Single grade FB papers

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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.

 

[Craig]

What do you mean by that? Genuine question.

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

 

[Roger Cole]

That really doesn’t make sense. There won’t be any masking effect unless you somehow developed the first exposure before making the second.

I can easily accept that some people find that printing this way is easier for them and gives results they like. I remain extremely skeptical that it does anything at all that couldn’t be done with a single exposure with whatever intermediate filtration.

I tried it years ago and saw no difference. I may give it another shot as both my skills and equipment are better now.

 

[koraks]

@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.

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

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

I use the magenta first so I see "if I print for the shadows then the highlights haven't got enough exposure to show" more often than the "shadows would block up before the highlight tone was right".

For the doubters, it is like having sex, you actually have to do it to understand the difference. Somethings cannot be done by proxy.

 

[Craig]

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.

He used it in the course I took from him.

 

[Craig]

I tried it years ago and saw no difference. I may give it another shot as both my skills and equipment are better now.

It depends on the negative. Some negs print well with little manipulation, and others respond quite favourably to split grade. It's just another tool in the toolbox to be used when needed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@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.

Alan Ross' course covers split grade printing and masking. He presents each separately and points out that some negatives need both.

 

[Chuck_P]

I remain extremely skeptical that it does anything at all that couldn’t be done with a single exposure with whatever intermediate filtration.

It doesn't...............it affords greater, more precise control over putting highlights, midtones, and shadow densities on the paper, that's all. It can't create any contrast that single filter printing can't also create on the paper.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Amen. If you need to use split grade printing, you may as well use Photoshop.

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.

As I mentioned, though, my base exposure is almost always a single exposure at some intermediate filtration. That seems easier and faster for me than doing two test strips or a ring-around and then giving two exposures to get a straight print. Some may find it easier; I don't.

As for "losing control of the negative": It would be great to be able to meter a scene, do a few Zone System (or beyond) calculations and then expose and develop a negative that printed perfectly on grade 2 paper. That's a pipe dream, even for the most careful practitioners (I think there was a thread here some time ago about the myth of precision with the Zone System and other exposure/development schemes). The whole reason there was a range of papers from grade 1 through grade 5 in the good old days is because there was a definite need for them then (not to mention hard and soft working print developers), just as there's a need for VC papers today. Plus, I often choose to make a less-contrasty negative that will then get printed at a hard paper contrast or vice-versa for practical reasons.

The one thing I really liked about graded papers over VC was that the harder grades also had steeper shoulders and toes then the softer grades. VC papers' contrast changes are largely in the mid-tones; sometimes it's difficult to get separation in the highlights at a higher contrast setting than a correspondingly higher-contrast graded paper would have yielded. If anything, I need to be more careful with developing my negatives to proper highlight separation when working with VC papers than before with graded papers.

Best,

Doremus

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[snusmumriken]

But it does not work well for split grade printing nor having your own children.

Good points, well made.

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't know... Split-grade printing really expands the possibilities for dodging and burning.

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.

 

[Alan9940]

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

A better example would be the same negative printed by both techniques. The more challenging the negative, the better the test.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

"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." Yes

"To my mind it just complicates some dodging or burning operations which might even have to be done twice." No, first I the high grade contrast, then I do the low grade. If at that point I do the dodging and burning on the high grade first, the would on the low grade dodging and burning, which is how I would have done it when I only did single grade printing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Exactly as expected because grades 4 and 5 take more exposure. So nothing new here folks, keep on moving along.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

I would get something at times like NedL, almost never like howardpan unless that was what I really wanted.

 

[MattKing]

Can you show me an example of a split grade print that is an improvement on one without?

Two prints - one employing split grade techniques and the other employing multiple exposures through a bunch of different filters - may end up appearing very similar, but I consider that the split grade result is an improvement if the process of getting to the final result is simpler to conceive of, more direct and easier to implement.
Dealing with the three (yes there are usually three) different contrast contributing emulsion components separately, frequently makes it easier and simpler to get the results one is looking for.

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.

Split grade printing means more than just doing that.
It means splitting exposures so that each different part of the image is exposed in a way designed to achieve a contrast that is suitable for that part. One achieves that with split grade by using different amounts of each colour of light, in order to build up the contrast to the desired level. So planning it out is usually something like the following (all quantities of exposure arbitrary, and used as an example only):
1) all parts receive one unit of exposure from the low contrast filter; plus
2) certain parts receive an additional two units of exposure from the low contrast filter; plus
3) certain parts receive one units of exposure from the high contrast filter;
4) certain parts receive two units of exposure from the high contrast filter; and
5) certain parts receive four units of exposure from the high contrast filter.
The preceding gives you five different contrasts with just one switch of filtration. And because there is at least one exposure that is of the entire print, the burns and dodges that create the demarcations between the different areas of contrast tend to blend more easily than if one is trying to print the different areas in contrasts with discrete exposures through different filters or different filter settings.
In addition to achieving different contrasts in this way, it is a relatively simple matter to increase or decrease exposure in certain amounts - just add units in the required ratio.

 

[Alan9940]

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.

 

[Maris]

I started on graded paper but now I exclusively use variable contrast paper for an important reason not mentioned here. It practically abolishes the Zone System technique of expanded and contracted development of negatives.
Starting with a fully exposed negative of middling contrast if I go up a paper grade that's equivalent to N+1 development, down a grade gives me the same effect as N-1 development, and the original target grade is like N development. That's three different printing choices all off one normal negative all on one type of paper.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I use magenta and yellow and I have had a problem with this method.

 

[Craig]

I couldn't find the prints I had made a number of years ago, so I reprinted the negative this afternoon. It's a 3½" X 5½" negative, taken in July, 1948. Because of the size, there is a bit of cropping in my 4x5 enlarger. I made the prints about 9x6"

First, I made a unfiltered print on Ilford Multigrade IV. According to the leaflet with the paper, unfiltered tungsten exposure is equal to grade 2. Next I made a split graded print. I use an Omega colour head, so I used the yellow and magenta filtration in the head. I use a RH Designs stopclock timer, calibrated for Multigrade IV. Once I determined my soft and hard time it tells me the equivalent contrast grade, which in this case was grade 1.6

I matched the tones on the cab side and firebox, when I laid the split grade test strip on the unfiltered print the tone and density were identical. Then I scanned the prints with an Epsom V750 flatbed scanner. The images on screen don't capture all the differences visible on the prints when they are side by side, so you'll just have to trust my descriptions!

Once thing that is immediately obvious is the unfiltered print has lower contrast than the split grade. The sky is darker and there is less separation in the grasses. The blacks in the shadow areas under the locomotive have equal apparent density. When viewed side by side, the unfiltered print appears muddier, although in theory it should be the higher contrast print. I have not tried another print to attempt to match overall contrast.

Some observations are that the split grade print has better tone separation, the driving rods have more definition between edge and centre, the highlight on the driver flange is more visible. The lettering on the builders plate seems crisper and more visible. Also noticeable is the grasses have more separation and more definition between the grass and taller weeds.

The scans here are really a poor approximation of the actual prints. I'd encourage anyone wanting to do a comparison to make their own prints and compare them, rather than relying on these scans.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thanks Craig!

The second print is unfiltered, right?