Split grade printing - technical analysis?

[Kilgallb]

One advantage in using two filters for one print is to control contrast more accurately ("half" grade steps vs. linear with two filters). Does one need such accuracy? That is another discussion

When doing two filter exposures (00 + 5) I think most analyze more carefully what the outcome is. While technically there isn't any difference, it might make us work differently and maybe more accurately.

Not to mention the benefits of split grade dodging & burning ..

I could not agree more. Going to split grade printing has made me more careful, and more conscious of the final image. It has made me a better printer.

 

[radiant]

He’s talking about the principle, in reference to OP’s question, not the number of grades. Assuming continuously variable filtration, there is no difference.

Yes - but your claim is based on variable filtration which is not available. So the comparison is out of this world.

You can produce same result to print produced with single filter with two-filter setup (00+5) filters - but not the other way around. The problem lies in linear vs stepped (half grade) filtering.

I think the real question is "can I be lazy and just use one filter please?" - yes you can. Your life is not ruined. Your print will probably be just fine.

 

[tih]

Yes - but your claim is based on variable filtration which is not available. So the comparison is out of this world.

It's certainly available, to anyone who has an enlarger with a colour head. Once you have the filter values to dial in for the standard grades, you can easily plot these graphically, and fit curves to the points, allowing you to dial in fractional grades to the limit of repeatability of your colour head filter settings. You can also calibrate these filter settings such that your highlights are not affected by contrast change, thus letting you place those using exposure time, and then adjust contrast to place your shadow areas where you want them. (Just as an illustration, here's the data I worked out for the Meopta Colour 3 head I once had (can't find the spreadsheet with the pretty curves in it, but they're easily re-generated from these numbers, of course): https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/meopta-colour-3-filter-grades.26667/#post-372487)

 

[MattKing]

From my perspective, the most important advantage of split grade printing is how it encourages you to think about contrast, including thinking about contrast as something that can be varied over the print.

 

[ic-racer]

Multigrade printing is all "Split Grade;" the emulsion is "Split" into two grades. Each emulsion is always controlled by individual light color, no matter how one cares to perform the exposure.
Proportioning the exposure between any two of the filters can yield every intermediate grade between the two filters. 00 and 5 or 2.5 and 3 or any other possible combination in the filter set.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've been printing with multigrade paper for over 30 years. A few years back, I learned about split-grade printing and I tried it. I had to slowly adapt to it. When I got frustrated with a split-grade print, I'd revert back to the single exposure. I'm still learning and easing into split-grade printing. Old habits die hard.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Proportioning the exposure between any two of the filters can yield every intermediate grade between the two filters. 00 and 5 or 2.5 and 3 or any other possible combination in the filter set.

I think the other thing that's getting lost in all of this is that Ilford, Kodak etc could have offered filters in finer increments than 1/2 grade - or recommended a two filter approach. That they didn't is likely because of the perceived complexity (historically at least) of trying to explain using two filters to end users who just about understood paper grades - and (I suspect) that finer filter gradations than 1/2 grade were not noticed in a statistically significant way in visual comparison testing - and those that worried about such things could use two neighbouring filters to split the difference anyway (or dial in the relevant CC on a dichroic etc) - though with some materials, I do find myself wishing for a G3.75...

The Ilford branded dichroic heads have also shown quite a few approaches - the MG100 seems to have used a single lamp & single dial controlled filtration, the MG400/500 used a de-facto split filter system with two bulbs (4 on the 8x10/10x10), but computer controlled into a single exposure of specific grade in 1/2 grade steps, and the MG600 (really a rebranded Durst Multigraph by the looks of it) used motorised filter controls to give a nominal 1/10 grade control with a single bulb + a shutter system.

 

[cliveh]

unless you are dodging or burning during one of the split-grade exposures,split-grade will not give you a print any different from a single filtration exposure!

Amen. If you expose and develop correctly for a given lighting situation, you should not need to use a split grade printing technique.

 

[Pieter12]

I learned split-grade printing a few years ago and won't go back. It eliminates the need to determine paper grade and makes incremental adjustments, especially when doing f-stop timing, very intuitive. Plus the dodging and burning advantages.

 

[MattKing]

Amen. If you expose and develop correctly for a given lighting situation, you should not need to use a split grade printing technique.

Actually not.
It would be correct to say that "If you control/modify the lighting, expose and develop correctly, and the subject has the right reflectance, you should not need to use a split grade printing technique".
One of my most common uses of split grade techniques is to adjust contrast in different amounts in different areas of the subject, in order to deal with the different qualities (not amount) of illumination in different parts of the scene.
Situations like where the shadows are illuminated by low contrast diffused light, while the highlights are illuminated by direct, contrasty light.

 

[distributed]

I find split grade dodging and burning to be both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing when, with dodging and burning, you want to control contrast as well, as in the example of Matt King in Post #43. I feel it's a curse when you have a blue/green ratio close to the extremes, say 2 seconds of blue, 15 seconds of green as a base exposure. The short exposure makes dodging and burning "at grade" difficult. If you want to dodge say half a stop, that means dodging blue for 0.6 seconds, green for 4.4 seconds. Doing the 0.6 second dodge precisely is hard. If you don't get it right, you can get considerable variation in the effective grade of the dodged area. This would have been more easily and precisely achieved with e.g. a single filter exposure of 17 seconds dodged for 5 seconds.

For this reason, my RBG-LED enlarger conversions can be set to do either split exposures, e.g. first blue, then green, or a combined exposure, with blue and green PWMed to the appropriate mean intensity running for the same exposure time. This way I can choose between split grade and single filter style printing at my fancy, even combining both modes into one print.

 

[koraks]

For this reason, my RBG-LED enlarger conversions can be set to do either split exposures, e.g. first blue, then green, or a combined exposure, with blue and green PWMed to the appropriate mean intensity running for the same exposure time. This way I can choose between split grade and single filter style printing at my fancy, even combining both modes into one print.

Yeah, same here. In my latest RGB led version I implemented the Ilford 500-style approach towards split grade, although I limited the number of consecutive exposures to just 2 (I think the 500 went up to 10 or so). I've yet to test it...I nearly never split grade. Earlier this year I wanted to print a negative that actually needed/benefited from split grade. First time in about 3 years that happened.

 

[cliveh]

Actually not.
It would be correct to say that "If you control/modify the lighting, expose and develop correctly, and the subject has the right reflectance, you should not need to use a split grade printing technique".
One of my most common uses of split grade techniques is to adjust contrast in different amounts in different areas of the subject, in order to deal with the different qualities (not amount) of illumination in different parts of the scene.
Situations like where the shadows are illuminated by low contrast diffused light, while the highlights are illuminated by direct, contrasty light.

If you want to correct printing a negative to that extent, then why not embrace Photoshop as opposed to film photography?

 

[Pieter12]

Because a digital print just doesn't deliver the same as an excellent wet print. And the process is much more rewarding in the darkroom, rather than on one's ass in front of a computer. On the other hand, if the corrections and manipulations are complex and very fine, working on a computer may be the best solution.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Because a digital print just doesn't deliver the same as an excellent wet print. And the process is much more rewarding in the darkroom, rather than on one's ass in front of a computer. On the other hand, if the corrections and manipulations are complex and very fine, working on a computer may be the best solution.

I know what you mean. Pixel picking leaves me cold.

 

[MattKing]

If you want to correct printing a negative to that extent, then why not embrace Photoshop as opposed to film photography?

It isn't an either-or proposition.
I am capable of doing some fairly elaborate digital manipulations using the Corel products I have, but I am much more likely to do that if my desired output is digital display.
I like making darkroom prints, and complex printing schemes can really be fun.
Tell me Clive, do you ever go to someone's home, enjoy a beautifully prepared meal, and then ask the host why they don't order delivery?

 

[Craig75]

Some people seem to be referring to splitgrade printing as using different filters in burning. That's not split grade printing as I have ever seen it referred to.

 

[MattKing]

Some people seem to be referring to splitgrade printing as using different filters in burning. That's not split grade printing as I have ever seen it referred to.

What you describe is a very narrow subset of split grade printing.
Split grade comes in an infinite variety of flavours - I certainly don't always use the equivalent of a 0 filter and a 5 filter.

 

[Pieter12]

Some people seem to be referring to splitgrade printing as using different filters in burning. That's not split grade printing as I have ever seen it referred to.

But it can be a part of split-grade printing...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I do sometimes use hard 47 deep blue versus 61 deep green glass filters under the lens for sake of split printing. I also have equally tight narrow band Blue and Green channels for my additive halogen colorheads, which can be varied to any intensity, including pure blue and pure green. Yellow and Magenta filters cannot do that; they always pass some white light too, no matter the so-called Grade value. But that's not necessarily a liability. For punching blue somewhat less aggressively, I keep on hand a simple 82B med blue conversion filter nearby, as well as medium green. There are all kinds of ways of doing it. Mix techniques if you wish. Whatever works, works.

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.

 

[logan2z]

Some people seem to be referring to splitgrade printing as using different filters in burning. That's not split grade printing as I have ever seen it referred to.

Right, that might be better referred to as 'multigrade printing'.

 

[Pieter12]

I do sometimes use hard 47 deep blue versus 61 deep green glass filters under the lens for sake of split printing. I also have equally tight narrow band Blue and Green channels for my additive halogen colorheads, which can be varied to any intensity, including pure blue and pure green. Yellow and Magenta filters cannot do that; they always pass some white light too, no matter the so-called Grade value. But that's not necessarily a liability. For punching blue somewhat less aggressively, I keep on hand a simple 82B med blue conversion filter nearby, as well as medium green. There are all kinds of ways of doing it. Mix techniques if you wish. Whatever works, works.

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.

My understanding is the advantage of yellow/magenta filters is you can see the projected image better and consequently be more accurate in dodging and burning.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

That is wrong. You can get more grades or portable grade adjustment in between with two filter method.

Unfortunately not.You can get all that from a single exposure with a color head too. countless Y/M combinations give you countless grade adjustments just s split-grade does. All you're missing are local dodge and burn possibilities at the very hard and the very soft exposure; period.

 

[MattKing]

Also, it’s the same thing. Whether you print through blue and green filters or magenta and yellow filters it’s subtractive.

That is true in one way, but if you do the comparison between blue and green light sources and magenta and yellow filters, only the latter are truly subtractive.

 

[Craig75]

But it can be a part of split-grade printing...

It can also be part of non split grade printing though.

OP is asking if in combination of a grade 5 and grade 0 base exposure it produces any thing different than a non split exposure and the only answers have come from Michael and Ralph who've both said no it doesnt