Understanding Split Grade Printing

[138S]

Can you say what it is about his exposures that indicates his negative was very low contrast? It might help the rest of us in terms of a learning process if you indicate which of his final portraits you believe to be the best and why .

IMO the other columns at right lack contrast, and in that colum it has the most acceptable exposure.

 

[cliveh]

it is important to understand that there is no gradation split-grade printing can achieve that couldn't be achieved with a single color-filtered exposure.

Could not agree more and I would take this further by saying that even colour filter exposure is not necessary if you get lighting/exposure/ film development correct. The more you complicate the situation the greater the error.

 

[Lachlan Young]

This should make clear what the problem with that test strip is when translated into equivalent grades. A simple but correctable set of errors.



The negative may not necessarily have been incorrectly processed but may in fact be close to 'correct' for G2 on a condenser enlarger (depending on the contrast range of the subject, flare level of lenses etc) - which means with a diffusion enlarger, a +1 to +2 development time is not going to be a bad idea (depending on if you prefer G2 or G3 as your median point)

 

[cliveh]

This should make clear what the problem with that test strip is when translated into equivalent grades. A simple but correctable set of errors.

View attachment 256145

The negative may not necessarily have been incorrectly processed but may in fact be close to 'correct' for G2 on a condenser enlarger (depending on the contrast range of the subject, flare level of lenses etc) - which means with a diffusion enlarger, a +1 to +2 development time is not going to be a bad idea (depending on if you prefer G2 or G3 as your median point)

What on earth are you on about?

 

[pentaxuser]

View attachment 256128

IMO the other columns at right lack contrast, and in that colum it has the most acceptable exposure.

I have had a look at your ringed best pic and would tend to agree that while tastes differ it come close to a very small range of pics I think most would choose but what is it that makes you suggest the negative is under-exposed?

JimEA gave us two versions of a digital picture of his neg. The two do look very different and I have no idea which one represents the correct neg. He has said what he did in each case and expressed his own reservations about how well each represents the "true" neg as each of us would be able to see in person

Is there anything you can suggest that he does when taking the digital pic of the neg that might make it possible to get as close as is possible to the actual neg?

It then becomes easier to decide if for the sake of JImEA's future split grade prints what we can suggest he does. I thought he had done well in producing this complete range of split grades for the benefit of others in terms of showing what happens in the range of split grade printing but if our aim is to help him improve on this in terms of the completed print then any practical help we can give is useful. To improve members' ability to do anything associated with film and paper prints has got to be our collective aim, hasn't it ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

What on earth are you on about?

Pointing out that: a) the split grade test has significant omissions in grade/ exposure equivalents that would actually show the correct equivalent grade and exposure; and b) if you were to develop a negative to print correctly on G2 when exposed via a condenser enlarger, you may have to print the same negative using G4 on a diffusion enlarger to get the same equivalent contrast behaviour. In other words, 'correct' processing time is determined by your enlarger's light source. This is not anything new nor esoteric.

 

[ic-racer]

This is an excellent visual demonstration of the clear f-stop relationship between the different grades too.

Good pickup, with my two filters, my light source, and Ilford MG, the same middle gray density required about twice the Green exposure compared to Blue.

 

[138S]

I have had a look at your ringed best pic and would tend to agree that while tastes differ it come close to a very small range of pics I think most would choose but what is it that makes you suggest the negative is under-exposed?

IMO underdeveloped, rather than underexposed. Underexposure decreases contrast if it places the mids in the toe of the sensitometric curve, I'd sat this is not the case this time. I can also happen that the paper was bad...

JimEA gave us two versions of a digital picture of his neg. The two do look very different and I have no idea which one represents the correct neg. He has said what he did in each case and expressed his own reservations about how well each represents the "true" neg as each of us would be able to see in person

Well, my reasoning was not based in the picture of the negative, but from the fact that the most acceptale print was done at vey high grade. In theory a negative developed to ISO standard Contrast Index of 0.62 will print well aroun Grade 2, and it looks that in this case grade 4 or 5 is required, suggesting the negative has an abnormal low contrast. Still the pricture of the prints may not have much fidelity...

What I was saying that better to start preliminary testing with a negative that print well in grade 2 or 2.5. Later he may test how to print negatives sporting an "abnormal" contrast.

Is there anything you can suggest that he does when taking the digital pic of the neg that might make it possible to get as close as is possible to the actual neg?

Or course !

The negative can be scanned/photographed alongside with an Stouffer T2115 density wedge, in that case we have an absolute reference. The same with the print, the photograph of the print can be done next to a reflective density wedge. Monitors and prints are not the same, for example the software proofing of a print in a monitor (hybrid case) can be missleading.

It then becomes easier to decide if for the sake of JImEA's future split grade prints what we can suggest he does. I thought he had done well in producing this complete range of split grades for the benefit of others in terms of showing what happens in the range of split grade printing but if our aim is to help him improve on this in terms of the completed print then any practical help we can give is useful. To improve members' ability to do anything associated with film and paper prints has got to be our collective aim, hasn't it ?

Today darkroom printing has a problem: hybrid is quite easy to control. This ends in difficulties to obtain a matching result from optical printing means. Sometimes, what we do in Ps with a few clicks in the curve it can be a nightmare to achieve in the darkroom.

But an authentic well crafted optic print has an inmense value, it sports pure autenticity and the artist's hand is seen in the art, this is a totally different experience both for the photographer and for a trained eye that is able to value that effort.

Still a sound optic print should not show remarkable flaws and it has to be able to show well the creative impulse of the photographer. If one has a doubt, (when possible again) he can see the last exhibition of Sally Mann, it shows the most impressive prints many have seen on a wall, to me that exhibition is like a lighthouse that can be a reference for many, pointing what it can be achieved when a photographer is a master of his tools.

There is nothing easy in the darkroom, this is about testing, testing and testing... and later learning more theory and new techniques just to start a new testing cycle. Not easy, but quite rewarding for some.

IMO, one important thing to remark is that we may start printing before shutter release, the way we craft a negative may be oriented to make easier to obtain the print we want. This is specially true in Large Format because we can make and special development for each individual sheet, but this approach is also usefull for rolls, first we control exposure so for example we can spot meter the shadows to determine its compression, in that way we may save (in part) a difficult burning in the darkroom printing, and the series in a roll may command a similar special development. For example Yousuf Karsh controlled the very well the illumination to nail detail in the shadows, later he developed the negative by inspection (suposedly specially to control highlights). In those times VC paper was not popular, but not many photographers (digital or traditional) deliver that excellence level today...

Just pointing that IMO darkroom printing has limitations (or way more work is required for manipulation), but if we control well film choice, illumination, exposure and development then we can easily deliver impressive results. We may make a more flexible (linear) negative that it may command more effort in the darkroom printing, or we may make a a negative that will print easier like we want. This is a personal choice.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

+1

Printing with single filter is just "multigrade" printing. If you use two filters on whole exposure it is not "split grade" because it is essentially the same as one filter.

I believe split grade printing is that one uses multiple filters for different times on different parts of the paper.

Your first sentence is correct;your second is confusing.the only benefit of spli-grade printing is that you can dodge or burn the hard or soft exposure alone.

 

[Donald Qualls]

the only benefit of spli-grade printing is that you can dodge or burn the hard or soft exposure alone.

In my experience, it's also easier/quicker/less wasteful to arrive at exactly the right contrast level, independent of dodging or burning.

 

[Frank53]

In my experience, it's also easier/quicker/less wasteful to arrive at exactly the right contrast level, independent of dodging or burning.

+1
Without split grade, printing is like an equation with 2 unknowns. Time and grade. You can only solve it by trial and error. split grade lets you forget about grade. There is only 1 unknown: time.
regards,
Frank

 

[138S]

There is only 1 unknown: time.

In split grade you also have 2 unknowns: Time for the green (or yellow) and time for the blue (or magenta). You have to also adjust 2 parameters.


And also, both methods can come short for the kind of craft we want, requiring quite more advanced methods for some manipulations.

 

[JimEA]

Thanks to everyone who has put their time into commenting on the thread so far .... I'm learning a lot In particular thanks to....

@Lachlan Young - I see what you mean re the diagonals... they have the same ratio of both filters and the only thing that changes is the overall exposure - if I were to make a more comprehensive test (i'm not going to as this was just a little experiment to help me visualise whats going on, as opposed to the clearly more thorough and scientific approach that @ic-racer shared) then it would be good to extend the grid out further in all directions for a fuller picture.

@138S - thanks for the in-depth reply - I'm really enjoying learning a fully analogue workflow here - and getting the negative right is the goal (but boy is it a longer learning curve than just fiddling with curves on a screen). The step-wedge alongside the negative would really help I guess. However, over the lockdown, having progressed from making some beercan solargraphs; to making pinhole cameras to use up the remaining paper; to caffenol (and white wine-ol and mint-oil) for developing said paper; then buying a medium format camera; learning to dev the film with more traditional chemicals ; landing some darkroom equipment on ebay. etc etc....... I think that procuring a stouffler step wedge feels a bit like the final act which would confirm my journey to the dark side

@pentaxuser thanks for all the great questions and helpful encouragement

Cheers All
Jim

 

[Frank53]

In split grade you also have 2 unknowns: Time for the green (or yellow) and time for the blue (or magenta). You have to also adjust 2 parameters.

.

Ok, but forgetting about gradation makes printing life a lot easier.
Maybe you should try it. Or not
Regards,
Frank

 

[Donald Qualls]

Great thing about the dark side: we have fixer. (What, you thought I was going to offer cookies?)

 

[138S]

Maybe you should try it. Or not

Frank, I'm an split printer !!! I use that way more than the regular way.

Ok, but forgetting about gradation makes printing life a lot easier.

With split grade printing we cannot forget gradation, by balancing the G vs B exposures we adjust gradation. Our G vs B balance is what adjust contrast grade, and we end in a particular grade anyway.

 

[Frank53]

Frank, I'm an split printer !!! I use that way more than the regular way.



With split grade printing we cannot forget gradation, by balancing the G vs B exposures we adjust gradation. Our G vs B balance is what adjust contrast grade, and we end in a particular grade anyway.[/

Maybe I put it wrongly. Of course we end up in a certain grade. But this grade is the result of finding two times. One for grade 0 and one for grade 5. We don’t have to go looking for that grade.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Donald Qualls]

And, if that's the way it comes out, we can happily print at Grade 1.8 or 3.4 instead of being stuck with half-grade increments as we would with regular multigrade filters (or with graded paper and a choice of paper developers). Further, if we add dodge/burn manipulation, we can do things that would be very tricky to manage with a flat grade (either graded paper or one filter for the whole printing process): burn a bird in the sky down to a silhouette, for instance -- this is a major undertaking with single-grade; it's simple and easy with split filtering, because the inevitable spill-over from your burning tool won't put a (noticeable) shadow around the bird unless it's in a sky that's already pretty dramatic -- and if it is, you can dodge that area with your green/yellow before you come back to burn the bird down with the blue/magenta.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Good pickup, with my two filters, my light source, and Ilford MG, the same middle gray density required about twice the Green exposure compared to Blue.

Given the precision of the intersection relationships, that you were presumably using a tungsten halogen light source close to 3200K, that the Ilford filters are presumably fairly hard cutting at 00 and 5, and that I have found largely similar results through practical experience, I'd suggest that your results probably fairly closely reflect the effective design intention of the emulsions.

 

[pentaxuser]

IlfordPhoto for those interested is carrying a theme of splitgrade prints next week, . Here's its announcement:
NEXT WEEK #SPLITGRADEPRINT
We're sending you back into the darkroom next week (or your archives), to share any of your prints that you have made using a split grade method.

pentaxuser

 

[138S]

Maybe I put it wrongly. Of course we end up in a certain grade. But this grade is the result of finding two times. One for grade 0 and one for grade 5. We don’t have to go looking for that grade.
Regards,
Frank

Frank, first let me admit that there are several approaches to the split grade crafting. IMO the most sound approach consists in adjusting the green exposure to have the right highlights, and later we adjust the blue exposure to adjust the shadows, but resulting grade impacts on how the mids are depicted. Depending on the scene those resulting mids will not have a natural depiction and we will have to modify the grade anyway... or we may be lucky and resulting mids may be ok...

In general if scene that has a dynamic range that's similar than the one the paper can offer then we have no much complications in the printing. When dinamic range in the scene (SBR) surpasses by far the paper's range then we have to compress (or clip) highlights or shadows to allow a natural gradation in the mids, in that case problem is not adjusting grade-exposure... problem is making fit the extended dynamic range of the scene in a medium (paper) that has a lower capability, and still conserving a natural gradation in the mids.

 

[radiant]

Without split grade, printing is like an equation with 2 unknowns. Time and grade. You can only solve it by trial and error. split grade lets you forget about grade. There is only 1 unknown: time.

So how many exposures you need to achieve good grading?

I have used boths and I find single filter technique much easier. My method:
- First find correct exposure time to get whites have hint of tone, usually using grade 2 or 3 filter. Don't mind about the blacks at this point.
- Then find correct multigrade filter to get blacks correct

Both steps need one test strip only. I like to use the "moving paper" test strip system.

And you are basically done usually. The rest one can adjust while dodging & burning later on, like adding or decreasing exposure time.

With multi filter technique you have multiple steps on finding the grades and after that one needs to make two exposures each time you make a print.

I'm using both techniques but I think there is more than one unknown time in multi-filter printing

 

[138S]

- Then find correct multigrade filter to get blacks correct

In fact in the first strip you adjust the Green exposure, and when you increase grade you mainly increase Blue exposure...

So, in fact you both do a similar thing. And in fact there is not much room to do things differently, before going to local manipulation of advanced techniques.

 

[radiant]

In fact in the first strip you adjust the Green exposure, and when you increase grade you mainly increase Blue exposure...

Of course. That is the essential to multigrade printing.

My point is not to say what method is better. But I'm pretty sure someone is cheating himself if they say dual-filter techique needs to find only one time. Finding the correct filters and times in dual filter method is clearly more tedious. But yes, after that you are able to do real split grade printing which isn't possible on single filter method.

 

[Pieter12]

So how many exposures you need to achieve good grading?

I have used boths and I find single filter technique much easier. My method:
- First find correct exposure time to get whites have hint of tone, usually using grade 2 or 3 filter. Don't mind about the blacks at this point.
- Then find correct multigrade filter to get blacks correct

Both steps need one test strip only. I like to use the "moving paper" test strip system.

And you are basically done usually. The rest one can adjust while dodging & burning later on, like adding or decreasing exposure time.

With multi filter technique you have multiple steps on finding the grades and after that one needs to make two exposures each time you make a print.

I'm using both techniques but I think there is more than one unknown time in multi-filter printing

There are only two test strips needed for split-grade. In fact, you can make a single checkerboard test sheet (you need a wider piece of paper than a simple strip if that is what you are using). For your method, you are swapping out a few filters in order to make that second, contrast test strip. Do you compensate for the fact that 4&5 filters require more exposure? Another calculation to be made. One of the nice things about having the second (#5 over #0)) test strip in split-grade printing is the ability to gauge how much burning or dodging with the #5 filter will affect certain areas. An example would be to see how much more #5 exposure to darken the sky to my liking.