print that have been carefully contrast-matched, it could only be because the paper reacts slightly differently to being exposed to only the extreme ends of its sensitivity spectrum than being exposed to a continuous spectrum (however filtered and attenuated).

The way to test for this would be to make a print of your step wedge with, say, a #2 filter and then make a split-grade print using just the #00 and #5 filters that matched the overall contrast range exactly. That means you'd really have to refine exposure times between the two filters and overall exposure time to get precisely the same density on the stripes of your step wedge at the very black and very white ends.

Once you've done that, you can compare relative densities of all the intermediate steps, plot curves, and see if they vary significantly, i.e., if there is a marked change in contrast-curve shape from one to the other in the intermediate range.

The concept of the test is simple, but the devil will be in the details matching up the densities of the extremities. It may take a while to get a split-grade print to match, i.e., render exactly the same densities on the high-density and low-density stripes just above Dmax and below Dmin. Once there, though, measuring reflection densities and plotting the curves should be routine.

My guess is that you'll find very little difference in curve shape between the two, but that's just my gut feeling.

Best,

Doremus

 

[cliveh]

Not only do I not use split grade printing, but very seldom use any contrast control in any of my prints. I think the trick is to concentrate more on camera exposure, film development and print exposure, then contrast control is seldom needed.

 

[Carnie Bob]

I have been split printing now since 1997 when Ilford Warmtone was introduced. I believe there is a difference in quality after thousands of prints.
What I like about low filter and high filter printing is the ability to bring in the delicate highlight details with the lower filter and then with hits of the higher filter bring in the contrast and dmax. There are prints that I have made both ways and with single filter printing I find the dodging and burning much more laborious and in the wrong hands quite visible.
I do not like 0 filter but rather I like to start on a filter that gives me a soft and delicate print based on the Original Scene and the quality of development of the film .

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just as a point of comparison, Ilford changed there automated VC head from Magenta & Yellow to Blue & Green light for a reason. You reach the extremes better with hard B&G. But some papers, including MGWT, need at least a bit of both to achieve full DMax.
You get that with mixed "white" light; but when you split print, you might need to keep that in mind.

Working with other people's negs can indeed be challenging, and certainly with antique negs in less than ideal condition. So the more tools you have in the toolbox to choose from, the better.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Just as a point of comparison, Ilford changed there automated VC head from Magenta & Yellow to Blue & Green light for a reason

And they changed them back again to Y&M with the later MG500 and the MG600 for even better reasons. Ilford quite literally state that the only way to get a genuine G5 is with the G5 filter, which is... magenta - and that the blue dichroic in the older MG500 cannot hit an actual G5. Kodak's data for their papers essentially agrees, though they seem to suggest that the Ilford MG400's magenta dichroic was capable of delivering more contrast than any other filtration system...

 

[warden]

Please note, I am only talking about straight prints, no burning or dodging.

If all you make are straight prints (which is fine of course) maybe split grade printing is not for you. But if you need flexibility in dodging and burning then it's worth learning split grade printing to see if it is right for you. It may not be but it's easy to find out.

I'd be hard pressed to find a difference between printing approaches if the end result is a straight print.

 

[pentaxuser]

If all you make are straight prints (which is fine of course) maybe split grade printing is not for you. But if you need flexibility in dodging and burning then it's worth learning split grade printing to see if it is right for you. It may not be but it's easy to find out.

I'd be hard pressed to find a difference between printing approaches if the end result is a straight print.

You may be right but in the video I linked to it seems that a single grade did not produce a print that matched the split grade one Yes the apple might have been as good if a fraction of a grade smaller than a half had been used with a colour head but would the rest of the foliage below the apple have changed in the way it seems to have changed and for the better to my eye?

As I think I said above I have never seen a comparison video with the same negative and single grade plus whatever fraction of a grade needed that only a colour head might achieve so I cannot be sure

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lachlan - Kodak never made polygrade papers since the dinosaur extinction event itself; and even then they were relatively anemic. And being subtractive (minus yellow) there is simply no way a magenta filter can be as selective as a hard color separation blue like a 47 or 47B right over the lens. I have harder Wratten magenta filters than anything Ilford can provide; but hard blue is even more selective (doesn't mean Ilford's own unit is equal to it, however.) But much of this is academic, since we're getting into hypothetical overkill territory here.

Here's the probable reason for high magenta : To get the highest DMax out of Ilford VC papers, you need a least a small token amount of either white light or green/yellow too. And some of that gets past a magenta filter, but not deep blue. For the same reason, most of the time, I don't even use deep blue separation filter for split contrast ooomph, but a medium blue filter.

 

[john_s]

...........
I do not like 0 filter but rather I like to start on a filter that gives me a soft and delicate print based on the Original Scene and the quality of development of the film .

That's what I do with my 2-tube cold light VCL4500. I think it's easier if the lowish contrast base exposure is not extreme lowest contrast, so one is already "half way there" if that makes sense.

 

[grain elevator]

If you understand it well enough to design a meaningful experiment, you'll understand it well enough to know the answer to the question you're trying to answer (which is what was said in the first few responses, I didn't read through everything).

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan - Kodak never made polygrade papers since the dinosaur extinction event itself; and even then they were relatively anemic. And being subtractive (minus yellow) there is simply no way a magenta filter can be as selective as a hard color separation blue like a 47 or 47B right over the lens. I have harder Wratten magenta filters than anything Ilford can provide; but hard blue is even more selective (doesn't mean Ilford's own unit is equal to it, however.) But much of this is academic, since we're getting into hypothetical overkill territory here.

Here's the probable reason for high magenta : To get the highest DMax out of Ilford VC papers, you need a least a small token amount of either white light or green/yellow too. And some of that gets past a magenta filter, but not deep blue. For the same reason, most of the time, I don't even use deep blue separation filter for split contrast ooomph, but a medium blue filter.

Doesn't matter what you think about the papers themselves, but it is important that Kodak's analysis of the B/G MG500 matches Ilford's, despite there being a significant time interval between the two tests. Having been into MG500's to replace dichroics (and used them extensively alongside other heads/ filters etc), the blue is about as close as a dichroic can get to a Wratten #47/47B as will have been feasible to achieve (you seem to be assuming that I don't have immediate access to #47/#47B/#98). That doesn't mean it's the right bandpass for the job, especially as knowledge accumulated about Multigrade and other variable contrast systems - and Ilford clearly took that new information & changed their products. As a point of fact, the first set of under-lens Multigrade filters essentially build up to Wratten separation blue.

if I'm going to bother with a densitometer, I might as well generate and mask and really do it thoroughly.

Why? If you have a densitometer, it takes seconds to make a reading that'll get you so close to the right grade that your test strip will mostly be telling you where your dodges and burns need to go - and if they need to be harder or softer than the grade you need for overall contrast. It's like the difference between having a sheet of music with dynamic markings (which you are free to interpret as you wish), versus one without & having to make more-or-less educated guesses at dynamic intent.

All the ideological posturing that's going on about split-grade is essentially people trying to pretend it's something other than a means to achieve exposure/ grade determination in the absence of the proper tools for getting to the point of making the first good enough print (not the best possible print).

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Doesn't matter what you think about the papers themselves, but it is important that Kodak's analysis of the B/G MG500 matches Ilford's, despite there being a significant time interval between the two tests. Having been into MG500's to replace dichroics (and used them extensively alongside other heads/ filters etc), the blue is about as close as a dichroic can get to a Wratten #47/47B as will have been feasible to achieve (you seem to be assuming that I don't have immediate access to #47/#47B/#98). That doesn't mean it's the right bandpass for the job, especially as knowledge accumulated about Multigrade and other variable contrast systems - and Ilford clearly took that new information & changed their products. As a point of fact, the first set of under-lens Multigrade filters essentially build up to Wratten separation blue.



Why? If you have a densitometer, it takes seconds to make a reading that'll get you so close to the right grade that your test strip will mostly be telling you where your dodges and burns need to go - and if they need to be harder or softer than the grade you need for overall contrast. All the ideological posturing that's going on about split-grade is essentially people trying to pretend it's something other than a means to achieve exposure/ grade determination in the absence of the proper tools for getting to the point of making the first good enough print (not the best possible print).

VC papers are set up for approximately 3000K light sources.

 

[pentaxuser]

If you understand it well enough to design a meaningful experiment, you'll understand it well enough to know the answer to the question you're trying to answer (which is what was said in the first few responses, I didn't read through everything).

What does the meaningful experiment consist of? Is it the sort that can easily be performed and what equipment is required. Currently there seems to be no such experiment that has been done that we can refer to

All we seem to have had since the subject of the benefits or not as the case may be of split grade printing arose nearly 20 years ago is "for and against" statements of the benefits without any demonstrable evidence of those benefits or otherwise. The exception to that is the video to which I provided a link

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

VC papers are set up for approximately 3000K light sources.

I think you haven't read or comprehended what I wrote.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I think you haven't read or comprehended what I wrote.

Oh, yes I did. It is very easy to get good negatives and prints if you use compensating negative developers (such as FX-21). I hardly have to alter contrast at all, and I have a dichroic head. Using Ilford's latest MG (V). You really should not have to alter the paper contrast for most scenes. Some lenses have a bit less brilliance than others, and sometimes you are using a long lens and the image is affected by long distances (dirty air), and sometimes flare affects things. But for the most part, you hardly have to do any manipulation at all. I do "street" photography, and there is usually no time for fancy metering.

 

[MattKing]

And they changed them back again to Y&M with the later MG500 and the MG600 for even better reasons. Ilford quite literally state that the only way to get a genuine G5 is with the G5 filter, which is... magenta - and that the blue dichroic in the older MG500 cannot hit an actual G5. Kodak's data for their papers essentially agrees, though they seem to suggest that the Ilford MG400's magenta dichroic was capable of delivering more contrast than any other filtration system...

Are you sure of the order, Lachlan?
I ask, because my after the fact observation was/is that the order was:
- MG400 - magenta and yellow
- MG500 early - magenta and yellow
- MG500H - blue and green
- MG600 - magenta and yellow again.
My impression was that the MG600 went back to magenta and yellow because the additional red light in the light path makes focusing and composing much easier.
I've owned the MG400 and early MG500, and used someone else's MG500H.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lachlan - back to densitometers. Why even think about landing on specific grades when using VC papers? It typically takes me only one test strip to know exactly what to do next. And most of the time, I don't even need to dodge or burn either. But I'm also printing my own negs. (Back when I often had to salvage print antique negs it was a different story!) But if I do need to do something complex or precisely repetitive, I'm very well equipped and experienced to do all sorts of masking tricks.

I can pretty much match results with any of my enlarger heads anyway - CMY additive, true narrow-band RGB subtractive, V54 blue green cold-light optionally using filters over the lens.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Are you sure of the order, Lachlan?
I ask, because my after the fact observation was/is that the order was:
- MG400 - magenta and yellow
- MG500 early - magenta and yellow
- MG500H - blue and green
- MG600 - magenta and yellow again.
My impression was that the MG600 went back to magenta and yellow because the additional red light in the light path makes focusing and composing much easier.
I've owned the MG400 and early MG500, and used someone else's MG500H.

I think it's quite unclear what order the MG500's were made in - they were made by at least two different manufacturers, with the BG filters being the most commonplace - and the power supply, controllers and transformers have been so mixed around to get working sets that trying to understand the chronology is tricky (never mind if someone changed the filters at a maintenance interval - the MG500 does sometimes blowtorch them) - and by the advent of MGIV (by which point the need for the filters to deliver the full G5 will have become more apparent) they seem to have been effectively out of production, with quite a lot of NOS or refurbished ones filling the market. I do know that some of the 10x10's were YM and that the MG100 (which is pretty rare and manual operated) was YM too. I could probably get an answer about the chronology from someone who has parts for them, but at this distance, everyone's memory is probably not necessarily chronologically accurate. The manufacturing change seems to have largely affected the transformer and controller units' internal schematic/ layout, but only one of the schematics is readily available...