• 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

split contrast with a #5 and #1?

ckagy

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
30
Format
Medium Format
All material I find about split contrast printing refers to using a #5 and a #00 filter. Can one get by, obviously with different results, using a #1 and a #5? Am I correct that the hightlights won't be quite as isolated and affected as they would with a #00?

(the long and short of it is that my filter set doesn't go down to #00.)

Thanks, all.

-Chris


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The only difference will be that you can only print down to #1 and not all the way to #00 when your #5 exposure is zero.
 
I rarely use the most extreme filters/settings available to me when I use a split grade technique. I am much more likely to use something like a 1.5 and 3.5 pair. The more extreme filters are available for special circumstances.

It is most important to be comfortable with the technique you are best familiar with.
 

Yes, that should work just fine wthin the limitations of the different contrasts.
 
The principle of split grade printing applies irrespective of the grades available to you - you are seeking to have localised control at both extremes of the contrast range. Added to this, every photographer you ask will have a different approach to employing split grade printing if, indeed, they actually use it at all.

When printing my own negatives, I never use split grade printing in the traditional form. I print on #3.5 and then might burn in with #1.5 if I want to subtly alter a particular highlight area.

When printing negatives for others (frequently badly exposed and/or developed) I have found a version of split grade printing to be useful. This system I learnt from an Ilford engineer when he installed a number of De Vere 504s with Ilford Multigrade 500 heads in a large lab that I worked in.

He did tests with a negative to ascertain the minimum exposure at #1 to achieve a hint of tone then did a second test with the #1 exposure followed by a #5 exposure to identify the time needed to achieved a decent black. He then showed us that, if you then gave these two exposures for every negative, you could then proceed to doing a test strip at #3 to find your final exposure. This worked so well across a wide range of negatives that we all started using the system: give the #1 exposure and the give the #5 exposure every time followed by a #3 test strip and you had (subsequent to the usual dodging and burning based on how the negative looked) a pretty decent print every time.

Now, in a lab where the emphasis was on producing hundreds of 'good' prints (i.e. we are not talking about the ultimate 'fine' print) per day from hundreds of varying negatives with minimal waste of materials, this system proved to be very effective. Of course, this way of working was helped enormously by the fact that you could pre-programme the 500C control pad with multiple exposures at varying grades.

Hope you find a system that works for you.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de
 
That sounds very intereesting David, but while I think I follow the method, I wonder if you could expand it a bit more to make it clear for a dimwit like me?
 
The split print technique is what I used for every negative I printed for my recent show. They were pinhole negatives with the usual falloff at the corners, and I did not use the same combo every time. David I haven't heard of the refinement you outline above, it sounds promising.
 
pdeeh said:
That sounds very intereesting David, but while I think I follow the method, I wonder if you could expand it a bit more to make it clear for a dimwit like me?
Click to expand...

The testing goes like this:

Take three different negatives

Stage One
Put first negative in and do a test strip to ascertain minimum exposure at #1 to achieve a trace of tone in the brightest highlights.
Once you have identified the time (need to do this when the test strip is fully dry if using fibre-based paper) do a second test strip to identify the minimum time at #5 to achieve a black in the darkest shadow are (i.e. clear or virtually clear part of the negative).
Note down the two times.

Stage Two
Place second negative in enlarger and expose using the two times for #1 and #5.
Does the highlight have a trace of tone and does the black look black? - if yes proceed to Stage Three / If not repeat Stage One with the second negative and note down the two new times for #1 and #5.

Stage Three
Place third negative in and use either the times for #1 and #5 identified in the Stage One test. Does the highlight have a trace of tone and does the black look black? - if yes proceed to Stage Four / If not repeat Stage One with the second negative and note down the two new times for #1 and #5.

Stage Four
You may have found that the times for #1 and #5 were the same for all three negatives (usually very unlikely) or that you have a small range of times. If this is the case, take the average between them and write down the time you have identified for #1 and #5.

Thereafter,
For every subsequent print you always start with the #1 time that you have identified and follow this with the #5 time that you have identified. You then do a traditional test strip at #3 to identify final exposure which will be a combination of the #1 time, the #5 time and the #3 time.

I just want to stress that this is essentially a 'quick and dirty' version of split grade printing and was mainly used for printing to 'commercial' standards and not 'fine art' standards. Nevertheless, I find that it works great when printing other people's negatives.

The key to the whole system is choosing an area that should be black in the print (as the subsequent #3 exposure will add to the density) and highlight #1 exposure should give just a trace / slight but visible difference to paper base for the brightest part of the image where you want a tone (as the subsequent #3 exposure will add to the density).

Hope that explains the system better for you pdeeh.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de
 
Thanks, everyone, for your helpful feedback. I've chosen a pretty contrasty negative to use while exploring this process, but I took care when exposing and developing to do my best to get shadow detail and some highlight tone.

I'm intrigued by, and will experiment with, David's and MattKing's approach of printing with a #3.5 and burning highlights with a #1.5. Your goal with this is to get decent mid tones and blacks with the #3.5 and touch up the highlights with the #1.5?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Actually, my goal is to get good highlights and mid-tones from the 1.5, and better blacks and more delineated details from the 3.5.

A 1.5 filter is quite close to a "standard" grade 2.
 
Matt, I realize I put words in your mouth based on the other comment. Thanks for the correction
 
ckagy said:
Matt, I realize I put words in your mouth based on the other comment. Thanks for the correction
Click to expand...

It wasn't really a correction. I added my recent post because I think it shows that I actually think of this differently.

I consider the lower contrast exposure to be the most critical of the two. The higher contrast exposure enhances what should already be a blah but workable result.

I did an experiment recently which I found to be quite interesting. I had a print that didn't require much burning and dodging. After fine tuning my result, I made two further prints:
1) a print using only the low contrast filter, for the same time as in the fine-tuned print (i.e. no high contrast exposure); and
2) a print using only the high contrast filter, for the same time as in the fine-tuned print (i.e. no low contrast exposure).

Try the same experiment - most likely you will be surprised at how the two experiment prints compare.
 
Depends on the specific VC paper. Some need a degree of exposure to both emulsion layers to get full DMax. My most common technique is
simply to expose the neg with a certain amount of "white" light, then punch either the shadows or highlights with extreme filtration, as hypothetically needed. For true split printing all you need is a deep green filter (#58) and a deep blue one (#47), for each respective emulsion. Or with a colorhead, you can use the maximum yellow and magneta settings instead. But what the papers actully "sees" is green
and blue. It takes a bit of practice with test strips for all this to become instinctive, but really, there's nothing conceptually difficult about it at all.
 
Some great discussion on "modified" split filter printing...

My only caution would be that it takes time to figure out how best to manipulate different combinations of filtrations to fit a given negative and then, with that information, apply it to subsequent negatives, particularly of different subject matters. With the infinite number of permutations available to you, much of your decision making becomes of function of personal taste such as the preference of a Grade 1 versus a Grade 2 highlight, etc. Learning how different filters operate with each other within the framework of different negatives takes time.

To echo Matt King's comment, I've also found that the key is to use lower contrast filters to establish highlight character and general tonality - your base filter - and to use higher filtrations to supplement density and contrast. I approach the base filtration - Grade 1 1/2 for example - with the aim of printing to key highlights but leaving the overall density light enough to be punched in with Grade 5 or 4 1/2. How light your base is and how much contrast you add is purely preference. On the other hand, there are circumstances that warrant a much higher base filtration or further combinations like Grade 1/2 and 3 1/2. Differences may be subtle but they are differences nevertheless.

For me, the noticeable advantage has been better overall tonality but it's taken time to figure out which combinations of filters work best for my work. This modified approach doesn't need to employed with every negative but it will definitely unlock some doors.

All the best,

Michael
 
I think you can approach this from any angle or filters you feel the negatives desire.

Yesterday I was printing negatives that were over exposed and over developed, the original scene was a sunlight day in Cuba..

These negatives required a pre flash of the paper , and then 0 and 5- the amount of 5 was about 50% of normal
Same body of work I had a flat lifeless negative and lighting ratio scene.. this negative I started at grade 4 and gave 00 filter for the highlights by giving
50 % of the grade 4.

What is beautiful about split printing for others , a simple 0 and 5 full test can immediately tell you your next step even while you are in the developer.
Thanks to years of lith printing I now do most of my basic judgements in the developer .

Once you have determined the negative bias, and you look at the scene you are trying to print..

Racking this idea up a couple of notches.. I have a system in place where the timer is never changed for each filter. once a decent time is established about 15 seconds
I then hit the low filter and high filter in what I determine is the final CONTRAST PRINTING RATIO....

for example if a normal scene requires 15 second G#1 and 15 second G#5 with the apeture determining final density.
I can then hit the timer twice for the G#5 and increase contrast with some dodging in the low filter
this can be four hits of G#5 in some cases to build up the contrast I desire.

the opposite can be said if the final CONTRAST PRINTIN RATIO... requires less time of G#5 than the low...
rather than adjust the timer, I will block the G#5 time with my hands under the lens to the contrast I desire.

So for me I play extensively with the filters and basically try to lay down the type of tone I require in any region of the print to make my print . After
years of split printing it has become obvious to me that many possible methods will work and you need to decide what way to approach the negative
based on what you want the viewer to see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob's methodology is really useful and he's gone into more detail about his process in previous threads. It illustrates how personally systematized you can deploy splitting filtrations. I like to fiddle around with the knobs of my timer too much for the "hits" of contrast he describes but I do approach my printing similarly in terms of ratios and out-flanking.

For example, if I find that a print requires a base filtration of Grade 1 at 30 seconds to give good - bright with detail - highlight density, I'll start adding Grade 5 first at 5 seconds and depending how that looks, I'll double, triple, quadruple it to taste. If the right contrast is produced but my highlights darken too much, I'll ease back on the base filtration and dial in the exposure accordingly, dodging where necessary and often adding a little more Grade 5 to make up for the density loss.

I'll usually make two or three prints using two or three different base filtrations - Grade 1, 1 1/2 and 2 for example- and add contrast to taste and then compare their highlights, mids and shadows.

I've found this to be really helpful with toning as well because while I often prefer the aesthetic of a Grade 2 or 2 1/2 print, selenium toning tends to overpower my lower values. But using a lower filtration in combination with Grade 5, I'm better able to balance the exposure to compensate for the effects of subsequent toning applications.

Another consideration is your enlarger. The first colour head that I printed with didn't produce a true Grade 5 or a 00, only 0 through 4 1/2. It was only after doing comparisons with Ilford filters placed in front of the lens that I realized this. But after replacing that light source with a LED head my Grade 5 is substantially faster and provides more density, forcing me into shorter Grade 5 times and an adjustment to the ratios I use.

One way or another printing becomes a super personal thing. Just have fun with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the handiest things I have in the darkroom is a small white board. I've developed a shorthand over time to record exposures at different filtration. it's very visible under safelight as well. I number my test prints and I can look at the white board and see the running changes, IE - (PRINT A) F16 - [00] 12 secs [3.5] 8 secs. A couple prints in I start developing a dodge/burn map, using sharpies on a dried print.

It's very cool to look at series of prints and have the whole track record. Eventually the final exposure gets written on the final dodge/burn map along with the enlarger height, the slate gets wiped, and I move on to final prints.

I usually get to my best possible print on cheap 8x10 RC paper -where I also ID any dust spots that need cleaning off the neg, and overall just "get to know" the image as a print. Then I reset the enlarger for bigger fiber paper, calculate the new exposures, and it may take a print or two to dial in the print for the larger size & different emulsion.

The final print's info can then be recorded on one of the test prints (along with the new enlarger height), and the whole mess can be saved in a folder. Of course, this is one of a million ways to do this, but may be some ideas there for others' workflow. I do like having a record if I ever want to return to the image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register