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

[Craig]

Thanks, I'll give that a try.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Thanks, I'll give that a try.

I also made a typo - should be 'multiply by 100', not 10. Have corrected my original post

 

[Carnie Bob]

A lot said here its hard to read I must say.. For me I think split printing is the way to go, I make my living printing and have over the years landed on this approach to silver.

to the OP if your really interested to figure this out here is what I. did about 28 years ago when Ilford Warmtone was introduced.

with three types of negatives, FLAT, NORMAL, CONTRASTY start a series of test prints.

In my case I adjust the aperture and time to around 10 seconds for consistency and accuracy, I do change the bulbs if the negative requires more light or less light.
I keep my aperture to around 2 stops closed from wide open .

In the negatives there is a neutral grey area that I try to match density in all the prints.
I make a low filter exposure and the give a full hit of full grade 5, then again with two hits of grade 5 , then again with three hits of grade 5.
This gives me three prints with this combination which is noted on the back of the print

I then go up the filter scale with 1/2 grade hits till I reach grade 3 as the low. I try to match the density of grey area so I may have to adjust the aperture or time slightly.
so grade 1/2 three prints
grade 1 three prints
grade 1 1/2 three prints
grade 2 three prints
grade 2 1/2 three prints
grade 3 three prints.

you now have 21 prints that are match to middle grey density with various contrasts for each negative - a total of 63 prints

If you are like me then you will repeat this except you start with a High filter and flash in 0 light
this is a bit harder but worth the effort

ie. 5 filter with one hit of 0, 5 filter with one two hits of 0 , 5 filter with three hits of 0
I do this with 4.1/2 filter- 4 filter and 3 1/2 filter
for all three negative so now. you have 45 more prints .
*** the 0 exposure is much stronger when applied this way so you will waste a lot of paper balancing density
now mount all 108 prints are on a board to see the variations....
Then use one filter and see if you can make an identical negative for what you think is the best split prints.

The only way to know is to actually do.

I think in forums and life in general we assume one way is better than the other and become stiff in our appreciation of process we are not familiar with. I can not offer an opinion
on which way is better , as I do not care.
much like I do not offer an opinion on which process, which paper, inkjet vs silver , silver vs palladium... I do not care... I appreciate them all and decide which is best for me, not bother about some magic bullet formula or film stock that will turn my work from a sows ear to a silk purse.

 

[markbau]

So I finally found a few spare hours to do my tests. I couldn't figure out a good way to test with a step wedge and densitometer so this is what I did.
I did two control prints, one using the built in M and Y filters on my LPL 4500 and another using a grade 2 1/2 Ilford filter. The two prints were identical.

There are several methods on Youtube/the web about two filter printing. There are many who simply use grade 00 and grade 5 filters. So I tried that first. This is the method "Darkroom Dave" who is some sort of ambassador for Ilford uses (actually he uses grade 0 and grade 5) After about 4 test prints I got a print that was identical to my grade 2 1/2. I then tried the Lina Bessonova method (she is very popular on YouTube.) She claims that split filter printing allows you to "control highlight and shadow areas separately". Her method uses Ilford grade 2 and 4 1/2 filters (as a starting point) so that is what I used. After about 5 test prints I managed to get a print that was identical to my control prints.

A couple of notes:
No burning or dodging was done, these were all straight prints.

Using my reflection densitometer I measured the same part of the prints, which was a midtone, and found that my eyes had not let me down, the area measured the same on all prints.

Arriving at the correct contrast and exposure time took me way longer than traditional methods

The thought occurred to me that using a colour head to print VC paper (varying proportions of Yellow and Magenta) is actually the same thing as using a low and high contrast filter.

Paper used was Ilford MG FB classic, development was in Bromophen 1:3 for 2 minutes @ 20C.

After I was done, for fun, I printed the neg onto Ilford RC, I was surprised that I got a little more tonality in the highlight areas whilst the midtowns and shadows stayed the same.

I know David Vestal didn't buy into the two filter claims and I recall an article by Phil Davis where he tested the claim and found it wanting. Silvia Zawadzki/Dick Dickerson, Kodak employees who I believe were part of the team that developed XTOL tested and came away with the same conclusion as Davis and Vestall.

I can understand if using two filters gets you to your contrast/exposure quickly as being a benefit but I do wonder why there is so much stuff on the internet saying that two filter printing produces superior results to single filter printing. That said I understand that two filter printing can get you in between the Ilford filters.

Burning and dodging with different filters is a very valid method of local contrast control but of course has nothing to do with my tests. Sadly the term "split grade printing" is used to describe local burning and dodging with different filters as well as exposing the entire print with two filters which is why I have used the term "two filter" printing.

Can anyone explain how two filter printing is in any way different to using a colour head where you always print with a combination of Yellow and magenta filters?

 

[Craig]

Can anyone explain how two filter printing is in any way different to using a colour head where you always print with a combination of Yellow and magenta filters?

They should be exactly the same. I've not heard serious split grade printers suggest otherwise.

 

[MattKing]

Almost all dichroic heads adjust the filtration by adjusting the amount of filter in the light path, and therefore adjust the colour balance of the exposing light. One might be able to accomplish the same thing by moving the under-the-lens filters partially into the light path, in varying amounts, but doing that wouldn't make much sense .
I've never thought that there was any difference between the potential results from straight prints, other than the availability of less than 1/2 grade adjustments. It is just that I almost never make straight prints.

 

[Pieter12]

Almost all dichroic heads adjust the filtration by adjusting the amount of filter in the light path, and therefore adjust the colour balance of the exposing light. One might be able to accomplish the same thing by moving the under-the-lens filters partially into the light path, in varying amounts, but doing that wouldn't make much sense .
I've never thought that there was any difference between the potential results from straight prints, other than the availability of less than 1/2 grade adjustments. It is just that I almost never make straight prints.

I find that I arrive a much better choice of the overall contrast (grade) of a print with split-grade rather than straight printing.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

The advantages of split-grade (two-filter) printing is almost entirely in the ability to dodge and burn with different filtration (as your tests with straight prints has demonstrated).

Sometimes, you have to start with an extreme to dodge it, e.g., start with the #00 filter or max yellow in order to dodge part of the print and then expose the print to the high-contrast filtration second, maybe dodging part of the print for part of the exposure time too.

This type of scenario is the only one (dodging a specific filtration) where you have to start with extreme filtration. If your are just burning with one or the other extremes, then you can start with a filtration that you consider an appropriate overall contrast (which is what I do most of the time) and then simply burn the required areas for the required time with the extreme filtration, either high- or low-contrast.

Best,

Doremus

 

[MattKing]

Echoing Doremus, I would reiterate - the meaning of "split grade" isn't limited to using two different relatively extreme filters to end up with a desired final contrast.
"Split grade" means splitting the contrast determination between appropriate different exposures using different contrast filtration. In some cases the "split" is amongst many different exposures, with several (or at least more than two) different filters.
You can't achieve the same result as that with a single filter.

 

[mshchem]

It depends

 

[MattKing]

Echoing Doremus, I would reiterate - the meaning of "split grade" isn't limited to using two different relatively extreme filters to end up with a desired final contrast.
"Split grade" means splitting the contrast determination between appropriate different exposures using different contrast filtration. In some cases the "split" is amongst many different exposures, with several (or at least more than two) different filters.
You can't achieve the same result as that with a single filter.

For clarity, the above references a print where different areas of the print receive different exposures. When, for example, you choose one contrast for the highlights, another contrast for the shadows, and another contrast for the mid-tones that form the majority of the scene, you have used a split grade technique. And you cannot do that with a single filter.

 

[markbau]

Sadly we use the same term to describe two very different printing procedures. A few years ago I proposed (in this forum) coming up with different terms for the two procedures but apparently everyone is happy to stumble confusingly along with one term to describe two methods of printing.

 

[Pieter12]

Sadly we use the same term to describe two very different printing procedures. A few years ago I proposed (in this forum) coming up with different terms for the two procedures but apparently everyone is happy to stumble confusingly along with one term to describe two methods of printing.

Technically if you change filters during the printing process, it would be split-grade printing. This forum is a tiny speck in the ocean of analog printing, I doubt any terminology originating here would have any impact on anyone's usage.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Sadly we use the same term to describe two very different printing procedures. A few years ago I proposed (in this forum) coming up with different terms for the two procedures but apparently everyone is happy to stumble confusingly along with one term to describe two methods of printing.

Mark,

I might argue that dodging and burning are just a subset of printing and that the term "split-grade printing" encompasses both basic exposure made with two filters as well as any dodging/burning done with different filters to give different areas of the print different contrasts.

What is important to realize is that the overall contrast given a print achieved by split-grade printing, i.e., two overall exposures, one with high contrast, one with low contrast, can be exactly duplicated by the right combination of filtration in one exposure, given continuous control of the colors as with a color head.

It's also worth noting that an overall exposure with split-grade printing can achieve contrasts intermediate between the available steps provided by Multigrade filter sets, making the technique useful for those that don't print with color heads.

Finally, we should recognize that there are several ways to get the same result when exposing parts of the print to different contrasts.

Still, I'll call anything that uses two or more filtrations to manipulate contrast in the print "split-grade printing" with the distinction that achieving areas of different contrast in one print can only be done with dodging and burning. I think that's the most common usage judging from what I read here.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Pieter12]

Mark,

I might argue that dodging and burning are just a subset of printing and that the term "split-grade printing" encompasses both basic exposure made with two filters as well as any dodging/burning done with different filters to give different areas of the print different contrasts.

What is important to realize is that the overall contrast given a print achieved by split-grade printing, i.e., two overall exposures, one with high contrast, one with low contrast, can be exactly duplicated by the right combination of filtration in one exposure, given continuous control of the colors as with a color head.

It's also worth noting that an overall exposure with split-grade printing can achieve contrasts intermediate between the available steps provided by Multigrade filter sets, making the technique useful for those that don't print with color heads.

Finally, we should recognize that there are several ways to get the same result when exposing parts of the print to different contrasts.

Still, I'll call anything that uses two or more filtrations to manipulate contrast in the print "split-grade printing" with the distinction that achieving areas of different contrast in one print can only be done with dodging and burning. I think that's the most common usage judging from what I read here.

Best,

Doremus

I will reiterate that I consistently get better results from split-grade printing. Beyond split-grade dodging and burning--which I do on the majority of my prints, subtleties of contrast that might not be readily arrived at with single-grade exposures (with filters or color heads) can be easily and quickly achieved. Or maybe I just make negatives that don't readily lend themselves to single-grade printing.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I will reiterate that I consistently get better results from split-grade printing. Beyond split-grade dodging and burning--which I do on the majority of my prints, subtleties of contrast that might not be readily arrived at with single-grade exposures (with filters or color heads) can be easily and quickly achieved. Or maybe I just make negatives that don't readily lend themselves to single-grade printing.

Pieter,

I'd love to see you demonstrate just how this happens. What do you think is occurring with two exposures that would be different from a single exposure with the appropriate balance of green and blue? I can't come up with anything.

Granted, it may be easier in some instances, especially if you are practiced in split-grade printing. However, I can't conceive of getting some extra benefit over and above that. Blue and green light, in the appropriate proportions should yield the same print, whether all at once or in two separate exposures. Dodging and burning aside, of course; I'm only referring to a total overall exposure.

Is there something I'm missing here?

Doremus

 

[Milpool]

You're not missing anything. It's just a method. It might seem easier or more difficult depending on the working preferences of the individual but if there is no localized adjustment (burning/dodging) during the individual soft and hard exposures it can't in principle do anything a single intermediate contrast exposure can't. This can be demonstrated with a little time and a step wedge.

Pieter,

I'd love to see you demonstrate just how this happens. What do you think is occurring with two exposures that would be different from a single exposure with the appropriate balance of green and blue? I can't come up with anything.

Granted, it may be easier in some instances, especially if you are practiced in split-grade printing. However, I can't conceive of getting some extra benefit over and above that. Blue and green light, in the appropriate proportions should yield the same print, whether all at once or in two separate exposures. Dodging and burning aside, of course; I'm only referring to a total overall exposure.

Is there something I'm missing here?

Doremus

 

[Sirius Glass]

I will reiterate that I consistently get better results from split-grade printing. Beyond split-grade dodging and burning--which I do on the majority of my prints, subtleties of contrast that might not be readily arrived at with single-grade exposures (with filters or color heads) can be easily and quickly achieved. Or maybe I just make negatives that don't readily lend themselves to single-grade printing.

So do I and they are much better than single grade prints because the low. middle and high grads come through. They are even better will dodging and burning as needed.

 

[Pieter12]

Pieter,

I'd love to see you demonstrate just how this happens. What do you think is occurring with two exposures that would be different from a single exposure with the appropriate balance of green and blue? I can't come up with anything.

Granted, it may be easier in some instances, especially if you are practiced in split-grade printing. However, I can't conceive of getting some extra benefit over and above that. Blue and green light, in the appropriate proportions should yield the same print, whether all at once or in two separate exposures. Dodging and burning aside, of course; I'm only referring to a total overall exposure.

Is there something I'm missing here?

Doremus

What you are missing is that I can arrive at a subtle contrast grade that might be overlooked with more conventional methods.

 

[cliveh]

I think that if more people concentrated on print exposure rather than contrast control, they would produce better prints.

 

[Pieter12]

I think that if more people concentrated on print exposure rather than contrast control, they would produce better prints.

I rather think they go hand in hand.

 

[cliveh]

I rather think they go hand in hand.

But they don't.

 

[Pieter12]

But they don't.

You may be misconstruing my statement. A good print has proper exposure and proper contrast. You can make a properly exposed print at grade 5, but it won’t necessarily be a good print.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

What you are missing is that I can arrive at a subtle contrast grade that might be overlooked with more conventional methods.

I think I arrive at pretty subtle contrast grades with my dichroic head. I can adjust magenta and yellow by practically infinite increments. If I understand you correctly, you're just saying that it's clearer and easier (for you) to find the perfect overall contrast with split-grade printing, not that it can't be done otherwise.

I was kind of hoping you could show something unique that split-grade printing could do that a single (very refined) exposure could not.

I will certainly grant that split-grade printing allows intermediate contrasts between the half-grade multigrade filter increments. I can do the same with one exposure from a color head too.

Best,

Doremus

 

[cliveh]

You may be misconstruing my statement. A good print has proper exposure and proper contrast. You can make a properly exposed print at grade 5, but it won’t necessarily be a good print.

My point is that introducing exposure variation with contrast control, you are introducing a mathematical variation by a million times. Combine that with split grade printing and the variation goes into the Zillion, thus putting exposure control out the window. Do you get my drift?