Split contrast printing

[Saganich]

True enough. I found that as I printed more it was just natural to wind-up with a workflow as described by JimJim once the advantages are apparent (as from a comparison). I agree just splitting between two grades has less advantage, but is a good place to start when learning the technique.

 

[David Brown]

The late, great David Vestal used to be a stickler for terminology, ...

There are two scenarios. One is where the entire print is exposed to a very hard and a very soft filter, no burning or dodging. Vestal, Howard Bond and others have tested and concluded that there is no difference between a print made this way and a print made by a single filter.

The second scenario is where one filter is used for the main exposure and then a different filter is used for the sky or foreground. This has obvious benefits and produces results not able to be obtained with a single filter. So, in the interests of clarity, I would like to see different words used to describe the two scenarios.

How about split grade for the first, and multi grade for the second?

I was taught “split grade” by one of the best: Les McLean. Even then, I thought it was an interesting technique that would be useful IF I could not determine the correct single contrast for a negative. At the same workshop, Les also demonstrated the (then) fairly new RHDesigns Stopclock timer. I did not need a new (and expensive) timer at the time, but shortly thereafter, my enlarger timer died. So, I splurged and bought a Stopclock. (Really glad I did, because of “F-stop” timing, but that’s another story …)

One of the first things I discovered, was that after doing the two separate test strips for the hard and soft split times, and programing them into the Stopclock, the timer could then tell you the single grade that was the equivalent! It took very little research, and only a few prints of my own, to discover what Mark, Vestal, Bond, et al, are saying.

“Multi grade” technique obviously has its uses. Split grade, i.e., simply separating the hard and soft exposures, has uses, as well, but DOES NOT magically yield better prints in and of itself.

I’ve also seen a number of videos and webpages “teaching” split grade, where this is taken to an odd extreme. One makes a test strip at grade 2 or 2.5. Then takes that time and halves it between 0 and 5! This is extra work and makes no sense at all. (IMHO)

 

[Paul Howell]

I know that some folks get great results from split printing, in my case as my negatives are scaled for grade 2 paper I have not seen much if any at all improvement using split grade. Seems to be extra work to find the right exposure for each filter. I have used a technique taught by Ansal Adams and Lester Bogen to use a grade 0 or 1 to burn in a sky, tape a filter over a large cut in a sheet of cardboard. Expose at the higher filter then take the filter out and burn in with the lower grade filter. Maybe I don't have the right approach, as grade 2 paper is very scare these days, most makers offering just grade 3 and 4 I will be printing on VC, will keep an open mind.

 

[bernard_L]

The late, great David Vestal <snip>
A non-nonsense person who backed up his statements with systematic tests; a state of mind that is becoming rare...
So, in the interests of clarity, I would like to see different words used to describe the two scenarios. <snip>
Different things, different words; that's the point of language.
I've seen a lot of posts over the years that suggest that unless you are using scenario one you are producing second rate prints. The whole thing reminds me of the endless drivel that people used to write about the alleged magical benefits of cold light enlargers many years ago.

+1 !!
see my post #10.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The late, great David Vestal used to be a stickler for terminology, for example, he hated the term "overdeveloped" if all you were doing was developing for longer than the manufacturer recommended. So it is with "split grade printing" There are two scenarios. One is where the entire print is exposed to a very hard and a very soft filter, no burning or dodging. Vestal, Howard Bond and others have tested and concluded that there is no difference between a print made this way and a print made by a single filter. I agree with this. The second scenario is where one filter is used for the main exposure and then a different filter is used for the sky or foreground. This has obvious benefits and produces results not able to be obtained with a single filter. So, in the interests of clarity, I would like to see different words used to describe the two scenarios. I've seen a lot of posts over the years that suggest that unless you are using scenario one you are producing second rate prints. The whole thing reminds me of the endless drivel that people used to write about the alleged magical benefits of cold light enlargers many years ago.

I use the second method.

 

[logan2z]

I’ve also seen a number of videos and webpages “teaching” split grade, where this is taken to an odd extreme. One makes a test strip at grade 2 or 2.5. Then takes that time and halves it between 0 and 5! This is extra work and makes no sense at all. (IMHO)

This is exactly the technique advocated by 'Darkroom Dave' (Dave Butcher), an Ilford Master Printer.

http://www.darkroomdave.com/tutorial/split-grade-printing/

 

[logan2z]

I use the second method.

So do I. I think that is the more common approach, although the first approach does seem to have its advocates.

I suppose pre-flashing could be considered yet another 'split grade' approach?

 

[CMoore]

I split print every single negative , and have been doing so for over 25 years.. I cannot imagine single filter printing anymore.

If i may......... do you use a 0 and a 5 filter, or a less "extreme" than that.?
Do you start with the same filter (0 or 5) every time.?
Thank You

 

[markbau]

So do I. I think that is the more common approach, although the first approach does seem to have its advocates.

I suppose pre-flashing could be considered yet another 'split grade' approach?

I agree with Ansel Adams that flashing is a last resort technique. (The Print page:123). It is interesting that in Vestal's "art of black & white enlarging" book, he makes no mention of flashing prints. I know some people swear by the technique but it is not one that I would ever use.

 

[markbau]

This is exactly the technique advocated by 'Darkroom Dave' (Dave Butcher), an Ilford Master Printer.

http://www.darkroomdave.com/tutorial/split-grade-printing/

It seems to me that the selling point of this technique is that you can get in between say grade 2 and grade 2 1/2. I've yet to meet a negative that looks too soft at grade 2 but too contrasty at grade 2 1/2.

 

[warden]

It seems to me that the selling point of this technique is that you can get in between say grade 2 and grade 2 1/2. I've yet to meet a negative that looks too soft at grade 2 but too contrasty at grade 2 1/2.

The benefit isn't that you've landed magically between grade 2 and grade 2.5 and have gained something. The benefits (to me) are firstly that it no longer matters what the contrast grade numbers are because you're thinking about the process differently and the contrast will take care of itself, and secondly and more importantly that you can adjust the image (dodge and burn) on either the high or low contrast exposure without impacting the other exposure.

 

[Frank53]

The benefit isn't that you've landed magically between grade 2 and grade 2.5 and have gained something. The benefits (to me) are firstly that it no longer matters what the contrast grade numbers are because you're thinking about the process differently and the contrast will take care of itself, and secondly and more importantly that you can adjust the image (dodge and burn) on either the high or low contrast exposure without impacting the other exposure.

+1

 

[DREW WILEY]

Split printing is not an all-or-nothing concept. You can use it partially or sequentially to other forms of filtration, or just to select areas of a print needing and up or down tweak in contrast. Just another tool in the toolbox, but a valuable one.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I've been split printing for so long I don't even remember if I ever did it any other way. I have two filters for my Leica Focomat, blue and green and on my Saunders VCCE 4550 I only ever use the ends.

I also flash quite often.

I guess I am doing it all wrong...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Having hard blue and green filters on hand would seem to alleviate the need for flashing entirely. I never do it.

 

[Frank53]

Having hard blue and green filters on hand would seem to alleviate the need for flashing entirely. I never do it.

Not everybody seems to thinks so:
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...LxWxy_Is/RK=2/RS=.lqhQ4DLGFoQ9KcG0I.PH7eOfLs-

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thank you for the link, Frank. I've seen that before, and Tim R. is certainly a competent printer. But that video doesn't even address my own comment. I specifically stated hard blue (i.e., 47 or 47B) vs hard green (58 or 61). Using yellow and magneta filters instead does not permit you to do true split printing because a certain amount of white light is still getting through. Y vs M filters of various intensity can be a legitimate technique otherwise; but controlling the extremes of the respective emulsion layers is better done with actual additive filters. For example, if you take a 47B and sandwich it to 61 filter and look at a bright light, you don't see anything. All the light is blocked. These are classified as color separation filters because the blue only lets blue through, the green only green, and hence they target the specific blue-sensitive versus green-sensitive layers very selectively. But you can always mix methods in a given image when that might be a realistic strategy, as in how Tim burns in specific areas with yellow or magenta.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

The ILFORD MG500 head I use, controlled by the RH Designs F-stop pro timer, adjusts contrast by changing the ratio of green:blue exposure. eg. 3 seconds green only, followed by 4 seconds blue only.

Tom

 

[warden]

Not everybody seems to thinks so:
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJS5j.PfNcKGAAGBVEYdRQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMWk2OWNtBGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1559473791/RO=10/RU=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em4LxWxy_Is/RK=2/RS=.lqhQ4DLGFoQ9KcG0I.PH7eOfLs-

That was an enjoyable video, thanks.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Having hard blue and green filters on hand would seem to alleviate the need for flashing entirely. I never do it.

Flashing overcomes the paper's inertia. It has nothing to do with filters.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm well aware of that Patrick. But hard selective filtration does it in a different manner. It's difficult to make generalizations because different VC papers do indeed have somewhat different personalities in this respect, with the newer premium (expensive) papers being the most amenable to getting the most out of the extreme ends of the scale. Flashing tends to have a side effect of muddling tonality right where I like it crisply separated. But film choice to begin with is also a factor. Whatever. It's all fun and worth experimenting with.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tom - thank you for pointing out the change in the Ilford 400 MG head with M&Y to the 500 head with B&G. That would indeed be an improvement. I only use B&G glass filters with my V54 high-output 12x12 cold light for 8x10 film. Otherwise I have two narrow-band RGB custom color enlargers available which are also excellent for split printing, but are quite a bit more sophisticated and powerful than the Ilford MG device. One of them handles up to 5x7 film, and the bigger unit up to 8x10. But I can replicate almost any of these black and white VC results using an ordinary subtractive YMC colorhead. That Ilford MG 500 device does sound elegant if only b&w prints are in mind.

 

[MattKing]

The very first version of the Ilford 500 Multigrade light source head also used magenta and yellow filtration.
Most you see around are more recent and use blue and green.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

That Ilford MG 500 device does sound elegant if only b&w prints are in mind.

Yes, it works well for b&w work, very easy and predictable to use, the MG500 head is on a De Vere 504 enlarger. In addition I have a De Vere 5108 with a dichroic colour head (1200W halogen) which works perfectly well when I need it.