Split grade printing: soft filter number preference

I've read that soft light contributes quite a bit to mid-tones, although obviously hard light will separate them more. So I'm wondering whether using a grade 1 or 1.5 instead of grade 0 or 00 for the soft exposure is good practice. The reasoning would be that you wouldn't have to dodge as much of the soft light to avoid muddy mid-tones. And maybe overall you would have more separation in the highlights. Does anyone use a higher soft filter than 0 or 00?

It depends on whether you'll burn & dodge. If not, then the only effect is that you constrict the effective range of paper grades you can obtain with your pair of filters.

I do this regularly, depending on the needs of a particular negative.
"Split Grade" doesn't, in my mind, mean spitting the exposure just between two particular fixed contrast related filtrations.
To me it simply means using different contrast related filtrations in different proportions for different parts of the negative.
Very often something like the equivalent of a 1.5 grade will give you 90% of the print you need. All you need to do is add judicious bits of higher contrast light in parts of the image that benefit from it. That is still "split grade" printing.
In some cases, I'll even do a three way split - most exposure closer to a middle grade, but also some exposure in a softer than middle grade in certain parts, and also some exposure in a harder than middle grade in other parts. In some cases, you need to dodge portions during the closer than middle grade exposure, but other times you don't. It depends on the negative.

Here is an interesting experiment to try. After you get to a print you like using two way split grade techniques, follow it up by making two prints of the exactly same negative - one with just your main - usually soft - contrast exposure, and the other with your harder grade exposure. When you process those latter two experiments, you are likely to be surprised at what parts and portions of your final good print come from the respective portions. Having the two before you may give you a better idea as well how the exposures combine to work together.

MarkL said:

I've read that soft light contributes quite a bit to mid-tones, although obviously hard light will separate them more. So I'm wondering whether using a grade 1 or 1.5 instead of grade 0 or 00 for the soft exposure is good practice. The reasoning would be that you wouldn't have to dodge as much of the soft light to avoid muddy mid-tones. And maybe overall you would have more separation in the highlights. Does anyone use a higher soft filter than 0 or 00?

Click to expand...

If you're getting muddy mid-tones, it's most certainly because your giving too much time to the 00 or 0 filter. Evaluating highlights with the soft contrast filter and knowing when enough time has been given to them is the toughest part of split-grade. Usually that time is pretty early, before the highlights actually are where you want them in the final print (which makes sense, since, the grade 5 filter will have an impact on their density, small as it may be).

In other words, there should never, safe exceptionnally, be any need to dodge the 00 or 0 filter.

Alex Benjamin said:

If you're getting muddy mid-tones, it's most certainly because your giving too much time to the 00 or 0 filter. Evaluating highlights with the soft contrast filter and knowing when enough time has been given to them is the toughest part of split-grade. Usually that time is pretty early, before the highlights actually are where you want them in the final print (which makes sense, since, the grade 5 filter will have an impact on their density, small as it may be).

In other words, there should never, safe exceptionnally, be any need to dodge the 00 or 0 filter.

Click to expand...

In principle, that's right. The exception is that there are image geometries where some parts need more- or less microcontrast adjustment by burning/dodging locally. IOW, it may not be possible to just pick a soft ligtht time in such cases. You may need a certain soft light time with selective dodging or burning.

chuckroast said:

In principle, that's right. The exception is that there are image geometries where some parts need more- or less microcontrast adjustment by burning/dodging locally. IOW, it may not be possible to just pick a soft ligtht time in such cases. You may need a certain soft light time with selective dodging or burning.

Click to expand...

I was going for "in principle." Of course, there may be at times a need for slight dodging or burning at the lower grade, but that really depends on the individual image — no generalization possible here.

My point was more to adress the OP's idea that using a grade 1 or 1.5 instead of a grade 0 or 00 as the lower contrast grade would help in keeping the mid-tones from getting "muddy," which is the problem he's trying to solve. I think he risks accentuating that problem rather than solving it.

This is generally speaking, though. I'm with @MattKing on this. There's no rules. If a 1.5 filter takes you close to where you want to be and all that's missing is a bit of grade 5 (or 4.5, or 4...), either in the full print or in localized areas of it, then go for it. It's the finished print that counts, not how you got there.

It does provide another useful approach though. Particularly if you are making several prints from several similar negatives, it can really speed things up.

What prompted my question was that I accidentally exposed with my VCL4500 set to "dial-in grade number" mode, so what I thought was a hard and a soft exposure was actually two exposures at grade 2.5. The print was quite dark but there was a lot of separation in the midtones. Now maybe that was just because of the gross over-exposure. But it got me thinking about a split grade printing workshop I went to years ago given by a master printer, and he used grade 1 as his soft filter, so I thought I'd check with you dudes. I am not having undesired muddy midtones generally. I'm just wondering whether I want to give a significant amount of exposure using the muddy grade 0 to get lighter midtones when I could use grade 1 at the get-go. So I will experiment, which all printing is for me anyway! Thanks everybody!

MarkL said:

What prompted my question was that I accidentally exposed with my VCL4500 set to "dial-in grade number" mode, so what I thought was a hard and a soft exposure was actually two exposures at grade 2.5. The print was quite dark but there was a lot of separation in the midtones. Now maybe that was just because of the gross over-exposure. But it got me thinking about a split grade printing workshop I went to years ago given by a master printer, and he used grade 1 as his soft filter, so I thought I'd check with you dudes. I am not having undesired muddy midtones generally. I'm just wondering whether I want to give a significant amount of exposure using the muddy grade 0 to get lighter midtones when I could use grade 1 at the get-go. So I will experiment, which all printing is for me anyway! Thanks everybody!

Click to expand...

That might be Bob Carnie who has said this for years and who has shown it to himself and a fellow printer to their satisfaction. I find it hard to believe, as the print should just amount to the total units of blue light and of green light, regardless of order of exposure. On the other hand I do not discount any thing Bob has to say. Years ago Ilford Multigrade had a shelf at midtone at low grades but that is history now. On the other other hand, I do have a deep belief in Science and use all green and all blue (or yellow and magenta) for my split filtering.

MarkL said:

I'm just wondering whether I want to give a significant amount of exposure using the muddy grade 0 to get lighter midtones when I could use grade 1 at the get-go.

Click to expand...

If you don't need a flatter curve than 1 for any part of the image than a grade 1 filter for the soft exposure would be fine. Some papers get a wonky curve at very low grades (0, 00).

koraks said:

If you don't need a flatter curve than 1 for any part of the image than a grade 1 filter for the soft exposure would be fine.

Click to expand...

Agree. Comes back to saying there's no fixed rule. In the end, the choice will depend on the negative, and on how you want it translated on paper. A high-contrast negative might just need slight touches of filter 5 after a basic filter 1 exposure, while this might not work with a low-contrast negative. Also depends on how much highlights are important in the photograph, on highlight separation, on shadow detail, etc.

Honestly, because of the cost of paper today, I'm doing less and less experimenting with split-grade, which is unfortunate. I see it more as a problem-solving technique when I'm unable to get the results I'm looking for with single grade, rather than a systematic way of printing.

koraks said:

If you don't need a flatter curve than 1 for any part of the image than a grade 1 filter for the soft exposure would be fine. Some papers get a wonky curve at very low grades (0, 00).

Click to expand...

Of course if you are going to use a grade 1 filter you are equally using a grade 0 filter plus a dollop of a grade 5 filter.
If your negative only requires a grade 0 filter and your paper gives you a wonky curve, you are stuck with it.
If you use a wonky curve dose of filter 0 than add a dollop of grade 5, you no longer have a wonky curve.
It all comes down to the mix of green and blue light which can be done may ways to the same result.

You're missing the point. It only matters if there's going to be burning & dodging. If you end up with part of the image receiving only grade 0 exposure (say, a bright sky with some clouds) and grade 0 on the paper is wonky, it'll be a problem.

You are quick to assume people miss the point. It kills discussion.

OK, let's do it differently then.

In #2 I made clear that the essence of split grade is in burning & dodging, so effectively different ratios of blue & green across the image. I subscribe to how @MattKing worded it in #3.

Given that I was so explicit in my view on the nature of split grade, I was surprised to read your comment, which quoted mine, that evidently comes form an opposing paradigm. I'm aware of the various interpretations of 'split grade'. It's one of those things that has been discussed many times here on Photrio and elsewhere. If that's a discussion I inadvertently killed, then I'm sorry. Feel free to revisit the subject once again.