Split Grade Printing?

I used to have a Philips enlarger, PCS2000. It really can only do enlargements of 35mm film, and only has a short column, but something which was awesome was the Tri One control. The enlarger has red, green and blue channels with permanent dichroic filters. You vary the brightness of each channel using a remote control. This means that there is no touching the enlarger. Another book to recommend is Carson Graves book on enlarging. It made printing without relying upon split grade tricks just as intuitive.

John Layton said:

I started to do split grade printing about a year ago...shortly after I acquired a complete Zone VI enlarger setup with VC cold light head.

So far so good...and yes, this is indeed a powerful tool in controlling local contrast levels.

But I think my initial approach to testing may be changing. While "conventional" wisdom had suggested I first test to establish highs with the green channel, I sometimes find results a bit difficult to evaluate effectively. So more recently I've begun to test first for shadows with the blue channel - getting to something which feels good intuitively, then layering on with the green channel to "fill in the blanks" as it were.

Yet another suggested testing technique - that of printing an area in a perpendicular grid pattern using each channel for the first (and hypothetically only) test sequence...I find either limiting or wasteful, in that for me this requires a large sheet of paper to get any sense of relativity to the entirety of the image. Thus I'm still starting by establishing a base using one channel, then adding the other to this with a new sequence to get a good baseline exposure.

At any rate...I'd be very curious to have others chime in a bit further regarding their initial testing procedures. As for what seems to be a general consensus that split grade printing saves time...I have yet to find this to be true for me, but I probably just need a bit more practice.

Finally, while the the VC cold light head on my Zone VI seems OK for now, the blue channel does seem to flicker a bit when fully powered up (I thus use this channel at a lower setting) I'm a bit nervous about its working consistently down the road...and am starting to think about alternative light sources.

The Heiland LED heads look amazing - but also very expensive. But I do wonder about the actual contrast range of these led heads. A good friend has been using the Zone VI LED VC head, which was produced very briefly before Zone VI folded. He relates that while generally more even and "flicker-free," his Z-VI LED head does not offer the contrast range (especially in the higher contrasts) when compared to his older cold light version. My hope would be that the Heiland head would offer an improvement here, especially given its cost...but I would like to hear more from others regarding experiences with Heiland heads. Thanks!

Click to expand...

I've got the old Zone VI with the really blue lamp. I print by putting a green filter or a 47b blue filter under the lens... and my green times are always pretty long but I can get down close to contrast 00 or 1 with just the green. Like you, I mostly start with the green, pick a "base" exposure so that the brightest highlight is still barely paperwhite, then work on the shadows and mid-tones. Dodging the mid-tones during the green exposure allows for a lot of control in how much the tones separate. I've also made the checkerboard, and sometimes I still do it, but it really depends on the image. Sometimes the parts of the image that matter the most just won't be near the right green+blue combination. When I use test strips, I pick where they will be pretty carefully, and isolate important highlights with the green test strip and important dark areas with the blue one. I use the checkerboard more when I know I'm just going to make a single "straight" print and probably not work a lot more than that on it.

Often I use a whole sheet of paper for the green "test stripes". By intentionally starting "too light" and going way past "too dark", I can get a really good idea what the effect of different amounts of burning will be. Often I have a good idea how to deal with clouds/sky or other burning after just this one test. I make very thin stripes, usually starting at 10 seconds and going 2 or 3 seconds at a time up to a minute or so. Then I'll make a small test strip to evaluate the blue exposure, or if I know I'll be making several prints to work on dodging/burning, I'll just make a few stripes on the "working" prints. My blue exposures tend to be somewhere between 1 second and 6 or 8 seconds ( with some brief burns in sky or water or edges sometimes... )

If I have a more "low key" or overall dark image, I will go the other way like you said. Funny that you mentioned it, but I think of this as being a more "intuitive" direction too... locking in the darks, then working "adding" the green light... I don't approach prints this way very often, but when I do I often find myself thinking about dodging and burning "backwards"... as if it's all dodging. I.e. I'm bathing the whole print in green and controlling the separation and addition of tone in the darks by dodging them. When I work on the sky in one like this, I often think of it as dodging the land, instead of burning the sky. It's kind of fun that way and encourages thinking of the print more as a whole... I must admit some of the best prints I've made were this "backwards" way but I think it's because I got away from the tiny details better and saw the picture more as a whole. I think some of the really good printers here at APUG do that very intuitively, probably without knowing how much they do it, subconsciously drawing on experience and an eye toward printing that comes from experience.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

It's like a duotone. I have to make all my printing split grade. Printing with the single filter method for over 30 years is a hard habit to break.

Click to expand...

true but it ignores a few decades of VC-printing technology.burning with soft or hard filters is fairly common anyway

I use all the above, depending on the specific enlarger and, of course, the challenge of the specific negative and paper involved. Additive colorheads with dedicated color channels, ordinary subtractive colorheads, blue-green cold light, split printing with deep green and blue filters - I'm comfortable with all of 'em.

I'm a noob printer and I just happened onto a Lynda.com video in which Konrad Eek demonstrates this technique. I must say, I'm impressed. I realize that a person could get to the same exposure via single filter but for me (as a noob) dealing with exposure and contrast separately is proving to be tough. I'm doing a lot of paper wasting.

I'm giving this a try today to see if it won't streamline my efforts.

Effective darkroom printing is a learned skill, and it takes time and practice to become proficient with all the tools and techniques. That's the fun of it, though. Especially when you have a breakthrough. Kinda like learning to play a musical instrument.

Everyone becomes more efficient after time, so don't worry about wasting paper in the beginning.

There's a lot of great books that cover subjects like split-grade printing, I'm going thru "Creative Elements" by Eddie Ephraums. Also, this photographer has some useful examples and explanations of his printing techniques (especially "Child Worker"): http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/p/omars-darkroom-posts.html .

Have Fun!

Thanks for the links.

Would it be accurate to say that if a person came up with a pleasing exposure using split grade printing that summing the two and dividing in half would exactly match a single filter printing result?
Example: 00 for 10 seconds followed by #5 for 20 seconds is the same as 2.5 for 15 seconds?

rpavich said:

Thanks for the links.

Would it be accurate to say that if a person came up with a pleasing exposure using split grade printing that summing the two and dividing in half would exactly match a single filter printing result?
Example: 00 for 10 seconds followed by #5 for 20 seconds is the same as 2.5 for 15 seconds?

Click to expand...

Mostly....

Although the actual resulting grade may not be exactly 2.5.

But the strength of split grade printing isn't really appreciated fully until you combine it with burning and dodging. It is really nice to be able to burn a shadow area at one contrast setting and dodge another area at another contrast setting (or vice versa).

This may already have been referred to in this thread, but I recommend Les McLean's article on the subject: http://www.lesmcleanphotography.com/articles.php?page=full&article=21

Thanks Matt.

I just got done doing my first real split grade print and it turned out really nicely. At this point any printing is a learning experience for me.

I found once I started developing all my negs in PyroCat-HD I had to modify the way I did Split Grade. I had been doing SG for years with my HC110 and Rodinal negs using the hard and soft filters in a more or less traditional manner. Now I find I am very selective about which filters I use on what areas and adjust the exposure times accordingly.

rpavich said:

Thanks Matt.

I just got done doing my first real split grade print and it turned out really nicely. At this point any printing is a learning experience for me.

Click to expand...

Keep thinking of printing as a learning experience. I've been at it for a bit more than 15 years actively, and every time I go in the darkroom I feel a little bit like a beginner. It's healthy to keep an open mind, and also to realize that the first couple of thousand prints will probably not be awesome. Just keep doing it, and eventually you'll start feeling like you're printing the way you want your prints to look.

The whole b&w printing is a system, where all of the decisions you made until you spot your prints are distilled onto the paper. It's a representation of all those steps. You can make it easy for yourself and work with one paper and one film until you get really great prints from those materials. Limit the use of different developers too. There ARE differences between various materials, sometimes pretty stark too, but you will not learn to fully exploit it unless you have really solid technique and a solid understanding of the b&w printing system. The word system is important.

Anyway, keep on keeping on. Make sure you have a good time. Be observant. Enjoy the ride.

+1 for what Thomas says.

I would add one further suggestion - make notes, and organize the results so you can review them.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Keep thinking of printing as a learning experience. I've been at it for a bit more than 15 years actively, and every time I go in the darkroom I feel a little bit like a beginner. It's healthy to keep an open mind, and also to realize that the first couple of thousand prints will probably not be awesome. Just keep doing it, and eventually you'll start feeling like you're printing the way you want your prints to look.

The whole b&w printing is a system, where all of the decisions you made until you spot your prints are distilled onto the paper. It's a representation of all those steps. You can make it easy for yourself and work with one paper and one film until you get really great prints from those materials. Limit the use of different developers too. There ARE differences between various materials, sometimes pretty stark too, but you will not learn to fully exploit it unless you have really solid technique and a solid understanding of the b&w printing system. The word system is important.

Anyway, keep on keeping on. Make sure you have a good time. Be observant. Enjoy the ride.

Click to expand...

Thanks Thomas. I'm striving to do that in my shooting and in my printing. I'm really enjoying the process for sure.

MattKing said:

+1 for what Thomas says.

I would add one further suggestion - make notes, and organize the results so you can review them.

Click to expand...

I'm really bad at that, but I'll give it some extra effort.

rpavich said:

I'm really bad at that, but I'll give it some extra effort.

Click to expand...

"Do it or do not do it. There is no try." Yoda in Star Wars

The best way to learn split printing is just to do it, and forget ALL that grade-this/grade-that talk. How many of you learned on graded papers
to begin with, anyway? I did. But there aren't many graded paper options even left now. And even then I mainly worked with just one grade (3). Now I can make virtually identical prints using setting on a typical subtractive colorhead, an additive colorhead, or split grade using a
blue-green cold light. And I ignore "grade" in every instance. And if I do want "grade", I reach for a sheet of true graded paper instead of VC.

Kilgallb said:

When you burn the sky with 00 you can be less precise with the dodging mask. The 00 exposure will not have too much effect on the dark edges of a tree line. The same can be said when burning a darker tree line or mountain at grade 5. The exposure will not have great effect on the sky. This means your dodging and burning manipulation a are harder to see.

Click to expand...

This x1000. Been reading up on this whole subject again as I have been using an RH Analyser from the start so no need to stick to certain grades, or do test strips etc.. Recently been using the analyser to take readings of the board on different parts of the image then use dodge masks cut from card in an attempt to get more local contrast and impact in the areas of interest. Multiple meter readings from the sky can push one towards trying to burn it in with too much contrast IMHO, it can look really unnatural to me but I guess some like that. One thing that definitely stands out though regardless of taste is its about x1000 harder to do these big burns at normal to higher contrast grades than with a low contrast filtration. I haven't settled yet but my basic technique is heading down the route of picking a base exposure with the analyser that gives me the contrast in the main features or areas (such as the contrast over a landscape ignoring the sky), then burning sky or highlights at a soft grade. Pretty much a scheme like that described by jimjm earlier in this thread.

I don't think anybody mentioned this, but when you are splitting, do you simply split the time in half or do you do test strips under each filter to determine the best exposures? I think I have my answer...separate test strips...but can anyone report that it makes a substantial difference?

Probably everybody that uses graded paper knows that the #5 filter has little effect darkening the highlights and the #00 filter has little effect darkening the shadows.

fjpod said:

I don't think anybody mentioned this, but when you are splitting, do you simply split the time in half or do you do test strips under each filter to determine the best exposures? I think I have my answer...separate test strips...but can anyone report that it makes a substantial difference?

Click to expand...

First do a test strip under one filter. Arrive at the best time for the tone that filter affects most (low contrast filter for highlight areas, high contrast filter for shadow areas).
Expose the paper using that filter for that best time. Then, without moving the paper, do a test strip using the other filter on that exposed paper. Pick the combination of times (low contrast filter best time, and high contrast filter best time) that yields the best result.
Quite frequently, the two times will be quite different.
My rule of thumb is that it is best to start with the low contrast filter with normal to high contrast negatives, and best to start with the high contrast filter with low contrast negatives.

MattKing said:

First do a test strip under one filter. Arrive at the best time for the tone that filter affects most (low contrast filter for highlight areas, high contrast filter for shadow areas).
Expose the paper using that filter for that best time. Then, without moving the paper, do a test strip using the other filter on that exposed paper. Pick the combination of times (low contrast filter best time, and high contrast filter best time) that yields the best result.
Quite frequently, the two times will be quite different.
My rule of thumb is that it is best to start with the low contrast filter with normal to high contrast negatives, and best to start with the high contrast filter with low contrast negatives.

Click to expand...

Sounds like good advice. Thanks.

fjpod said:

I don't think anybody mentioned this, but when you are splitting, do you simply split the time in half or do you do test strips under each filter to determine the best exposures? I think I have my answer...separate test strips...but can anyone report that it makes a substantial difference?

Click to expand...

I have tried different methods from dicro color head, to under lens filters, to currently using the multigrade 500 head with the RH Analyzer.

With the dicro head I would start with a base exposure 60Y/40M and adjust Y or M for initial exposure after the test strip, then change again for burn time. Sometimes I would use All Yellow and All Magenta for 50/50 time to start with and refine. It was difficult to fiddle with dials between exposures.

Moved to under lens filters with a cold light head after Dicro head burned out: This was easy enough and most of the the time a 50/50 split between low and high grade was a good starting point after initial test strip. I could then refine to maybe using 00 and #3 at a 30/70% and burn in with #5 or #1 as needed. In one print I actually used 4 different grades for burning. Keeping filters dust free and finding them in the dark were the main challenges. I also feel the cold light head prints were less than stellar. I also previously used under lens filters with an old Federal tin can enlarger with a point light source and it had a nice pop to it.

Recently I bought the Ilford 500 head which uses 2 different light sources of blue and green. I initially worked the same way as my under lens filter method but found that the head requires more time on blue side to achieve the contrast I wanted around grades 2-3. When I added the analyzer I could better see the metered points of the negative densities on its gray scale and dial in the initial grade and exposure in one or two sheets. Still Green (00) is very short time compared to blue (5-ish) time on my particular head if I use grades above #3. Sometimes I can not get to grade 5 on the analyzer as it is programmed for specific papers and their effective black point.

so the long winded answer is - it depends on your head and filters used. 50/50 may be good for one system whereas 25/75 may be good for another.
It will also depend on negative/subject contrast and whether you are using a staining developer or non-staining on your negatives. In addition to enlarger exposure and grade you still have differences of paper choice, developer characteristics, and post development toning.

The goal of split grade or single grade printing is to find the contrast grade for a single image that best separates the tones or merges them based on your vision.

Whew. I think I follow. I'm using aBeseler diffusion dichro.

fjpod said:

Whew. I think I follow. I'm using aBeseler diffusion dichro.

Click to expand...

One trick with the Beseler Dichro S. To avoid too much jiggling around you can use white light (Use the lever) and just hold a big Ilford 00 acetate filter under the lens for your soft exposure. Then flip the lever , ever so gently, back to a pre-set HARD filter setting. (I never tried this but heard from a friend YMMV )

I graduated to the Beseler Universal head. It has tri color 3 bulb set up and a separate controller, I have two of these one for color one for VC . All you need is an ordinary enlarger and under the lens Ilford filters, I just like to buy equipment.
When needed split printing is amazing!

Yes split printing is amazing. I knew nothing of it last time I was in the hobby some 20 years ago. Now I find myself using it s lot... Mostly due to my poor exposures...lol. I don't mind the Beseler knobs so much. I almost have them memorized, but it is s good idea to slip the 0 or 00 filter in and open up the white light.

I don't always use the split grade method, but when I do I always wonder why I don't just switch to it permanently. It's a fun way to print, and I like dodging and burning at one contrast while not affecting the other.