• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Papers and Split Grade Printing

StigHagen

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
137
Format
Multi Format
Every now and then I find statements like this: "This paper doesn´t work well with split grade printing".

Is this true? Is there a difference between normal printing and split grade printing, will one paper be more suitable than the other for split grade?

I thought all variable papers could be used successfully with split grade, as it is only a matter of splitting the light in two portions instead of mixing those, the paper should respond the same
 
I think one of the reasons that people may say that split printing "doesn't work" is that some papers (Kentmere comes to mind) are iffy to get a response in grade 5. As I understand it, the VC papers also respond to UV which means that some enlargers, equipped with light sources (for example LED) with little or no UV output may have a hard time to get the harder 4 or 5 grades.
 
Frankly, I don't understand what "This paper doesn´t work well with split grade printing" means. It's a fairly simple concept and, excluding different paper characteristic curves, the major difference would be the contrast ranges possible with different papers. Could you quote a source claiming that paper X is unsuitable for split grade?
 

Split-grade printing is simply a sequence of two separate exposures, one at the softest and one at the hardest contrast setting. Any paper reacting to a combination of these exposures will also react to them applied in sequence.
 

Well I ´ve read some posts on the forum about the matter. E.g:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

"The Kentmere paper seems to not be able to handle the higher grades (4 &5) and still produce true Dmax, which sucks for split grade printing which I do sometimes."

But is that a bigger problem to split grade than normal printing anyway?
 
I think it's useful tool in the darkroom. But I remember reading years ago that Ansel Adams didn't like MG papers because of the grade of the paper splitting. Could some APUGer could explain. But didn't Adams use graded papers only?
 
RalphLambrecht said:
Split-grade printing is simply a sequence of two separate exposures, one at the softest and one at the hardest contrast setting. Any paper reacting to a combination of these exposures will also react to them applied in sequence.
Click to expand...

That is how I have understood it as well. I have an RH Analyzer pro 500, and find giving same results. But off coarse working with a true VC paper going from 00 to 5 will be the best in both worlds, normal or split grade prining...or am I missing something?

Is there something to do with the split grade test strip method (which I don´t use), that makes someone feel some papers are not suitable?
 

I'd say it's a problem if you really need to have a #5 contrast filter effect, something very harsh, but how often do you really need it? You don't even need to use the #00 and #5 filters in order to do split grade printing. If you used the #1 and #4 filters, then the obtainable grades would be #1 through 4, not necessarily a problem.
 
I've had problems in the past when split-grade printing with Kentmere Fineprint VC FB. The problem I had was that I couldn't get a deep black at the grade 5 setting. I have not tried the paper since Ilford took it over though. I should because other than that problem I loved that paper.
 
Here's an excellent web link on split grade printing. Andrew Sanderson's site is an excellent place for analog photo info.

http://www.thewebdarkroom.com/?p=479

I bookmarked this site.
 
There is no advantage to split grade printing if you are just doing a straight print, but I do it because of burning and dodging. It isn't a magic bullet by itself. I think where the confusion comes in is that some papers just don't have the range of others, so if you print with a grade 5 filter and the highlights are where you want them, you may not be getting the black you desire since the paper does not have enough contrast. The only VC paper I have ever used with a true range is Ilford. I read recently that Agfa suggested the use of a certain magenta filter for high contrast (outside of the range of Ilford and Kodak VC filters), but that paper is no longer made so it is a moot point, unless other papers respond this way as well.

If you really want to get a good black, go for the black and then bleach the highlights.
 

To my mind, the advantage of split grade printing is somewhat obviated if the widest possible separation of the soft and hard filters is not used, that advantage being the ability to lay down highlight and shadow exposures separately without one affecting the other. I learned to split grade print by first establishing the highlight exposure through a green filter, giving just enough light to produce detail in the highlights. Then I lay down the shadow exposure through a blue filter, to create the contrast that the picture needs. The soft exposure "pins" the highlights down, and the hard exposure "stretches out" the mid and darker tones to produce desired contrast without further darkening the highlights. And as was said earlier, it is extremely helpful to be able to affect local contrast by dodging and/or burning highlights and shadows separately through their respective filters.
 

Dan, it just lessens the possibilities, but I don't believe that a reasonably good negative needs all the contrast range to look good. If it really needed that kind of contrast range, then parts of the image would need the #00 filter (single filtration) to look good, while others the #5. FWIW, I use the #0,5 and #5 filters. I've tried #00 and #0, but sometimes it's easier for me to make good judgements when using the #0,5 and get better results.
 

I would agree that a reasonably good negative does not need all the contrast range to look good. But for me, it is helpful to begin with the widest possible range and then close the range to produce the tones that the picture needs. But that's just me.

In the immortal words of...oh wait, that was me that said that...in my very mortal words, "you don't know if you've gone far enough until you've gone too far."
 
Just as a follow up to the post I made above, I was perusing a tech sheet for Oriental VCFB and it had all the usual filtration info listed but it did mention for maximum contrast to use a 47b filter. I thought some of you might find that interesting.
 

The 47b (deep blue) and the 58 (green) filter are two of the Wratten tri-color filters and should provide the highest and lowest contrast with any paper. This deep blue filter is not the fastest option for filtration, because your light source may not have a lot of blue light to begin with, but in combination with the green filter, it works well for split-grade (or regular VC) printing.
 
Thanks Ralph, I was wondering what the low contrast one would be.
 
The problem here is trying to use Ilford filters with Kentmere paper.

Unfortunately, as Kentmere doesn't make a set of filters matched to it's paper there isn't much else one can do but use Ilford filters.

Stay away from the #5 filter when split-grade printing with Kentmere and the problems go away. The #5 filter only works with Ilford paper, and using it with Kentmere paper is only asking for trouble.

There isn't anything you are missing by not using a #5 filter. A #4 or #4 1/2 filter produces all the contrast the paper is capable of.
 


Nicholas, can you tell us what happens when you use #5 ilford filter compared to #4 or 4 1/2 with Kentmere paper?
 


Thanks, Nicholas. This is very good to know. Does anyone know how the Beseler under-the-lens filters compare? (My set is missing the #5, but it is something I probably should know)
 
OTOH - Kentmere does claim their paper works with a #5 Ilford filter. I may have been wrong in a previous post.

I just checked my paper stash and I only have Kentmere in graded.

And I checked my test result archives: curves of Kentmere Bromide paper showed grade #3 and #4 to be close to identical in contrast with grade #4 only having a 1/3 of a stop more contrast.

That's probably what got translated in my memory to Kentmere not working at high contrast grades.

A plot of the HD curve for Kentmere VC through #4 through #5 filters would settle the matter. Kentmere's published curves are too smooth to be trusted.
 
brian steinberger said:
Nicholas, can you tell us what happens when you use #5 ilford filter compared to #4 or 4 1/2 with Kentmere paper?
Click to expand...
I have found that at the 5 filter the Kentmere prints very flat. It's otherwise predictable between 0 and 4. Don't think I tried 4 1/2
 
Your light source is important in this discussion. Kentmere states in their pdf,
“Fineprint VC is designed for use with tungsten or tungsten halogen light sources. Cold light source enlargers can be used, but they may limit the contrast range achievable.”

I wrote them some years ago before the Ilford purchase. They responded that Fineprint VC may not respond to filters above #3 if you are using a cold light such as my Aristo 1212. I said that most of my negatives printed well overall in the #2 range. They felt that I could easily print the extremes within the limitations. I simply use #00 and #3. The quality of your negative just becomes a little more important if you want to split grade with Kentmere Fineprint VC and a cold light.

John Powers
 
jp80874 said:
Your light source is important in this discussion. Kentmere states in their pdf, “Fineprint VC is designed for use with tungsten or tungsten halogen light sources...
Click to expand...

Very good point.

It also depends on the tube phosphor used in the cold-light head.

The old (1960's) Aristo 'actinic' tubes had a spiky spectrum with peaks in the blues. The peaks were blue enough that low contrast grades were almost unobtainable but not blue enough that high contrast grades were reachable. If you liked a grades #3 and #4 you were all set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register