Generally the skies will show any clouds more prominently and may slightly darken the sky. Can't do that with a single grade print without dodging and burning with masks.
I’m up for a challenge, if someone will post a good example of a print that looks better because it was printed with split grade technique, I will look for an example of the best that I can do without.
I’ll look through my collection of negatives for a similar subject where I did my best but sensed that a split-grade treatment could have helped. Best chance of a match would be if the sky is ordinary (blue skies follow me everywhere) and the scene is nature, rock, river, trees, mountains.
I find that split grade works particularly well with a contrasty negative. If I was to print unfiltered as a straight exposure, the shadows would block up before the highlight tone was right, or if I print for the shadows then the highlights haven't got enough exposure to show. Burning in would be necessary to get the highlights right, and that's not always easy to do, or necessarily repeatable exactly if multiple prints are required.What do you mean by that? Genuine question.
He talks about the effect a bit in this short article. He expands on it in his book. https://www.lesmcleanphotography.com/articles.php?page=full&article=21
I find that split grade works particularly well with a contrasty negative. If I was to print unfiltered as a straight exposure, the shadows would block up before the highlight tone was right, or if I print for the shadows then the highlights haven't got enough exposure to show. Burning in would be necessary to get the highlights right, and that's not always easy to do, or necessarily repeatable exactly if multiple prints are required.
With split grade, I print the soft exposure first, to get tone in the highlights. I find that soft exposure does nothing to the shadows, and then when I make the hard exposure to bring up the shadows, it has almost zero effect on the highlights already exposed. So the highlight exposure in effect masks off the shadow, and the shadow masks off the highlight, and greatly reduces the need for dodging and burning. It's somewhat analogous to contrast masks that were used for printing cibachrome as ways of locally controlling exposure in certain areas of the print. So that's why it's called self masking, as a separate contrast mask isn't required.
BTW, self masking wasn't my term, that was from a course I took from Les McLean on split grade printing. He used to be active here years ago, but I haven't seen him post in a long time.
He talks about the effect a bit in this short article. He expands on it in his book. https://www.lesmcleanphotography.com/articles.php?page=full&article=21
He used it in the course I took from him.That page was my first introduction to split grade printing. McLean doesn't mention 'masking' there though, does he? If he uses the term you're proposing he does, he has a different definition/understanding about it than how the term is generally used in e.g. alt. printing circles.
I tried it years ago and saw no difference. I may give it another shot as both my skills and equipment are better now.
@Craig, I suspect what you're describing boils down that it's easier (for you) to arrive at the 'correct' grade through split grade printing than via single grade exposures. This makes perfect sense to me and I'd say it's an advantage of split grade printing - it's a quite predictable approach in terms of the test strips needed to arrive at a decent work print. Being critical, I would not associate this with 'masking' though. There's no actual masking going on in the print medium.
That page was my first introduction to split grade printing. McLean doesn't mention 'masking' there though, does he? If he uses the term you're proposing he does, he has a different definition/understanding about it than how the term is generally used in e.g. alt. printing circles.
I remain extremely skeptical that it does anything at all that couldn’t be done with a single exposure with whatever intermediate filtration.
I don't know... Split-grade printing really expands the possibilities for dodging and burning. Burning with the highest or lowest contrast setting is much different than burning a fixed-grade paper. Ditto for dodging, though I try to do less of that than burning. I made a print recently from a quite contrasty negative on both graded and VC papers (Galerie and MG Classic). The graded-paper print came out really well, but was a bear to print. I managed a slightly better print on VC paper with a lot less hassle dodging and burning with split-grade techniques.Amen. If you need to use split grade printing, you may as well use Photoshop.
For the doubters, it is like having sex, you actually have to do it to understand the difference. Somethings cannot be done by proxy.
I feel compelled to point out that there is a huge global industry offering sex by proxy.
But it does not work well for split grade printing nor having your own children.
I don't know... Split-grade printing really expands the possibilities for dodging and burning.
A better example would be the same negative printed by both techniques. The more challenging the negative, the better the test.
My understanding of the term is that "split grade printing" has nothing to do with dodging and burning. No one that I'm aware of denies the usefulness of burning with a different filter, or even dodging (I've used filter material to make dodging wands.) What I take "split grade printing" to mean, and how I THINK most advocates are using the term here, is that the basic exposure is made in two exposures, one through the highest contrast grade filtration and one through the lowest, with the ratio determining the final contrast. To my mind it just complicates some dodging or burning operations which might even have to be done twice.
This sure is a great conversation!
I might add that Steve Sherman uses "split-grade printing" whereby he applies more blue light than yellow. That is, his blue light exposure time is always longer than the yellow light time which he says increases micro contrast. He certainly has shown examples of this very idea in several different videos. He does design his negatives specifically for his style of printing so it probably wouldn't work, as intended, with "normal" negatives.
I once participated in a “print from the same negative” function here.
My negatives on 120 TMY2 batch 0149 came out with “Kodak” imprints.
Then I jointed the 4x5 team and received a 4x5 negative with beautiful sky and magnificent scenery. I think I made a print that didn’t do my ego any good. I am pretty sure I didn’t fulfill my obligation.
Here’s a similar member organized function and the different looks. My prints normally look like NedL’s here.
I imagine howardpan used split grade techniques.
View attachment 330692
Can you show me an example of a split grade print that is an improvement on one without?
My understanding of the term is that "split grade printing" has nothing to do with dodging and burning. No one that I'm aware of denies the usefulness of burning with a different filter, or even dodging (I've used filter material to make dodging wands.) What I take "split grade printing" to mean, and how I THINK most advocates are using the term here, is that the basic exposure is made in two exposures, one through the highest contrast grade filtration and one through the lowest, with the ratio determining the final contrast. To my mind it just complicates some dodging or burning operations which might even have to be done twice.
Exactly as expected because grades 4 and 5 take more exposure. So nothing new here folks, keep on moving along.
I don't think that's the point. More blue light exposure will deepen the lower tonal values, thereby increasing the appearance of more texture in image areas with a mix of high and low tonal values. Personally, I've used selective painting on of potassium ferricyanide bleach to do the same thing to my eye, anyway.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?