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

GregY said:

Chuck, according to my understanding, that is not split grade printing. According to the instructions for the Zone VI head, if you have both green & blue lights on..... that's approximately Grade 2.
Here's the quote:

"There is also a subtractive method that may have appeal because only one knob is used. Start off by setting both lights to maximum and you will get about a grade 2. By cutting back on the soft, you will get a grade 3. (By turning off the soft, you will get a grade 4 . By cutting back on the hard, you will get a grade .1 (By turning off the hard, you will get grade 0)"

Click to expand...

The initial print is made with both colors on to establish a nominal Grade 2 baseline. Thereafter, I invoke split VC printing to I can expose, dodge, and burn independently for soft- and hard light. So, yes, I am split VC printing. The initial exposure saves a lot of wasted time doing test strips.

I have found there isn't a "one size fits all" method of printing. I have a number of negatives from the 1930's to 1950's and split grade definitely yields superior results compared to a single exposure through a contrast filter (or no filter as the case may be).

For negatives on modern films I find it makes much less difference which method is used to achieve a pleasing print.

Moderator's comment: Please keep discussion civil.

Augustus Caesar said:

I remember trying to make a print on Agfa Brovira with a negative that printed beautifully on DuPont Velour Black #3, which had been discontinued. Could not do it. Highlights would not print right. Too light. I tried several grades. No luck. Finally found that Ilfobrom #3 was as good as the DuPont. But it too is now gone.

Click to expand...

Well you are describing a situation where one wants the overall contrast of a grade 3 but the highlights go too bright. Today with split printing you could start with lets say a grade 1.5 contrast filter, get your highlights printing correctly and then with Grade 5 allow the contrast to come up to your overall contrast you wanted.
or
You could start at grade 4 and bring in strong low to mid tones and then with a 0 filter expose for the highlights. you have established a way to get to the same point with two filters.

Of course in both scenarios one could dodge the areas printing too dark and as well use your burning skills to fill in blanks.


When I have an extreme negative (street photographer) bright side light in a big city I used the following methods to bring in a building what was not apparent in her book which was done by another printer.
Step one- establish a flash for the whole paper which basically excites the paper emulsion but is not fogging , ( close but not showing tone)
Step two - pick a low filter that represents the midtones to upper highlights and bring in the scene. During this step I will be burning in the very burned out or clipped out region of the print with additional hits of 00 filter.
Step three- pick a grade 5 filter and bring in the black , shadow - mid to your desired densities- at this stage us the burn tool to bring out the highlight regions, ie any area of the building which is gray will start showing
itself as detail- During this grade 5 exposure you will need to be a master of the dodging tool so that the overall gradient looks natural.

Now I know for sure that when this print was made the curator asked me if I printed the correct negative as there was more detail in my print than the book print.

If this is not split filter printing and is not an obvious example of how a single grade filter could not make the print then I will back off this conversation. ( Split filter printing is never easy when carving out an image, you need
a solid plan and once you have learned how to execute that plan you are off to the races.

Sudek never needed to split print , Lillian Bassman had her approach and I believe she created her masterpieces with red coccine and graded paper. Karsh dye retouched all his film but used graded paper.

I love all approaches and all the old papers but unfortunately those days have left us, luckily we have Ilford fibre papers. I have now SPLIT my time between silver and gum over palladiums. (now this is probably the most creative processes I have ever tried and I love it.

Carnie Bob wrote: "If this is not split filter printing and is not an obvious example of how a single grade filter could not make the print then I will back off this conversation."

As the person who started this thread I'd just like to say this. The reason for this thread was to investigate the claims of people, mainly on YouTube, that using the hard/soft filter routine on the whole print resulted in a print whose tonal qualities could not be achieved by using a single filter. Right from the start I stated that I was not talking about prints that are burned and dodged with different filters.

I spent a whole day in the darkroom trying several methods using the hard/soft filter routine, in all cases, there was no burning or dodging. They were all "straight" prints. The results I got from the hard/soft filter printing were always able to be replicated by dialing in various amounts of Yellow and Magenta on my colour head. The results were also able to be replicated by using a single Ilford filter except that I could not get in between grades where a print was a little too contrasty with grade 2 1/2 but not contrasty enough with the grade 2 filter.

So here is my final conclusion: Some printers find it easier to arrive at the desired contrast using the hard/soft routine, others get there by testing and selecting the appropriate filter or appropriate proportion of Yellow and Magenta on a enlarger with a colour head. Personally, I found that the hard/soft routine took longer and used more paper in test strips than the method I use although with practice, I would expect that I would arrive at my ideal contrast and exposure using the hard/soft routine quicker than I did in my tests.

If you are using the Ilford filters, you might get a neg where G2 is too soft and G 2 1/2 is too contrasty, the hard/soft routine (or using a colour head) will get you in between the Ilford filters.

Burning and dodging with high and low contrast filters is a very valid contrast control tool but that is not what I was investigating. I wanted to prove or disprove the assertion that the hard/soft routine on a straight print resulted in a print that could not be obtained with a single exposure with either a single filter or with various amounts of Yellow/Magenta on a colour head.

I'm an atheist but if anyone can prove the existence of an omnipotent being, I'm all in, likewise, if anyone can show me how the hard/soft routine can give me prints that are unobtainable with a single exposure combining Yellow and Magenta, I'm there!

markbau said:

Carnie Bob wrote: "If this is not split filter printing and is not an obvious example of how a single grade filter could not make the print then I will back off this conversation."

As the person who started this thread I'd just like to say this. The reason for this thread was to investigate the claims of people, mainly on YouTube, that using the hard/soft filter routine on the whole print resulted in a print whose tonal qualities could not be achieved by using a single filter. Right from the start I stated that I was not talking about prints that are burned and dodged with different filters.

I spent a whole day in the darkroom trying several methods using the hard/soft filter routine, in all cases, there was no burning or dodging. They were all "straight" prints. The results I got from the hard/soft filter printing were always able to be replicated by dialing in various amounts of Yellow and Magenta on my colour head. The results were also able to be replicated by using a single Ilford filter except that I could not get in between grades where a print was a little too contrasty with grade 2 1/2 but not contrasty enough with the grade 2 filter.

So here is my final conclusion: Some printers find it easier to arrive at the desired contrast using the hard/soft routine, others get there by testing and selecting the appropriate filter or appropriate proportion of Yellow and Magenta on a enlarger with a colour head. Personally, I found that the hard/soft routine took longer and used more paper in test strips than the method I use although with practice, I would expect that I would arrive at my ideal contrast and exposure using the hard/soft routine quicker than I did in my tests.

If you are using the Ilford filters, you might get a neg where G2 is too soft and G 2 1/2 is too contrasty, the hard/soft routine (or using a colour head) will get you in between the Ilford filters.

Burning and dodging with high and low contrast filters is a very valid contrast control tool but that is not what I was investigating. I wanted to prove or disprove the assertion that the hard/soft routine on a straight print resulted in a print that could not be obtained with a single exposure with either a single filter or with various amounts of Yellow/Magenta on a colour head.

I'm an atheist but if anyone can prove the existence of an omnipotent being, I'm all in, likewise, if anyone can show me how the hard/soft routine can give me prints that are unobtainable with a single exposure combining Yellow and Magenta, I'm there!

Click to expand...

Thank you Mark. There is a dog....or shall we say a dingo!

markbau said:

Carnie Bob wrote: "If this is not split filter printing and is not an obvious example of how a single grade filter could not make the print then I will back off this conversation."

As the person who started this thread I'd just like to say this. The reason for this thread was to investigate the claims of people, mainly on YouTube, that using the hard/soft filter routine on the whole print resulted in a print whose tonal qualities could not be achieved by using a single filter. Right from the start I stated that I was not talking about prints that are burned and dodged with different filters.

I spent a whole day in the darkroom trying several methods using the hard/soft filter routine, in all cases, there was no burning or dodging. They were all "straight" prints. The results I got from the hard/soft filter printing were always able to be replicated by dialing in various amounts of Yellow and Magenta on my colour head. The results were also able to be replicated by using a single Ilford filter except that I could not get in between grades where a print was a little too contrasty with grade 2 1/2 but not contrasty enough with the grade 2 filter.

So here is my final conclusion: Some printers find it easier to arrive at the desired contrast using the hard/soft routine, others get there by testing and selecting the appropriate filter or appropriate proportion of Yellow and Magenta on a enlarger with a colour head. Personally, I found that the hard/soft routine took longer and used more paper in test strips than the method I use although with practice, I would expect that I would arrive at my ideal contrast and exposure using the hard/soft routine quicker than I did in my tests.

If you are using the Ilford filters, you might get a neg where G2 is too soft and G 2 1/2 is too contrasty, the hard/soft routine (or using a colour head) will get you in between the Ilford filters.

Burning and dodging with high and low contrast filters is a very valid contrast control tool but that is not what I was investigating. I wanted to prove or disprove the assertion that the hard/soft routine on a straight print resulted in a print that could not be obtained with a single exposure with either a single filter or with various amounts of Yellow/Magenta on a colour head.

I'm an atheist but if anyone can prove the existence of an omnipotent being, I'm all in, likewise, if anyone can show me how the hard/soft routine can give me prints that are unobtainable with a single exposure combining Yellow and Magenta, I'm there!

Click to expand...

I think that if all you're doing is trying to get to a single contrast across the entire print, you absolutely can achieve this both ways - that is by varying the ratio of soft- to hard light time and exposing each independently OR by dialing in an intermediate contrast and doing one exposure.

What drove me toward split VC printing is that I rarely get a print where I don't want to manipulate the local contrast in one or more areas of the print and that pretty much mandates dodging/burning with different filtrations. It's just easier and more repeatable (for me, it's not a law of the universe) to do this by individually exposing full on soft- and then hard light and varying the ratio of time between them to get the look I want. In no case do I ever concern myself what "grade" I am printing. I think in terms of highlight and shadow management with the colors respectively.

This is a thought experiment - nothing more.
Does printing in a particular order - e.g. low filter-number, high filter-number, mid filter-number - potentially give slightly different results than if the order is changed, due to the possibility of below thresh-hold exposure with one filter resulting in more image density from a subsequent exposure with a different filter?
In that case, the difference between split grade and single exposure printing would actually arise as a result of breaking up the exposure into more than one.

Even if the order made a difference, which it would not, any difference would just amount to using a slightly different contrast setting for a single exposure. The shape of the paper characteristic curve is not determined by the order in which it is exposed by different wavelengths of light. They can be present in a single exposure or a number of separate exposures.

Assuming no localized adjustments, using a combination of max/min contrast exposures is the same as using a single exposure at an intermediate contrast. These are nothing more than different methods.

MattKing said:

This is a thought experiment - nothing more.
Does printing in a particular order - e.g. low filter-number, high filter-number, mid filter-number - potentially give slightly different results than if the order is changed, due to the possibility of below thresh-hold exposure with one filter resulting in more image density from a subsequent exposure with a different filter?
In that case, the difference between split grade and single exposure printing would actually arise as a result of breaking up the exposure into more than one.

Click to expand...

I think it would be very likely to make a small difference, because of the threshold effect. Measurable probably, noticeable, probably not, just a guess.

MattKing said:

This is a thought experiment - nothing more.
Does printing in a particular order - e.g. low filter-number, high filter-number, mid filter-number - potentially give slightly different results than if the order is changed, due to the possibility of below thresh-hold exposure with one filter resulting in more image density from a subsequent exposure with a different filter?
In that case, the difference between split grade and single exposure printing would actually arise as a result of breaking up the exposure into more than one.

Click to expand...

Doesn't the fact that post-flashing works the same as pre-flashing (well I really just know this as internet lore, but it seems accepted) tell us that the paper doesn't care what was first? I think it's the cumulative exposure that must get past the threshold, not any specific one of several consecutive exposures.

grain elevator said:

Doesn't the fact that post-flashing works the same as pre-flashing (well I really just know this as internet lore, but it seems accepted) tell us that the paper doesn't care what was first? I think it's the cumulative exposure that must get past the threshold, not any specific one of several consecutive exposures.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the equivalency when one considers that the three emulsion components respond differently to the different spectra of the exposing (filtered) light.

Les McLean always asserted that the order of the exposure of the hard and soft did have a noticeable effect on the final outcome. I have not tested it myself.

People see what they want to see, what they are told to see etc., which is why objectivity is important if one is interested in knowing what is really going on - which of course is not a requirement or prerequisite for the making of beautiful prints.

Craig said:

Les McLean always asserted that the order of the exposure of the hard and soft did have a noticeable effect on the final outcome. I have not tested it myself.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I've always taken that as being an observation about the ease of evaluating the tests when employing the technique - for some images it is easier to start with higher contrast, while for most it is easier to start with the lower contrast.
A good example of the former is a high key image.

markbau said:

Carnie Bob wrote: "If this is not split filter printing and is not an obvious example of how a single grade filter could not make the print then I will back off this conversation."

As the person who started this thread I'd just like to say this. The reason for this thread was to investigate the claims of people, mainly on YouTube, that using the hard/soft filter routine on the whole print resulted in a print whose tonal qualities could not be achieved by using a single filter. Right from the start I stated that I was not talking about prints that are burned and dodged with different filters.

I spent a whole day in the darkroom trying several methods using the hard/soft filter routine, in all cases, there was no burning or dodging. They were all "straight" prints. The results I got from the hard/soft filter printing were always able to be replicated by dialing in various amounts of Yellow and Magenta on my colour head. The results were also able to be replicated by using a single Ilford filter except that I could not get in between grades where a print was a little too contrasty with grade 2 1/2 but not contrasty enough with the grade 2 filter.

So here is my final conclusion: Some printers find it easier to arrive at the desired contrast using the hard/soft routine, others get there by testing and selecting the appropriate filter or appropriate proportion of Yellow and Magenta on a enlarger with a colour head. Personally, I found that the hard/soft routine took longer and used more paper in test strips than the method I use although with practice, I would expect that I would arrive at my ideal contrast and exposure using the hard/soft routine quicker than I did in my tests.

If you are using the Ilford filters, you might get a neg where G2 is too soft and G 2 1/2 is too contrasty, the hard/soft routine (or using a colour head) will get you in between the Ilford filters.

Burning and dodging with high and low contrast filters is a very valid contrast control tool but that is not what I was investigating. I wanted to prove or disprove the assertion that the hard/soft routine on a straight print resulted in a print that could not be obtained with a single exposure with either a single filter or with various amounts of Yellow/Magenta on a colour head.

I'm an atheist but if anyone can prove the existence of an omnipotent being, I'm all in, likewise, if anyone can show me how the hard/soft routine can give me prints that are unobtainable with a single exposure combining Yellow and Magenta, I'm there!

Click to expand...

Yes, it makes no difference because the exposure is cumulative.

Carnie Bob said:

Well you are describing a situation where one wants the overall contrast of a grade 3 but the highlights go too bright. Today with split printing you could start with lets say a grade 1.5 contrast filter, get your highlights printing correctly and then with Grade 5 allow the contrast to come up to your overall contrast you wanted.

Click to expand...

It's not that simple. The curves shape of Brovira made it impossible to print the negatives properly. It was the "odd man out". The VC paper I had been using was DuPont Varilour, but it had been discontinued too. This was about 1979(?)

MattKing said:

This is a thought experiment - nothing more.
Does printing in a particular order - e.g. low filter-number, high filter-number, mid filter-number - potentially give slightly different results than if the order is changed, due to the possibility of below thresh-hold exposure with one filter resulting in more image density from a subsequent exposure with a different filter?
In that case, the difference between split grade and single exposure printing would actually arise as a result of breaking up the exposure into more than one.

Click to expand...

No. It makes no difference whatsoever.

Augustus Caesar said:

No. It makes no difference whatsoever.

Click to expand...

So, preflashing a sheet of paper will affect the outcome, but exposing first with warm light makes no difference?

The order of exposures has been shown not to matter from a tone reproduction perspective. The same goes for flashing (ie non-image exposure). Flashing reduces contrast and changes the shape of the curve to some degree, but it does the same thing whether it is combined with “split-grade” base exposures or a single intermediate contrast base exposure.

I think if one wants to think through this topic clearly it might help to think in terms of wavelengths of light (and how the emulsion “sees”) as opposed to colours, hard/soft etc.

chuckroast said:

So, preflashing a sheet of paper will affect the outcome, but exposing first with warm light makes no difference?

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that pre-flashing gets the emulsion to the point where it approaches reacting to light, so any additional exposure starts forming an image immediately. It would seem that that would not work the same post-exposure. But what the hell do I know anyway.

The intriguing part of my musing is whether the change in the colour of the exposing light between exposures, and the differing responses of the emulsion components to that change, do make the order difference important.

Pieter12 said:

I was under the impression that pre-flashing gets the emulsion to the point where it approaches reacting to light, so any additional exposure starts forming an image immediately. It would seem that that would not work the same post-exposure. But what the hell do I know anyway.

Click to expand...

Exposure is exposure, and is cumulative. Pre/post flashing does the same thing to a split-grade base exposure as it does to a single intermediate contrast base exposure.

Said another way, for any split-contrast base exposure there is some single intermediate contrast base exposure.

The difference is one of methodology, and whichever approach one finds the most useful, efficient, intuitive etc. is the one to go with. There are reasons people might prefer one or the other.

Milpool said:

Exposure is exposure, and is cumulative. Pre/post flashing does exactly the same thing to a split-grade base exposure as it does to a single intermediate contrast base exposure.

Said another way, for any split-contrast base exposure there is some single intermediate contrast base exposure.

The difference is one of methodology, and whichever approach one finds the most useful, efficient, intuitive etc. is the one to go with.

Click to expand...

I split-grade print everything. I also preflash when needed. I keep coming back to the fact that I don't have to guess or make tests to determine the contrast grade. It is also handy to just work with 2 filters in the dark, not fumbling around trying to read numbers under the safelight. Plus, in making the 2 test strips to determine exposure(s), I can get a pretty good read on how much to burn or dodge with the individual filters for the results I want in the final print. I'm sure many, many fine darkroom workers can make excellent prints with a single-grade exposure, it's just not how I am comfortable. And even seasoned, professional pointers I know will use split-grade printing for certain negatives even if they usually print single-grade.

No argument from me on the utility of the min/max split grade approach. It's every bit as good as anything else so it makes perfect sense to me you are able to get quality results with it.

I'm not sure one approach is more/less efficient than the other. I think that also has to do with how one is used to working or what makes more intuitive sense. In principle, split-grade requires test strips/prints like non split-grade. True, you are not making an initial educated guess at a contrast setting, but you effectively really are - just that you're testing for times with each of the soft/hard exposures.

A typical approach for starting with a single base exposure is to choose a contrast, make a test print to get the highlights, see where the shadows fall, and adjust contrast to get the shadows right. Of course that's only a starting point as midtones are critical, so it then becomes a matter of refining, fine tuning etc.

A typical split grade approach is to find an exposure at min contrast that gets the highlights, and then determine an additional exposure time at max contrast to get the shadows. From there you're at the same stage as the single-grade printer where the all important midtones need to be judged/adjusted, refinements made to either the soft or hard exposures etc.

Which is more efficient? I think it's up to the individual to decide and I don't think there's necessarily a right/wrong answer.

Pieter12 said:

I split-grade print everything. I also preflash when needed. I keep coming back to the fact that I don't have to guess or make tests to determine the contrast grade. It is also handy to just work with 2 filters in the dark, not fumbling around trying to read numbers under the safelight. Plus, in making the 2 test strips to determine exposure(s), I can get a pretty good read on how much to burn or dodge with the individual filters for the results I want in the final print. I'm sure many, many fine darkroom workers can make excellent prints with a single-grade exposure, it's just not how I am comfortable. And even seasoned, professional pointers I know will use split-grade printing for certain negatives even if they usually print single-grade.

Click to expand...