Split grade printing

[Tim Gray]

I just did my first split grade print ever. It was really easy to dial in everything. I think I'll be doing a lot more of it.

I have a couple questions about it though. Do those of you who split grade print typically do all your prints this way, or only the more 'difficult' ones. It seems like an extra step if you have a negative that prints on grade 2 (or no filter on VC paper). On the other hand, it is only one extra step, so it's not the end of the world.

Second question. I'm printing on Ilford Multigrade RC. I used the 0 and 5 filters. Should I use the 00 filter instead? I didn't even realize I had one until I finished my printing session.

Thanks

 

[Thanasis]

I've only ever used it negatives which dont give me the look i am after when i print them straight and i always use the 00 and the 5 filters.

 

[RJS]

You might be interested in reading the latest issue of Photo Techniques; they have quite an extensive piece on split grade printing written by two extremely knowledgeable people. Brings the whole thing into question.

 

[Chuck_P]

Do those of you who split grade print typically do all your prints this way, or only the more 'difficult' ones. It seems like an extra step if you have a negative that prints on grade 2 (or no filter on VC paper). On the other hand, it is only one extra step, so it's not the end of the world.

First, taking this comment from Steve Anchell's book------ "Split printing cannot create any contrast that the paper cannot produce with proper single-filter techniques. What it can do is enable the printer to maintain precise control over the final image by observing and making incremental separate adjustments to shadows and highlights. As a printing method, it is not inherently better or worse than using a single filter for overall contrast."

I used to split grade print, but no more as I found this to be entirely true. IMO, given a quality negative and my own tight paper budget, the extra step is not justified by my own experiences. Perhaps it does have some benefit for your more diffcult negatives. Many will swear by it as it seems to be a preferred way to print and you'll see a lot of nice pictures here with that method.

Second question. I'm printing on Ilford Multigrade RC. I used the 0 and 5 filters. Should I use the 00 filter instead? I didn't even realize I had one until I finished my printing session.

You can still arrive at your exposure time with the #00 filter just as easily as with the #0, it may slightly reduce the exposure time for your desired highlight because it's essentially a lower contrast filter and will print the high values even quicker. I recommend Anchell's book: The Variable Contrast Printing Manual".

 

[tim rudman]

I just did my first split grade print ever. It was really easy to dial in everything. I think I'll be doing a lot more of it.

I have a couple questions about it though. Do those of you who split grade print typically do all your prints this way, or only the more 'difficult' ones. It seems like an extra step if you have a negative that prints on grade 2 (or no filter on VC paper). On the other hand, it is only one extra step, so it's not the end of the world.

Second question. I'm printing on Ilford Multigrade RC. I used the 0 and 5 filters. Should I use the 00 filter instead? I didn't even realize I had one until I finished my printing session.

Thanks

Tim,
In order to get to max from split grade printing you should only use the widest extremes of filtration that are available to you. Anything elso reduces the range of tones you can play with and offers no possible advantage in return.
Secondly, there are a number of advantages in split grading, apart from matching the exposure and contrast to the negative - which some people never manage to do with a single filter and so have to resort to unnecessary burning & dodging highlights and shadows to rescue the mismatch. The only B & D you should have to do are for interpretative reasons, not rescue. Then they will be less obvious to the viewer.
Split grading though allows you to also D & B (more importantly D) during the G 00 or G 5 thus altering local contrast as well as density. It also allows you to confine creative techniques like soft focus filters, texture screens. etc to just one of the filtered exposures. This can be pretty useful.
Tim

 

[Jason Mekeel]

I would like to expand on this if I may:

Put down your grade 5 first, and do not do it longer than 3 seconds.
Put down your low contrast grade down second and do it for whatever remaining time you need.

Upton, B. (2001). Photography. Prentice Hall

 

[David Brown]

Put down your grade 5 first, and do not do it longer than 3 seconds.

Upton, B. (2001). Photography. Prentice Hall

Wow, I'm not disputing that using the hard (g5) filter first is a valid method, but "do not (expose) longer than 3 seconds" is hilarious. There are so many other variables.

There must be more context for that quote. :confused:

 

[Jason Mekeel]

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.

 

[Tim Gray]

Ok I'll use the 00 filter next time.

I realize that split grade printing doesn't let you do anything that you couldn't with single grade printing. However, I guess it makes a lot more sense to me than doing a test strip for exposure, then a test strip for contrast and potentially having to redo the exposure because it has changed. I don't know. Maybe I never grasped that whole concept.

Maybe I'll try the 5 first. I was doing soft first (as per Les McLean recommended in some book). That seems to be working for me. Haha.

 

[jeroldharter]

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.

It is not so much disagreement - the comment does not make sense. 3 seconds at what f-stop, at what magnification, with what sort of light source? Variable contrast papers are about 1 stop slower with magenta filtration than with yellow, so does that mean you limit the soft exposure to 1.5 seconds? Just does not make sense. I assume you mean that the magenta exposure should be the minimum exposure that prints a black in the shadows.

I read the Photo Techniques article. Really I just had time to skim so far. But I disagree with the conclusion that split contrast printing is of little use. It helps me a lot. I used to have a hard time getting the contrast that I liked. Split contrast, no problem. Also, the process of doing test strips with hard and soft filtration allows me to "see more" of the negative and drives decision making for a fine print. The process can be time consuming but for good purpose. I would argue that I waste less paper with split contrast printing than I did before.

 

[Dan Henderson]

My answer to Tim's original question is that once I learned to split grade print, I saw no reason to not use the method for every print. Unlike Jason, I learned to make the first exposure through the soft grade filter, and to make the exposure just long enough to put a little tone into the highlight areas, then make the hard exposure to set the shadows where I want them. Doing it this way, my highlights are "pinned" where I want them with the soft exposure, and then I "stretch" the exposure as far as I need to get the shadows where I want them with the hard exposure, without affecting the highlights.

 

[smieglitz]

It does not seem intuitive that a single contrast filter used at a specific time could match the variations possible with split-filter printing. I just started the latter technique and am finding most of my negatives need the number 5 exposure at about 40% of the number 00 exposure given. Is there a reference somewhere that equates single-grade contrast to some percentages using split-grades?

My prints have never looked better and so I'm quite pleased with the split-grade technique. I also sense that a lot more can be done with local contrast as Dr. Rudman states.

 

[Erik L]

I enjoy split grade printing, however I find that if I am printing a relatively flat negative I get no benefit from it. For me, it seems to work better with a more contrasty negative. Maybe I am missing something most likely explanation
Erik

 

[resummerfield]

I use split grade printing, and use it for every print. In my case, I put down the base soft exposure, then the second hard exposure. By dodging and burning specific areas in the different exposures, I am able to make a better print than with one intermediate exposure.

I completely agree with smieglitz when he says, "My prints have never looked better and so I'm quite pleased with the split-grade technique..."

 

[Toffle]

Barring other bizarre darkroom games, I use split-grade printing on roughly 9 out of 10 prints. (I like to print with Caffenol, which hasn't given me much success with split grades.)
Check out this thread from not that long ago. The topic was covered in some detail.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Cheers,

 

[MattKing]

I agree totally with Jerold.

Lately, I've been experimenting though with 1st trying to come to a decision about an appropriate contrast level, to bring out the mid-tone contrast, and then adding hard and soft exposures (where necessary) to bring up the highlight and shadow densities (respectively).

I use the dichroic filters in my colour head to fine-tune the main contrast setting, and then without adjusting those settings add exposure through below-lens 00 and 5+ filters, as required, to respond to the extremes of the negative.

This only really works when the mid-tone contrast responds well to something between a 1.5 to 3 contrast filter, and I'm frequently dodging or burning (or both) during the 00 and/or the 5+ exposures.

Matt

 

[tim rudman]

What SG really does par excellence is to give you quickly and accurately the correct exposure/contrast combination for that negative (not 'any' negative) for that paper using that enlarger. Bullseye. Easy and quick. There can be no pre-determined norm to cover all those variables unless you shoot only in identical controlled studio lighting on the same stock processed identically for every single negative.
having got that perfect starting point you can then move with minimum necessary manipulation to make whatever interpretative changes you want. You can also exploit local contrast much more than with any single filter.
For the majority of normal negs it is normal to use G00 first, followed by G5. This is both easier and for very small print reasons, technically better.
For many years I taught this process on my fine printing courses and have seen so many testaments like those above where people suddenly found themselves printing quality they had never had before. It can be and often is, a complete revelation for some. Is it the only right way to print? No, of course not. but it is a good way for many.
Tim

 

[Bob Carnie]

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.

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.

Graded papers definately have their merits but after looking at thousands of prints I believe Split Printing to be a very powerful tool in making Black and White prints.
Gone are the days of burning in highlights for hours , hot water to bring up highlight tone, and flat looking prints because the range of the negative outflanks the paper.

I think some folks fondly remember the wonderful emulsions that were available to us in the past. I think if some of the old silver emulsions were brought back exactly as old, *Ilfomar Simon Please* with a VC capability we would have a wonderful product.

Currently I am using a grade 4 Ilford product with an extended sensitivitey for laser exposure. The tonal quality's of this paper is to die for, I have now made maybe a thousand prints this way and am still learning to master its range. But it is a very rich black cold tone paper that is much like papers I used 25 years ago.

For those who say using a single filter and not going the further step and massaging the print are only kidding themselves. But if it is as far as they want to go its ok with me. I have met a lot of lazy printers in my life and this single filter is good enough reminds me of them. *good enough for Gov't work.





QUOTE=Tim Gray;725602]I just did my first split grade print ever. It was really easy to dial in everything. I think I'll be doing a lot more of it.

I have a couple questions about it though. Do those of you who split grade print typically do all your prints this way, or only the more 'difficult' ones. It seems like an extra step if you have a negative that prints on grade 2 (or no filter on VC paper). On the other hand, it is only one extra step, so it's not the end of the world.

Second question. I'm printing on Ilford Multigrade RC. I used the 0 and 5 filters. Should I use the 00 filter instead? I didn't even realize I had one until I finished my printing session.

Thanks[/QUOTE]

 

[thebanana]

*good enough for Gov't work.

Tarred with the same brush again

Thankfully I still attend those support group meetings.

 

[trexx]

I don't bother printing with negatives that aren't perfect.

Oh I am glad Ansel Adams did not have that philosophy. We'd have missed "Moonrise over Hernandez". Adams thought the negative was difficult to print. He printed it, not because it was perfect, but because it was the vision he wanted to create.

Having seen the negative it is a bit flat, but boy I'd love an opportunity to print such an imperfect negative.

TR -- from Tucson, home of the Center for Creative Photography and the Ansel Adams archive.

 

[Steve Smith]

I don't bother printing with negatives that aren't perfect.

None of mine would ever get printed then!


Steve.

 

[Nick Zentena]

It seems like an extra step if you have a negative that prints on grade 2 (or no filter on VC paper).

That assumes you know that to begin with. That the whole negative wants to be grade 2.

I find with split grade I let the negative tell me what grade it wants.

If you can print a negative with just a 3 second burst at grade 5 isn't that a too thin negative? :confused:

 

[JBrunner]

If you can print a negative with just a 3 second burst at grade 5 isn't that a too thin negative? :confused:

At what size? Absolutes are the bane of printing. Might as well specify all negatives must print at grade 2, 10 second exposure.

 

[Nick Zentena]

At any size with my enlarger with the filters all dialed in. Especially if the quote mentions F/8 or smaller.

To be honest my colour exposures are longer

 

[Lee L]

While getting my Bachelor of Science in Photography, it was my teacher who said not to do it longer than 3 seconds. The reason is because, any longer, and the whole thing might as well be printed at Grade 5.

That may have been somewhat correct for the conditions in that darkroom, enlargers, enlarger lamp, filters, paper, developer, etc., especially if you had standard practices for film and development. But as a blanket statement across all conditions, it's worthless, and if taken as such, it's a huge hindrance to getting on with life and doing good work.

You can also lay down either high or low contrast exposures first, depending on personal preference.

Lee

P.S. It looks like Jason took offence. My point is simply that the advice was very probably meant for particular circumstances, and that sticking strictly with that advice in other circumstances that are bound to vary widely in all the aspects I mentioned would be an exercise in frustration and thus hinder progress. I'm not implying anything about anyone's expertise or intelligence, just stating some facts concerning physics and materials.