Split grade printing - technical analysis?

Pleas elaborate. The only faster way I know is to make a "checkerboard" test print, with #00 exposures along one dimension, #5 exposures along the other. Are you suggesting estimating exposure times based on experience? It seems to me that one might be missing something that way.

90% of the time I can bag it in a single test strip. And I mean a very simple test strip that takes mere seconds to make. Yes, experience makes all the difference. After you've on the road awhile, you'll think the same way. But the meantime, you might want to look into one of those Kodak pie-shaped neutral density aids - it could really speed you up.

Old_Dick said:

I like Lina.

Click to expand...

I have only done a little Split Printing.
I use........and i THOUGHT...most people use the max hard and soft filter.
She has settled on a 2 and 4.5.
Do any of you members do that, or similar.?
That is, do you use something besides the Zero and Five filters.?
Thank You

Pieter12 said:

The method I learned is this:
First you make a test strip just with the 00 filter. Determine the best time that just starts to show highlight detail. Using that time, expose the test strip with the 00 filter, then make incremental exposures to that strip with the 5 filter. Examine that strip and use the time that gives the shadow detail you want. Then make a full print using the time determined by first test strip with the 00 filter, followed by the 5 filter exposure determined by the second test strip. Make any fine-tuning to the times as needed and burn and dodge to taste for the final print.

Click to expand...

Pretty much how i have been doing it. Thank You
It will be several more months...hopefully THIS Year..... but i cannot wait to have a darkroom again.

CMoore said:

I have only done a little Split Printing.
I use........and i THOUGHT...most people use the max hard and soft filter.
She has settled on a 2 and 4.5.
Do any of you members do that, or similar.?
That is, do you use something besides the Zero and Five filters.?
Thank You

Click to expand...

For some negatives, where it is difficult to assess the negative without doing a bit of testing, I do use the full 0 and 5 method - usually in that order, but sometimes in reverse order.
Most of the time though I can assess the negative and use a low-moderate contrast setting for the base exposure strip, and the 5 filter for the second test strip.
Except for those negatives that demand the approach in reverse, where it is best to start with a high-moderate setting for the base exposure strip, and a 0 for second test strip.
This negative is one that benefited from the latter approach - and yes it has been turned sideways for display:

MattKing said:

For some negatives, where it is difficult to assess the negative without doing a bit of testing, I do use the full 0 and 5 method - usually in that order, but sometimes in reverse order.
Most of the time though I can assess the negative and use a low-moderate contrast setting for the base exposure strip, and the 5 filter for the second test strip.
Except for those negatives that demand the approach in reverse, where it is best to start with a high-moderate setting for the base exposure strip, and a 0 for second test strip.
This negative is one that benefited from the latter approach - and yes it has been turned sideways for display:
View attachment 285723

Click to expand...

Is that because..... deciding to start with the 5 filter.....there is so much Shadow/Dark areas and a lot less highlights.?
Or is there some other reason.?

DREW WILEY said:

I have no interest in getting hung up in the terminology. So much of this is subjective anyway. Specific VC papers respond in somewhat different manners than one another. But as long as one knows that Blue or Magenta increases contrast, and Green or Yellow decreases it, they're on the road.

Click to expand...

As somebody who is still, very much, a beginner.............. i say Thank You
Although, i have always wondered Why or How the decision was made to make an enlarger with a Green and Blue filter or use Yellow and Magenta.
In the world of light, yellow and magenta are secondary colors, aren't they.?
So they are both passing some amount of Red.?
But i suppose the paper has a hard time seeing that, hence the red "Safe Light".
But anyway............even the plastic filters that you slide into an enlarger are more Yellow and Magenta than they are Blue or Green.
There are obviously some things i do not know.

MattKing said:

If you burn with a different filter, you are using a relatively small portion of the split grade process.
There is no advantage to using split grade if:
1) you have a light source like a dichroic colour head that already provides for continuous variability of contrast settings; and
2) you never burn and dodge with different contrast settings for different parts of the image.
Otherwise, split grade does provide different results.
Those are fairly limiting conditions, that very few would willingly accept (once they get past early beginner stage).

Click to expand...

well said.

CMoore said:

Is that because..... deciding to start with the 5 filter.....there is so much Shadow/Dark areas and a lot less highlights.?
Or is there some other reason.?

Click to expand...

That is most of it.
My approach to that particular subject was that I wanted to emphasize and delineate most of all the the dark areas. I was always almost uninterested in the out of focus highlights in the background. So I started with the equivalent to 4 (the highest available on my Ilford Multigrade light source) and keyed to those tones when evaluating my initial test strip. It was only after I was satisfied with them that I started testing with the equivalent to 1 (the lowest available on my Ilford Multigrade light source) to bring in detail in the chain. It was a while ago, but I believe I also did some high contrast setting burning on the chain - burning highlights with the high contrast filtration is a very effective and relatively under-used technique.
For most images, the mid-tones and highlights are far more important, so it is best to determine the low contrast exposure first. That will give you the majority of your image anyways.

CMoore said:

I have 2 questions.....

1. Is that pretty much always your process.?
You first test with one filter for "Maximum Black'......and then you test with the other filter for highlight detail.?

2. Do you make a "Normal Print" at all before you start the split process.?
Not anything that is finished, but just something you can look at.?
Or do you judge everything just from the negative projected onto the easel or piece of paper.?

I have not been in the darkroom long at all.
I work, 99% of the time, with 35mm.
When i HAVE done split printing, i found it easier to make a print of some size, so i can get an idea of what i have.
Then i proceed similar as you describe above.

Click to expand...

No, I’m just describing the way it can be done, to show split grade printing makes working in the darkroom easier.
in my own darkroom, I “cheat” by using the Heiland system.
I measure the negative to get a good work (sometimes it’s good enough as a final print) print and than decide to dial in more or less contrast or time, or another paper and to do some dodging or burning.

CMoore said:

I have 2 questions.....

1. Is that pretty much always your process.?
You first test with one filter for "Maximum Black'......and then you test with the other filter for highlight detail.?

2. Do you make a "Normal Print" at all before you start the split process.?
Not anything that is finished, but just something you can look at.?
Or do you judge everything just from the negative projected onto the easel or piece of paper.?

I have not been in the darkroom long at all.
I work, 99% of the time, with 35mm.
When i HAVE done split printing, i found it easier to make a print of some size, so i can get an idea of what i have.
Then i proceed similar as you describe above.

Click to expand...

I don't find split-grade any easier and find 'normal' printing easy enough if a simple routine, which I learned from John Sexton , is followed: find he right exposure time for the highlights at a 'normal' grade and then adjust the contrast for the shadows while maintaining the exposure time; works every time and gets you quickly to a work print, which can then be optimized through dodging and burning.pretty simple really.

RalphLambrecht said:

I don't find split-grade any easier and find 'normal' printing easy enough if a simple routine, which I learned from John Sexton , is followed: find he right exposure time for the highlights at a 'normal' grade and then adjust the contrast for the shadows while maintaining the exposure time; works every time and gets you quickly to a work print, which can then be optimized through dodging and burning.pretty simple really.

Click to expand...

My local college only offered "Beginning Photography" as far as film goes. There was no Intermediate or Advanced class for film. It was all digital.
So i took the Beginner Film class twice from 2 different teachers.
They could print either way, and did use both methods themselves.
They both told me that they thought it was easier to teach beginning students in the exact method you describe.
I had photography in high school in 1978. That guy also taught the same way as you learned.
I wonder if teachers ever do start with "Split Printing" in a class of beginners.?

RalphLambrecht said:

I don't find split-grade any easier and find 'normal' printing easy enough if a simple routine, which I learned from John Sexton , is followed: find he right exposure time for the highlights at a 'normal' grade and then adjust the contrast for the shadows while maintaining the exposure time; works every time and gets you quickly to a work print, which can then be optimized through dodging and burning.pretty simple really.

Click to expand...

Doesn’t the time change (a bit), when you change contrast?

There are, or course, two schools of thought on determining exposure & contrast: highlights first or shadows first. These schools are both right and wrong (I think you can say that about most schools of thought).

When producing a softer grade print where the yellow/green exposure is dominant then it is best to determine the highlight exposure first using the yellow/green filter. A dominant soft exposure will effect the shadows, but the shadow exposure won't effect the highlights. Determining the shadow exposure second has the advantage that the soft exposure has already had its effect on the shadows.

When producing a harder grade print the procedure is reversed. The dominant high contrast blue/magenta exposure for the shadows will effect the highlights. So the high contrast shadow blue/magenta exposure determination is made first, followed by the low contrast highlight exposure determination.

People who propound the highlights first method find it works best for them - and that's because they develop their negatives to a higher CI and print at low contrast. People who propound the shadows first method develop their negatives to a lower CI and find their way works best.

For normal CI negatives either method will work - highlights first or shadows first makes little difference.

When using contrast filters a midtones first strategy may be best. Determine the exposure for Z VI (varies a bit with different papers) and then play around with the filters to get the contrast you like. Ilford makes their filters with a bit of neutral density to balance the effective printing speed between grades. The cross-over points for MGIV RC are at 0.55OD (Zone VI - skin is at 0.47) for grades 00-3.5 and at ~1.0 OD (Zone IV - between 18% & shadows) for grades 4-5. For MGIV FBWT the cross-overs are at 0.9 OD (Z IV) and 2.2 OD (black). HD curves are available at http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/

As most of an image's interest lies in the mid-tones nailing them will produce an optimum print. After the midtones are settled then dodge and burn as needed to get the highlights and shadows into line. This strategy is anathema to the split-grade approach.

With VC papers I find that printing at higher contrast grades gives a better print as the paper's HD curve is more linear with a minimum of bumps and flat spots. I habitually overexpose/underdevelop (N-1 in ZS parlance) my film so I can print at a nominal grade 3.

We are, hopefully, printing for the pleasure of it and so printing should be done in the manner that makes you happy: highlights, midtones or shadows first.

I find I need to change my printing strategy often for different images: high key, low key; high contrast, low contrast; impact in the shadows, highlights, midtones; ...

Note that shadows and highlights when determining split grade exposures aren't the same as the Zone system's detailed highlights and shadows which are more in the midtone scheme of things. Split grade usually uses the lightest highlights with detail and the deepest shadows with detail; sometimes it uses the black and white points of an image.

Split printing is not an "all or nothing" technique. But I do recommend learning to do it that way just to obtain another potentially useful tool in your tool kit. Afterwards you can apply just whatever parts of it happen to help in any particular instance.

Frank53 said:

Doesn’t the time change (a bit), when you change contrast?

Click to expand...

it does a bit and compensate for that from experience or testing.

As a possibly interesting aside (or an unwelcome distraction) - the more comfortable I got with lith printing, the less I like split grade. Exposure vs. development time is the only contrast control in lith (other than unsharp masking and so on). But there's something special about lith contrast I never seem to get with split grade or filters. So many of my prints are lith prints in very strong lith developer, dev. times of 5-6 minutes. So I don't get a "lith" look, sometimes I have to bleach out some staining, but there's just... I dunno, "something" where, every time, lith just has some way of rendering contrast across the print that makes a filtered print look less compelling.

Anyway, maybe I'm a masochist or something. But it's taught me there's some real mojo in, maybe, micro-contrast in specific tonal bands or something hard to parse out.

Typical-for-me, MGWT in strong lith, Acros at ISO 80 + Rodinal, Mamiya RB 50mm:

M Carter said:

As a possibly interesting aside (or an unwelcome distraction) - the more comfortable I got with lith printing, the less I like split grade. Exposure vs. development time is the only contrast control in lith (other than unsharp masking and so on). But there's something special about lith contrast I never seem to get with split grade or filters. So many of my prints are lith prints in very strong lith developer, dev. times of 5-6 minutes. So I don't get a "lith" look, sometimes I have to bleach out some staining, but there's just... I dunno, "something" where, every time, lith just has some way of rendering contrast across the print that makes a filtered print look less compelling.

Anyway, maybe I'm a masochist or something. But it's taught me there's some real mojo in, maybe, micro-contrast in specific tonal bands or something hard to parse out.

Click to expand...

I think lith printing typically gives a very "bloated" contrast curve, with a very steep or practically vertical portion between infectious development and slowly developed highlights. We intuitively place this zone to emphasize something in the print. Yours is a very mild example with almost normal contrast, but the bottom portions of the little towers, with the ring like structures, and the stepped roof portion get emphasized contrast wise. Yes, to do something like this requires great control in film exposure, lighting and/or complex d&b in the normal silver printing process (but gives more flexibility).

M Carter said:

Anyway, maybe I'm a masochist or something. But it's taught me there's some real mojo in, maybe, micro-contrast in specific tonal bands or something hard to parse out.

Click to expand...

I played around with lith printing 20+ years ago. Any materials are long gone.

I'd be interested in the HD curve of a lith print. Have you tried printing a step tablet? Plotting HD curves deeply satisfies the inner masochist.

The few times I've tried lith printing, I always developed by inspection. And found it interesting but appropriate for some images, not all.

Nicholas Lindan said:

I played around with lith printing 20+ years ago. Any materials are long gone.

Click to expand...

Some of the materials you may have used are no longer available - but there are plenty of alternatives. Moersch supplies a large array of developers and additives.

Well ... bringing up lith printing is a side track leading off somewhere else entirely. But one relevant point in common with split printing is that in order to do anything well, you need to have a cooperative negative to begin with. Yes, I have used split printing to tame some of my very early less than ideal, overly contrasty negatives.
But nowadays, heavy handed filtration if just an occasional tweak one way or the other, unless an integral unsharp mask is involved. Well balanced negatives almost seem to print themselves.

grain elevator said:

I think lith printing typically gives a very "bloated" contrast curve, with a very steep or practically vertical portion between infectious development and slowly developed highlights. We intuitively place this zone to emphasize something in the print. Yours is a very mild example with almost normal contrast, but the bottom portions of the little towers, with the ring like structures, and the stepped roof portion get emphasized contrast wise. Yes, to do something like this requires great control in film exposure, lighting and/or complex d&b in the normal silver printing process (but gives more flexibility).

Click to expand...

And that print used masks at the neg plane, to deepen shadows around the round towers and door frame, make it more three-dimensional. I freakin' love the power of masking for tweaks like that.