Your Thoughts? 1st time trying split grade...

ChristopherCoy said:

I'm listening, otherwise I wouldn't be here. But when I'm doing one thing and being told another, without thorough explanation it's confusing.

Click to expand...

I think you need to be prepared for that in a forum like this.

Michael has eloquently explained how contrast filters work, not just in this thread, but others. The real power of split grade printing is to take an image and apply different filtration, at different duration, on different parts of the print. That is where most of the gain is. You can achieve this by dodging or burning at two, or more contrast filtration grades.
I sometimes use a Number 1, number 3, and number 5 - all in the same print, to accentuate different parts of it at varying filter grades. My normal approach is to first find a good average contrast with a single filter - where it counts in the image. In your example - the cat. then I work the other parts of the picture with lower and/or higher grade contrast filters. So I might begin with an average exposure at Grade 2, and then burn in selected areas with a Grade 1 and a Grade 4.5. The possibilities are endless.
But to just combine two filters, one on top of the other doesn't release any of the true potential of this fine darkroom printing tool. It merely mimics what a single filter is already doing for us, and then we have to ask, in terms of print quality, what did we really gain? I read above that you gained a bit of understanding of the process, which is great! Now let's build on that and get your portrait to where you think it should be in terms of print quality. Study your print and ponder where you could use more or less density and/or more or less contrast, and then make a plan for how to achieve it by sketching it. Then set out to do what you imagine. That's how I go about things, and not saying you have to do this, but I'd be doing you a gigantic disfavor by not explaining that there is a lot more to be had in terms of print manipulation.

Thomas- It's a nifty little gadget...It's calibrated to specific papers and developers, allows 1/10 grade changes instead of 1/2 grade, compensates for dry-down,and allows you to program multiple burns at different times and contrasts. I can get a perfectly acceptable print on the first sheet of paper, although I will often change it slightly to change the emotional impact, or emphasize the subject matter.
I can make a print on Ilford MGWT fiber, decide I'd rather have it on Forte, switch the paper selector to Polywarmtone fiber, and it makes the necessary time/contrast changes. I don't think it allows you to do anything you couldn't do with regular split grade technique, but you'd have to calibrate your filters/colorhead for the separate exposures necessary to achieve the 1/10 grade changes.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

But to just combine two filters, one on top of the other doesn't release any of the true potential of this fine darkroom printing tool.

Click to expand...

But it does. It did for me. It allowed me to see that this filter does this, and that filter does that, and decreasing time here and increasing it there adds contrast and clarity.

For some of you, taking one process and splitting it into two may add unnecessary complications. However, it actually simplified it FOR ME.

FOR ME. Thats what some of you don't seem to accept. Are there better ways of doing things, sure. Are there easier way of doing things, sure. But for the first time in a long time, this has opened some creative doors for me.

So 4 seconds at 00, and 6 seconds at 5, produces the same image as 10 seconds on 3... you got there one way, I got there the other. You shoot a certain camera, and I shoot something else, but we both end up with an image.

What all of you seem to forget is that we are all not as advanced as you. I am a kinesthetic learner, I have to put my hands on it and do it at least once before I understand it. Giving me a book and telling me to read is about as worthless as a car with no wheels. I ain't getting anywhere that way.

What I asked was, "what do you suggest I could do better or different to improve my print." I didn't ask, "how can I completely change the process that I've just learned to understand because my fellow photographic geniuses think I'm complicating things." Someone suggested that I cut down the soft exposure, and whaddaya know, it worked and I understand it.

I'm not discounting any of the advice thats been posted, its all good advice. But telling me that using two filters is the same as using one and I should be doing it a certain way isn't going to help me.

ChristopherCoy said:

Matt, you got my post card. That was printed at 12 secs with a 1 filter. I started at 2 but the shadows were too dark.

Is that image a good example where SG would be better suited?

Click to expand...

Christopher:

It may very well be an example where split grade techniques would add controls that would benefit you.

But those extra controls would be ones that allow you to use different contrast behaviours for different parts of the image.

Something like doing a lighter print at grade 2, and then adding a burn at grade 1 in the highlighted areas only.

That would give you better definition in the shadows.

To repeat myself, if you are just adding a low contrast, overall exposure to a high contrast, overall exposure, you aren't getting anything different than a single, mid contrast exposure. So it would be a really good idea if you can get yourself directly to that single mid contrast exposure. Then add split contrast tools to customize further your result.

If thinking about contrast grades in split grade terms helps you visualize how to proceed, and you find it difficult to think instead in terms of single, intermediate contrast terms, then feel free to continuing to use the technique. Most of us here just think that if you don't understand how both approaches work, then the extra complexity of split grade may end up tripping you up.

Christopher- the fact that different people, with a lot of experience, and the ability to make excellent prints, disagree on this just shows that there are many ways to get to the final result. Use whatever method works for you, and is the easiest for you to understand as you print/make adjustments. The last cat photo you posted was a huge improvement over the first. You're obviously moving in the right direction.

Christopher, well done so far.
And yes it appears to be a bit of a Raw vs Jpeg argument (or maybe Betty or Veronica, Betty is simpler but Veronica's wealth has more potential; neither is a bad date)
I have three enlargers; two are colour heads and are typically used with "combined filter" settings, but the blue/green enlarger that I have must be used as a split grade enlarger.
The split grade technique involves changing the time only of each of the components based on what the highlights or what the shadows look like.
The single filter approach more often leaves me wandering between changing contrast or changing exposure. I.e. do I want whiter whites by increasing grade or decreasing exposure?
I realize that experience at reading a test print will eventually lead one to choose which path to take.
but you have chosen a path and are doing very well, the third print is a great improvement.
The split print technique may also offer a more direct path to understanding the nature of VC paper, as opposed to putting the magic filter in.
The way individuals learn varies.
While one exposure is simpler than two, understanding and getting to that setting may be easier with split grade.
Michael's explanation is excellant, but the supposition that grade 2 is set parts green and blue may not be accurate, for example Multigrade instructions for grade 2 vary from 52Y/20M to 39Y/43M depending on make of enlarger.
My own Zone vi has a grade 2 result at a 30B/70G setting but only with separate exposures. 7 seconds green and 3 seconds blue is not the same as 3 seconds green and blue and 7 seconds green.
And papers yield different contrasts for same grades anyway.
The way individuals learn varies. You seem to be channeling split printing well. If you wish to simplify later, you will do so with great understanding.
Wow, as I was typing this you posted above.
Well Done!

ChristopherCoy said:

But it does. It did for me. It allowed me to see that this filter does this, and that filter does that, and decreasing time here and increasing it there adds contrast and clarity.

For some of you, taking one process and splitting it into two may add unnecessary complications. However, it actually simplified it FOR ME.

FOR ME. Thats what some of you don't seem to accept. Are there better ways of doing things, sure. Are there easier way of doing things, sure. But for the first time in a long time, this has opened some creative doors for me.

So 4 seconds at 00, and 6 seconds at 5, produces the same image as 10 seconds on 3... you got there one way, I got there the other. You shoot a certain camera, and I shoot something else, but we both end up with an image.

What all of you seem to forget is that we are all not as advanced as you. I am a kinesthetic learner, I have to put my hands on it and do it at least once before I understand it. Giving me a book and telling me to read is about as worthless as a car with no wheels. I ain't getting anywhere that way.

What I asked was, "what do you suggest I could do better or different to improve my print." I didn't ask, "how can I completely change the process that I've just learned to understand because my fellow photographic geniuses think I'm complicating things." Someone suggested that I cut down the soft exposure, and whaddaya know, it worked and I understand it.

I'm not discounting any of the advice thats been posted, its all good advice. But telling me that using two filters is the same as using one and I should be doing it a certain way isn't going to help me.

Click to expand...

Christopher,

I'm applauding the fact that the way you've gone about it has helped you. Fantastic! I mean it.
I'm not trying to diminish anything that you do.

I just felt obligated to try to help you understand that there is much more to be had, and I admit to provoking a little bit, because I was hoping that it would stir a little bit of heated debate that wasn't easily forgotten.

Please keep up the good work.

I've learned more in the last two days than I have in the last two months! I'm very excited about where this print started and where it ended.

Unfortunately, I'm out of effin paper!!!

ChristopherCoy said:

I've learned more in the last two days than I have in the last two months! I'm very excited about where this print started and where it ended.

Unfortunately, I'm out of effin paper!!!

Click to expand...

And that is another valuable lesson too

Yeah. My next purchase is TWO 100 sheet boxes of Ilford.

ChristopherCoy said:

Unfortunately, I'm out of effin paper!!!

Click to expand...

Good! Ilford will thank you for your next order...

ChristopherCoy said:

Are you trying to say that what I did basically averages out to grade 3 at 10secs?

Click to expand...

Almost. You can convert the duration of the two exposures, that is time in seconds through the blue (thard) and the green (tsoft) (or magenta and yellow) filters into the resulting, actual grade. You would need to calibrate the formula to your filters, but for the Ilford grades produced by Ilford 500H head which I use, with its original, dichroic filters, the formula is:


For example, if your hard filtration exposure is 10 s, and the soft one is the same, at 10 s, the grade = 3 x Log10 (10/10) + 2 = 3 x 0 + 2 = grade 2, using Ilford ISO (R) grading. To calibrate the formula, if grade 2 happens to require uneven durations of hard and soft exposures, multiply thard (or tsoft) by a coefficient that will make their fraction equal to 1.

Burning with different grades is a great tool. Split printing can help select intermediate grades for which you have no fixed filters or settings.

Having said all of that, if the practice of split-grade printing makes it easier for you to print, or to learn how to arrive at the grade and the base exposure, use it. For some, they stick with it forever, creating wonderful prints. Others find it can lead to missing out on softer prints and yielding more contrast than needed. It's a tool.

Michael R 1974 said:

Variable contrast paper basically has two emulsions, a low contrast layer sensitive to green light, and a high contrast layer sensitive to blue light. When light hits the paper, the more blue there is in the light relative to green, the more the paper's high contrast emulsion is exposed relative to the low contrast emulsion. This produces a higher contrast image. The reverse is true when there is more green light relative to blue light.

Click to expand...

Michael, while I follow your statement, I wonder if you would agree that there is a more detailed explanation of how VC papers work? I would humbly observe that it seems, based on their characteristic curves, that the component emulsions are differently sensitised to the blue and green light and that it is their additive result that creates the actual, observed contrast. Further, modern VC papers, like Ilford (or like Polymax used to) seem to have three emulsions, with the third one being sensitive to both green and blue.

Unfortunately, this can also lead to some odd behaviours at extreme low grades, such as 00. See Nicholas Lindan short paper: "The Workings of Variable Contrast Papers and Local Gamma". For that reason, split-grade technique can be a little easier to use with filters a little harder, such as 1 and 5, rather than 00 and 5. I believe that is what Bob Carnie practices. The effect will be the same, but the observed changes will seem more logical when using 1 rather than 00 for certain mid-tones.

Rafal Lukawiecki said:

modern VC papers, like Ilford (or like Polymax used to) seem to have three emulsions, with the third one being sensitive to both green and blue.

Click to expand...

According to Ilford's data sheet, all of their emulsion layers are sensitive to blue with varying sensitivities to green added.


Steve.

Rafal Lukawiecki said:

Unfortunately, this can also lead to some odd behaviours at extreme low grades, such as 00. See Nicholas Lindan short paper: "The Workings of Variable Contrast Papers and Local Gamma". For that reason, split-grade technique can be a little easier to use with filters a little harder, such as 1 and 5, rather than 00 and 5. I believe that is what Bob Carnie practices. The effect will be the same, but the observed changes will seem more logical when using 1 rather than 00 for certain mid-tones.

Click to expand...

I wonder if this demonstates a difference between the subtractive system of using white light and the additive system of a Blue/Green system.
Otherwise I have a hard time understanding how using a 1 setting of this much green and this much blue (plus this much blue for the #5 exposure) is different from this much green and (this much blue plus this much blue for the #5 exposure). Moving the brackets does not change the total quantity of green and blue. Comments?

cowanw said:

I wonder if this demonstates a difference between the subtractive system of using white light and the additive system of a Blue/Green system.
Otherwise I have a hard time understanding how using a 1 setting of this much green and this much blue (plus this much blue for the #5 exposure) is different from this much green and (this much blue plus this much blue for the #5 exposure). Moving the brackets does not change the total quantity of green and blue. Comments?

Click to expand...

Cowanw, I believe there is no difference in the final result, whether you use 00 or 1, with a 4 or a 5, when split-printing, except for the inability to reach the extreme grade of 00 or 5 if those filters are not used. The difference, however, is in the seemingly illogical relationship of the midtones affected by the discontinuity in the emulsion overlap, and the remaining tones, when moving from grade 00 to 0 and onwards. To put it in other words, as you move up a grade, from 00 to 0, and then towards 1, some midtones will immediately print denser at 00, than they would at 0, before they resume their march towards increased density at higher grades. I think this is what leads to a "solarised" look, that Bob Carnie mentioned when describing his 00 experience, see post 43 of this LFPP thread. You can see this in the two jumps of the 00 and 0 grade curves, which I have, rather poorly, plotted below—disregard my error of a non-speed matched system, which lead to the curves not intersecting, as they should, at 0.60 logD. Notice the overall shape, and those almost 1 f/stop jumps, of the 00 curve:

Steve Smith said:

According to Ilford's data sheet, all of their emulsion layers are sensitive to blue with varying sensitivities to green added.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Steve, for correcting me.

Yes, I have followed these threads and seen these graphs. I think they are based on white light and the subtractive system.
I am wondering if there is a distinction to be made that the definition of grade in the subtractive system is what you get with the provided numbered filter, and with regard to those discontinuities, the filter is not, in fact, correct for that paper at that desired grade. There is, after all, a set of yellow/magenta settings (i.e. colour head) that will give a smooth curve, just not with preset filters
The blue green system however forces you to find your grade by using the settngs on the enlarger with respect to the paper you are using. Again a smooth curve can be created with the appropriate settings.
Bob describes solarization or muddiness in the shadows. Other discrepancies are seen at midtone. I am not sure the two observations are related.
I think Bob's observations need more investigation for an understanding of what he is describing.

I do not use the 0 and 5 method, not for at least 4-5 years for the reasons Rafal points out. I noticed this visually apparently Nicholas Linden has backed this up with sensitometry, which btw is not my strong suit. I use it for calibrating processes and then move on to my eyes.

It should be pointed out I am a big time fan of Ilford Warmtone, and now Art 300 which I believe is the same emulsion.... All my comments are directed at this paper .

I have printed now in two eras... 1 era where there were only graded papers... 2 era where we have Ilford Warmtone ...

I switched to this paper for a specific reason... my clients liked the prints better...


Era 1 I remember the days of two bath dev, hot dev tray off to the side to help in the burning in... if you wanted an overall strong contrast print you would move up to a grade three or four and suffer the crazy amount of burning in the highlights.. which after time just got soft and flat/muddy due to the silly burn time, not to mention the fact that the burns could become obvious.

Era 2 I lay down an initial tone which puts inertia in the highlights and defines a long tonality print.. I then use the grade 5 filter to increase Dmax and contrast to taste.
I will burn the highlights with low filter and 5 filter, usually this burn is very insignificant and does not soften/muddy up and the blacks within the highlights are more defined and create the illusion of tonality.

I prefer Era 2 printing which is this controlled mix of filters..
I use an 80% density rule for the first filter .. in other words I make sure that I am 80 % happy with the density of the upper highlight region and I dodge the shadow regions to make a pleasing print... softer but nice ... think Jock Sturge's print a bit light , a bit soft, but nice blacks starting to emerge.

Then with a second filter 5 I hit the timer either once , twice or even more to determine the overall final look ..

During both filter exposures I am dodging to control local areas.

I use the 00 and 5 for burning in areas that I want to make sure are in the print for aesthetic reasons. I do not like paper white within my images but prefer to see the easal blades lines as a guide for blank sky tonality... If I do not see the separation then I know I need more tone.

WHAT METHOD AM I USING as I do not like the 0 and 5 method, and I do not like the single filter method...

Until someone can give it a name I will call it a MODIFIED FILTER METHOD... using the outflanking method to determine initial exposure... and 0 and 5 burning in for aesthetic reasons.

Its no wonder the OP is getting confused,,, the cat is looking better each day btw,, To be fair to both camps , the image supplied would work in Era 1 or Era 2 with not too much issue.

I just use the MFM method now for all printing as it gets easier over time.

Pleased to see you are following the thread, Bob.
I like the MFM and particularily the outflanking bit and use that for my 35mm and 4x5 enlargers.
When I got my 8x10 enlarger I was forced to the 00 and 5 blue/green printing technique and I find it hard to understand and reconcile the common principles.
Still as you point out, the print is the important thing and how anyone gets there is as valid as the next.

cowanw said:

Yes, I have followed these threads and seen these graphs. I think they are based on white light and the subtractive system.
I am wondering if there is a distinction to be made that the definition of grade in the subtractive system is what you get with the provided numbered filter, and with regard to those discontinuities, the filter is not, in fact, correct for that paper at that desired grade. There is, after all, a set of yellow/magenta settings (i.e. colour head) that will give a smooth curve, just not with preset filters.

Click to expand...

Cowanw, you ask an important question. My understanding of the workings of the VC papers, especially Ilford ones, and very much MGIV WT, which similar to Bob, I like very much, is that it should not make any difference, whether you use blue and green, or a magenta and yellow filters. The paper's emulsions primarily respond to blue and green spectra of the white light. A magenta filter is blue with some red added, to which the paper is not sensitive (within the bounds of normal duration exposures), but which makes the image brighter for the worker. Similarly, the yellow filter, is simply green plus the comfort-enhancing red.

I would hypothesise that if you used a colour head, by means of which you mix the colour channels, to match the Ilford lowest two grades—contrast range ISO (R) 150–170—you would experience the same wobbliness of the paper's characteristic curve. I do not have such a light source, so I cannot run the test. Even better, if someone else did it, to verify this hypothesis.

Bob Carnie said:

Until someone can give it a name I will call it a MODIFIED FILTER METHOD... using the outflanking method to determine initial exposure... and 0 and 5 burning in for aesthetic reasons.

Its no wonder the OP is getting confused,,, the cat is looking better each day btw,, To be fair to both camps , the image supplied would work in Era 1 or Era 2 with not too much issue.

I just use the MFM method now for all printing as it gets easier over time.

Click to expand...

I think that is the beauty of what we do, there are many ways to arrive at a wonderful result on paper. To some a Les McLean split-grade is the key, as it seems to have helped the OP, to others, like Bob Carnie, MFM, yet others, like John Sexton or Michael 1974, prefer the more old-fashioned approach of building up the grade in small steps. The real jewel is not the knowledge of a general technique, but its very precise detail, such as described so patiently by Bob. These things are not obvious, such as Bob's grade 5 final blast, or like the minor extension of the base time exposure, needed when using the old-fashioned approach while climbing grades, to maintain the highlight density—which split-grade approach does differently.

Personally, I couldn't figure out my grades without split-grade printing a few years ago, and I have been thankful for that technique. Now I prefer the old-fashioned approach. They both work, and they generate an amazing amount of enjoyable reading on APUG, thanks to which, I get ideas for improving my printing.

So, just for shits-n-giggles I went back in and printed this last night just before going to bed. This is Filter 3 @ 10secs.




And just as a comparison, on the left is the "split grade print" and on the right is the Filter 3 at 10secs. If I were to do this again, which I may do with the two last sheets I have, I would do a filter 3 and dodge the cats left eye, and on the second sheet I would do the split grade thing, but use a filter 4 and burn the fur a little more.

On either print, back off the density a bit , do everything the same, except burn in the highlighted cats fur with a #5 filter.. just for shits and giggles

ChristopherCoy said:

So, just for shits-n-giggles I went back in and printed this last night just before going to bed. This is Filter 3 @ 10secs.

View attachment 61285


And just as a comparison, on the left is the "split grade print" and on the right is the Filter 3 at 10secs. If I were to do this again, which I may do with the two last sheets I have, I would do a filter 3 and dodge the cats left eye, and on the second sheet I would do the split grade thing, but use a filter 4 and burn the fur a little more.

View attachment 61286

Click to expand...

If you've got a soft negative (which it seems you have) it is sometimes easier to establish your G.5 exposure first. Determine the exposure which gives the required density in the shadows and then dial in increasing G.00 'til your highlights are where you want 'em.

Blighty said:

If you've got a soft negative (which it seems you have) it is sometimes easier to establish your G.5 exposure first. Determine the exposure which gives the required density in the shadows and then dial in increasing G.00 'til your highlights are where you want 'em.

Click to expand...

So you're saying to flip the process? Hard exposure first?

Blighty said:

If you've got a soft negative (which it seems you have) it is sometimes easier to establish your G.5 exposure first. Determine the exposure which gives the required density in the shadows and then dial in increasing G.00 'til your highlights are where you want 'em.

Click to expand...

I would tend to disagree with this. Remember you are taking a white piece of paper and making it shades of gray to black, or thereabouts. Once you have set your dark's you cannot make them lighter, rather set your whites and darken them as needed. You cover white with black, you cannot cover black with white.