Split grade printing

Jason,

Don't be too sensitive. You have a right to express yourself and I don't think people are being mean spirited. This forum seems like a fairly kind-hearted but spirited group. Besides, isn't it great that some of us still get exercised by "controversies" in the darkroom?

Jason Mekeel said:

Yes, do not expose longer than 3 seconds, at grade 5. It is just a quick zap to lay down some nice blacks. You may disagree, you are entitled.

Click to expand...

The time obviously depends on the enlarger lamp and lens, the degree of enlargement, and the speed of the paper. But the idea is probably valid, at least much of the time.

I don't use split grade printing - or a least I don't use it much. There are times when it is required for a problem negative; there are times when one part of the negative simply demands a different grade of paper; and there are frequent times when I will burn an area in at a lower contrast. However, split grade printing is a very valid technique, as witnessed by the outstanding prints produced by its many users. The problem is that it takes a while to learn to do it well, and I have not mastered the technique. I think that people who want to start split grade printing should be prepared to use considerable discipline and suffer a pretty long learning curve. I may not be cut out for it. Some mention has been made of the fine gradations in contrast possible with the split grade technique. I often find myself trimming the contrast grades by using small changes in the dichro head setting. It makes quite a difference, but that fine tuning of overall contrast does not have quite the same effect as the split grade approach.

smieglitz said:

It does not seem intuitive that a single contrast filter used at a specific time could match the variations possible with split-filter printing.

Click to expand...

That's true if you're using a single filter from a standard filter pack. One ratio of 00 and 5 filter print times will be equivalent to, say, a grade 3.75 filter. But some enlarger heads (e.g. the Saunders/LPL VCCE variable-contrast heads) provide continuous control over the VC contrast grade.

tim rudman said:

You can also exploit local contrast much more than with any single filter.

Click to expand...

Tim, just wandering but...not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that it is easier to exploit the local contrast with SG printing as a printing method alone? Or are you referring to the advantages of exploiting local contrast by using multiple filtration for different parts of the negative, like "painting" with filters?

I guess I'm more of a painter with the various filtration settings. To clarify my earlier comment, I don't split grade print anymore, rather I lay down the overall contrast with a single filtration setting, probably 95% or better it is always with the #2 or the #3 setting or somewhere in between with my LPL. However, the choice to exploit the local contrast of any portion of the negative with other filtration settings is achieved readily.

John W said:

That's true if you're using a single filter from a standard filter pack. One ratio of 00 and 5 filter print times will be equivalent to, say, a grade 3.75 filter. But some enlarger heads (e.g. the Saunders/LPL VCCE variable-contrast heads) provide continuous control over the VC contrast grade.

Click to expand...

That may be, but there would still be a fair amount of trial and error, or luck, involved with a single contrast grade. You'd have to sneak up on the correct exposure and contrast, or be very lucky. The split-filter system seems to offer a two-step systematic approach that gets you there in a minimum of steps.

I don't mean to imply that others can't guess at the correct contrast grade by looking at a negative or by reading density ranges, etc., though i will confess to not being able to do so. There's a difference between reading the numbers and reading the print values for their expressive content or perceptual effects. The split-filter method, for me, allows me to gage the proper exposure and contrast in a very minimal amount of testing.

And I'm saying this with many years of experience printing. I'd consider myself a fairly good printer and have been employed in that capacity by a couple commercial studios in the past. A few weeks practice split-filter printing has made my printing skills even better. I love the technique.

Some heavy weight printers swear by split grade printing and they would know what works. However, as I recall from one of Eddie Ephraum's books he would settle on the correct grade for the midtones and then burn selected areas at various contrast settings as required, and some of his prints are just wonderful. So there's a variety of approaches and the learning never stops!

Did the older Ilford Multigrade filter sets not have 00 in them, I bought one and it only has 0 to 5 in half grades and a Red? What will I be missing if I can only use 0 and not 00?

Thanks

Curt said:

Did the older Ilford Multigrade filter sets not have 00 in them, I bought one and it only has 0 to 5 in half grades and a Red? What will I be missing if I can only use 0 and not 00?

Thanks

Click to expand...

That's correct, earlier sets (like mine) don't have the 00 filter. It can be purchased separately, but at a high price relative to the price of a set. You'll lose about a grade of contrast relative to the 0 filter. I use blue and green Rosco gels for split printing, but also have a light yellow Rosco that I haven't tried yet for low contrast when split filter printing.

With the use of Durst and Kodak value dichroic heads, Rosco gels, Kodak, Cachet, and Ilford VC filter sets, and the many dedicated VC enlarger head modules, plus the varying output colors from enlarger light sources, there's significant variability in the range of contrast available.

The Anchell book on Variable Contrast printing is well worth a read if you're interested in split grade, or broader knowledge of printing on VC paper.

Lee

I'm looking for the Steve Anchell book now but can you tell me what the Rosco filter number or item number is for the 00 equivalent?

Thanks,
Curt

Bob Carnie said:

Hi Tim
I think I do my split printing a bit different from others.
I always start with a low filter like a 1 or 1 1/2 depending upon the contrast range of the negative I am printing.
My goal is to make a print that has a good balance that is a bit softer and lighter than what I would call a final.
I then use the 5 filter as Joe points out and use a % exposure with it. I start at about 40% of the main filter exposure.
At this point I will then work with different times with the lower and high filter until I have the print I like and the contrast needed.
I have tried the 0 and 5 only method and though have seen beautiful prints by others, but I do not seem to get the range of tones I am looking for.

Click to expand...

Hi Bob, how nice to hear from you again. I hope the world is treating you well?
Well, I was going to say that using 1.5 to 5 is like having a 5 speed gear box and only using gears 2,3&4, but then of course that is what all you guys across the pond drive with anyway
Having had the pleasure of seeing a lot of your prints Bob, whatever process you use, don't change it without good reason. Your printing is outstanding. I remember when we judged the 1st 'Silver' conference print competition in L.A. what an impact your prints made! That was the first time I had seen your work. I didn't know who any of the prints were by of course but it was clear that the whole of your entry was printed by an individual and they all stood out as distinctive to the whole of my team.

Split grade printing is just a tool, but a useful one. A bit like having perfect pitch in music, a very few people can eyeball a neg and know exactly what the contrast grade should be, and be right. Most people cannot. Some believe they can, but can't. SG is a way to match both the exposure and contrast to give the maximum duplication of the negative information onto that paper. Sophisticated systems like the Heiland Split Grade system use only the 2 extreme filters because it is pointless to use anything else. Doing so can only reduce what is capable of being reproduced on the paper.

That is not to say that you will necessarily like the result - as you point out. The SG result may be perfect for one person and a mile away for another.
matching your vision can never be the objective of SG, as we are all likely to have a personal vision for the interpretation of that image, but it will be the best possible starting point so that from there on all manipulations are creative rather than salvage.

A quick story: A successful competetive exhibitor came on one of my courses in Spain years ago. He had his Fellowship in B&W 'pictorial' prints. He bought his latest print and negative and explained the exceptionally long complicated printing process to get to this final image. We decided to reprint it after he learned the SG technique and he proceeded to make the best print ever of that neg (his description) on the first try - and even more to his amazement, without any burning and dodging. All his corrective manipulations were simply because he was starting with an empirical contrast which he thought would suit the image, but didn't nearly match the negative, so all the rest was salvage work. The rest of his prints required on avaerge 75% less D&B, which alone made it less obvious looking and forced and more seamless and invisible. This is pretty common in my experience.

Now you have indentified a sort of ringaround system that works for you, and you are an exceptionally fine printer working professionally and regularly so what you do becomes an instinctive extension of yourself. For many, that is a way of life that simply will never be relevent to them. SG can help them cut through this tedious process quickly and reliably. If you look at the time & contrast settings on the Heiland module, you will see that if you override the contrast by even a tenth of a grade, the time is always adjusted automatically to compensate. Doing this manually is laborious as every contrast adjustment needs a compensatory time adjustment - or accept as 'close enough'. SG does all that in 2 steps.

Bob Carnie said:

Before the wide usage of VC Papers I would use a soft and hard dev, I know Les McLean still does this and his split prints could never be matched by a single grade Paper.

Click to expand...

You are right. All the adjustments of filtration and exposure will only work within the confines of the curves for that material and if you knew the settings, could be duplicated by a single filtration. If you want to move outside that playground and take things a step beyond, then you have to exploit properties of different developers. We use combinations of say lith & glycine devs, lith & amidol, lith & lithoprint and so on on the lith workshops. Wolfgang Moersch has made a real study of this approach and uses many more combinations.

Take care Bob, and happy Christmas to you
Tim

CPorter said:

Tim, just wandering but...not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that it is easier to exploit the local contrast with SG printing as a printing method alone? Or are you referring to the advantages of exploiting local contrast by using multiple filtration for different parts of the negative, like "painting" with filters?

I guess I'm more of a painter with the various filtration settings. To clarify my earlier comment, I don't split grade print anymore, rather I lay down the overall contrast with a single filtration setting, probably 95% or better it is always with the #2 or the #3 setting or somewhere in between with my LPL. However, the choice to exploit the local contrast of any portion of the negative with other filtration settings is achieved readily.

Click to expand...

You can do this in a number of ways because you are printing the base exposure with 2 extreme contrast filters instead of one average one. for example, if you expose 10 seconds with a G 2.5 filter and dodge an area 5 seconds, it will be lighter but the same contrast. If you are using SG, you can dodge that area during the G.00 exposure, leaving more G5 on the print, or you can hold back the G.5 exposure, reducing the amount of G5 on the print locally. This will alter both density and contrast. Or you can dodge equally in each component and leave it contrast neutral.
Similarly you can dodge say the whole of the G.00 component of a whole foreground grass area (for example) and burn it back on G5 - surprisingly easy to do - giving an overal contrast boost to that area from 2.5 to 5.
This can be far more effective than just burning in with different filters, where the result of that filter is always diluted by the filtration of the main exposure.
Tim

Jason Mekeel said:

Yes, do not expose longer than 3 seconds, at grade 5. It is just a quick zap to lay down some nice blacks. You may disagree, you are entitled.

Click to expand...

I know exactly what Jason means here. We used this method when the early Multigrade papers came out. They were disappointingly flat and we used to zap in some extra 5 as a sort of turbo black boost to try and improve them.
But this isn't what SG really means.
I recall too when we began to experiment with just 2 filters, trying combos of say 3 & 5 or 2 & 4 etc, seeking elusive tones that couldn't be acheived with one filter. It was a while before I and others too accepted that we were seeing what we wanted to see - what Phil Davies would years later describe as wishful seeing.
Eventually these techniques evolved into just using the 2 extreme filters and I wondered why it had taken so long for the penny to drop!
Tim

This is becoming one of the more educational threads I have read in quite awhile. Kind of like an early Christmas present. (Well, look at that... Where did the time go? Well, then... Merry Christmas to you all. ) I hope Jason is reading and sees that yesterday's comments were not a personal attack but rather questions for clarification of his technique. (...which Tim has done, clearing up that little mystery.)

The lesson here, as shown through Bob and Tim and Jason, and all who have contributed to this thread, is that even the finest photographic education is limitied by the materials and techniques of the time we did our learning. Given the limitations of VC papers at the time, Jason's technique was a well-reasoned process to breathe life into prints beyond the tonal range achievable with a single filter... and it was quantifiable. Someone had taken the time to measure how much of a high contrast push those early-ish papers required. Times and materials have changed, and so has the need for that measured paper compensation which Jason was taught. Instead, SG printing has evolved into a very flexible procedure that can be applied in whatever way works best in the individual darkroom.

Wishing the very best to all APUGers in this season. May the coming year be a delight of analogue opportunities for us all.

Cheers,

Curt said:

I'm looking for the Steve Anchell book now but can you tell me what the Rosco filter number or item number is for the 00 equivalent?

Thanks,
Curt

Click to expand...

Curt,

I don't recall if Anchell says what he uses personally aside from a Cachet VC head on a D5-XL, but he lists the filters others use. Rosco 3107 Tough Y-1 is the yellow lowest contrast that I haven't tried yet, probably the closest replacement for an Ilford MG 00. The other split filter Rosco set that he mentions is a Chroma Green 389 for low contrast and a Sky Blue 68 for highest contrast. I've had very good results with that set. I get 7 full stops from D-Max to paper white with the 389 filter contact printing a Stouffer wedge on Ilford MG-IV, and about 3.6 stops with the 68.

You can also use Wratten tricolor blue and green, 47B for blue and 58 or 61 for green.

Anchell also gives two different filter sets designed by Joe Englander and Howard Bond for their cold light heads to get a full contrast range and even grade spacing. The standard filter sets from Kodak and Ilford don't work for the full range of the paper with cold light.

The book info: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Variable-Contrast-Printing-Manual-Anchell/dp/0240802594

Thanks for the note on the shot of black Tim.

Best of the season to all.

Lee

Thanks everyone for the great advice so far! I'm really looking forward to getting back in the darkroom now and trying some of this stuff out.

nworth said:

The problem is that it takes a while to learn to do it well, and I have not mastered the technique. I think that people who want to start split grade printing should be prepared to use considerable discipline and suffer a pretty long learning curve.

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree with the above a little. I would be far from an expert printer. I've been dabbling on and off in the standard way of doing this for a few years, but having tried the split grade approach, I have to say that it's turned out to be a very simple and straightforward technique. I can turn out acceptable (to me) prints in a shorter time and I find the process of fine-tuning these prints far easier and more intuitive when just concentrating on how to adjust the amount of g0 and g5 in different areas of the print.

Now it may be that I haven't progressed to the real subtleties of the technique yet and that's where the steep learning curve comes in ....but .. based on my experience so far I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone from beginner to intermediate.

smieglitz said:

There's a difference between reading the numbers and reading the print values for their expressive content or perceptual effects. The split-filter method, for me, allows me to gage the proper exposure and contrast in a very minimal amount of testing.

Click to expand...

Point well taken. While I was speaking to the theoretical aspect of split vs. single filtration, it's always important to mind the practical matters of which technique provides an comfortable and productive working path.