Roger Hicks
Veteran
Without doubt. The idea that you can do something with split-grade that you can't do with a single exposure (barring dodging/burning at different contrasts) is sensitometrically indefensible. But if you can do it easier with split-grade, why do it the hard way with a single grade? And equally, if you can do it easier with a single grade, why do it the hard way with split-grade?
Cheers,
R.
x-ray
Veteran
I don't find this to be the case. I have a few negs that just can not be printed any other way. to get sufficient contrast in the shadows and proper detail in the high values there is no other way with a few of my negs.
Generally I find I use split grade printing but not for every neg.
A good example:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=25880
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
I think an important note to any style of printing is that the photographer must become consistent with making the negatives. Once we get our shooting down to a science, and our developing down to a science, then we find the printing style that works for the negs we make. This is where things like the Zone System come into play, or any other bench marks you may use to get your proper exposure.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
It depends.
I sometimes enjoy the challenge to produce a print from "difficult" negatives. The end result is different than those that are easy. Sometimes it's better too.
Plus there are other printing techniques that are suited for less than perfect negatives.
But I agree wholeheartedly on a single standardized development recipe/method.
x-ray
Veteran
Only in a perfect world.
You're assuming that we have complete control when we shoot. I do documentary work which is often under the worst possible conditions or at least under conditions where I don't have time to use the zone system or it simply would not work well. The zone system will not allow the extreme expansion or compression necessary for some of my shots. I'm quite familiar with the zone system and studied one on one with Ansel Adams in 1975. Often my shots are spontaneous with rapidly changing conditions and extremes of lighting and contrast.
Take a look at my gallery and you'll see what I mean.
My commercial work is a different story where everything is controlled.
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
True, I'm talking about shots that allow you to take your time and do the math. I think photojournalism type shooting is just a whole other world.
Fotohuis
Well-known
Yes, but with a Split Grade system (Heiland, Germany) and it's super simple then:
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Split_Grade_Manual_V23_Englisch.pdf
How it works (Way Beyond Monochrome):
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/BasicSplitGradePrinting.pdf
and even possible on almost all type enlargers with a cold light source (LED White/Red):
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/LED_Coldlight.pdf
Greetz,
Robert
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Split_Grade_Manual_V23_Englisch.pdf
How it works (Way Beyond Monochrome):
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/BasicSplitGradePrinting.pdf
and even possible on almost all type enlargers with a cold light source (LED White/Red):
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/LED_Coldlight.pdf
Greetz,
Robert
jawarden
Well-known
A friend on another forum pointed me here because I was complaining about a high contrast negative that I didn't think I could print. (I'm an amateur, with one year of darkroom experience). Here is a scan of the neg:
I haven't tried to print it yet so I'll try it with my normal approach first and do the best I can, then I'll use the 'Way Beyond Monochrome' split grade technique and see if that is any easier or better. I'll share images of the prints when I'm done.
The image was a challenge because it was very dim in the forest and I didn't have a tripod. I only had T-Max400 so I exposed at iso1600 and metered as well as I could. This should be fun
I haven't tried to print it yet so I'll try it with my normal approach first and do the best I can, then I'll use the 'Way Beyond Monochrome' split grade technique and see if that is any easier or better. I'll share images of the prints when I'm done.
The image was a challenge because it was very dim in the forest and I didn't have a tripod. I only had T-Max400 so I exposed at iso1600 and metered as well as I could. This should be fun
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I am always interested to hear the "war stories" of another printer tackling a difficult negative.
Waiting for your report on this.
Waiting for your report on this.
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
Yes, I'm interested in hearing the results as well.
My lab at school opens tomorrow so I'll be developing some new film and back to making prints and playing with this again myself. I'll be posting about it with details as the next few months go by.
My lab at school opens tomorrow so I'll be developing some new film and back to making prints and playing with this again myself. I'll be posting about it with details as the next few months go by.
skibeerr
Well-known
I had some good results burning with a different contrast filter tough I find Roger is right.
Nothing beats good exposure and consequent protocol in development for easy printing.
Wim
Nothing beats good exposure and consequent protocol in development for easy printing.
Wim
jawarden
Well-known
I'm just learning the split contrast technique, so some newbie info below. I wrote this assuming some people who have never tried it may get some benefit. Please correct my mistakes if necessary.
I'll be walking you through the numbered prints above.
I think split contrast printing might be a faster path to a working print than single contrast.
Check the image above. The first step is to find white while using the lowest contrast filter possible, the 00 filter. (Filters go from 00 to 5 in ten steps). You can see on the first test strip 3 seconds is too bright and 6 seconds is too dark, so I made another test strip using only 4 and 5 seconds. I decided on 5. Printing the entire image like this (which I wouldn't normally do but did today so you could see it) would result in image 1 below, which has nice lighter values but no dark ones:
The next step is to establish blacks. The process is the same as establishing white, except you're using the highest contrast filter, #5. The test strips below show that process:
I didn't label those, but I think you're getting the picture. The best black also happens at 5 seconds, and if we were to print the entire image that way (which we wouldn't) it would look like image #2, below. Notice there is no sky at all:
Now that we know where black and white are, all we need to do is expose one paper twice; one five second exposure at 00, and one five second exposure at 5. The pleasing result is below:
So now we have a working print, the starting point for dodging and burning. So let's get on with ruining the thing.
The cool part about split contrast printing comes when you want to dodge and burn, because you have two opportunities to do it. You can dodge the barn during the 00 exposure for instance, to add some brightness to the highlights without affecting the shadows. If you were exposing the image only once with a single contrast and dodged the barn both the highlights and shadows would lighten.
For me, that's a real benefit of split contrast printing.
Now a personal preference - I like print #3. Normally I would stop there, but for sake of experimentation I decided to burn some depth into the water and sky. The water was pretty straightforward, a simple six second burn using the 5 filter:
The sky was trickier. Recall from image #2 that the 5 filter has no effect on the sky. I decided to try a burn test strip at 00, but the results weren't quite right, so I tried again using a #3 filter and liked that more. They look almost identical here but in person there is a difference.
So, putting it all together. To make the "final image", we:
expose 5 sec at contrast 00
expose 5 sec at contrast 5
burn water 6 sec at contrast 5
burn sky 8 sec at contrast 3
That gives us image #4 below:
I vaguely recall a quote from Ansel Adams where he said he didn't know if he had gone too far until he actually did it, or something like that, and I think this print goes too far. I do like the added depth in the water, but the sky just looks 'burned in' to me, which of course it is.
So I backed up one step, grabbed the working print from before and just selenium toned it (which adds some depth to the dark values without affecting the light). It doesn't have the same pop as image #4, but I sure like it more as a straight print. It looks like the scene that I remember:
So this is the one I'll keep.
I've only done a few prints this way, but I'm definitely seeing a reason to continue experimenting with it.
Jeff
I'll be walking you through the numbered prints above.
I think split contrast printing might be a faster path to a working print than single contrast.
Check the image above. The first step is to find white while using the lowest contrast filter possible, the 00 filter. (Filters go from 00 to 5 in ten steps). You can see on the first test strip 3 seconds is too bright and 6 seconds is too dark, so I made another test strip using only 4 and 5 seconds. I decided on 5. Printing the entire image like this (which I wouldn't normally do but did today so you could see it) would result in image 1 below, which has nice lighter values but no dark ones:
The next step is to establish blacks. The process is the same as establishing white, except you're using the highest contrast filter, #5. The test strips below show that process:
I didn't label those, but I think you're getting the picture. The best black also happens at 5 seconds, and if we were to print the entire image that way (which we wouldn't) it would look like image #2, below. Notice there is no sky at all:
Now that we know where black and white are, all we need to do is expose one paper twice; one five second exposure at 00, and one five second exposure at 5. The pleasing result is below:
So now we have a working print, the starting point for dodging and burning. So let's get on with ruining the thing.
The cool part about split contrast printing comes when you want to dodge and burn, because you have two opportunities to do it. You can dodge the barn during the 00 exposure for instance, to add some brightness to the highlights without affecting the shadows. If you were exposing the image only once with a single contrast and dodged the barn both the highlights and shadows would lighten.
For me, that's a real benefit of split contrast printing.
Now a personal preference - I like print #3. Normally I would stop there, but for sake of experimentation I decided to burn some depth into the water and sky. The water was pretty straightforward, a simple six second burn using the 5 filter:
The sky was trickier. Recall from image #2 that the 5 filter has no effect on the sky. I decided to try a burn test strip at 00, but the results weren't quite right, so I tried again using a #3 filter and liked that more. They look almost identical here but in person there is a difference.
So, putting it all together. To make the "final image", we:
expose 5 sec at contrast 00
expose 5 sec at contrast 5
burn water 6 sec at contrast 5
burn sky 8 sec at contrast 3
That gives us image #4 below:
I vaguely recall a quote from Ansel Adams where he said he didn't know if he had gone too far until he actually did it, or something like that, and I think this print goes too far. I do like the added depth in the water, but the sky just looks 'burned in' to me, which of course it is.
So I backed up one step, grabbed the working print from before and just selenium toned it (which adds some depth to the dark values without affecting the light). It doesn't have the same pop as image #4, but I sure like it more as a straight print. It looks like the scene that I remember:
So this is the one I'll keep.
I've only done a few prints this way, but I'm definitely seeing a reason to continue experimenting with it.
Jeff
FrankS
Registered User
Many thanks for this, Jeff.
Some people say that one can get the same effect with the single, proper, mid contrast filter. (Not sure that I agree.) What would your print look like if printed (and similarly burned in) with a single exposure with a #3 filter?
Some people say that one can get the same effect with the single, proper, mid contrast filter. (Not sure that I agree.) What would your print look like if printed (and similarly burned in) with a single exposure with a #3 filter?
jawarden
Well-known
Hi Frank,
Well first you have to bear in mind I have only one year of casual experience in the darkroom, so I don't know many tricks, but if we take my hypothetical example of dodging the barn during the 00 exposure without touching the darker values, well I don't know how I would do that otherwise. So for now I definitely have more tools to work with, and could make a print using the split contrast method that I can't with a single contrast exposure.
Jeff
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Jeff, good demo.
Split filter technique with multiple exposure allows us more control over the result.
But just like everything is subjective when it comes to taste, which result is the best is different for everyone. But no one should dismiss this technique without trying it.
I like print no.4 a lot, btw
jawarden
Well-known
Thanks Will, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I'm just noodling this out, but I agree this process does seem to offer more control, especially local control of contrast. As an example, imagine this same scene but with ten barns in one image lined up left to right instead of just one. We could do the high contrast pass first, establishing the dark shadows for all of the barns. Then on the low contrast pass each barn could be dodged differently, making for ten different contrast ratios in the same image, perhaps none of them neatly aligning with one of the numerical filters that Ilford sells. I'm not sure how I would do that with a single contrast exposure.
There is nothing wrong with single contrast exposures of course, which have worked well forever. But this is pretty cool.
Jeff
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
I don't understand the logic of this. How can you have a print that does not take a single contrast and require split-grade printing?
For example, let's say you have a very flat negative and you print at grade #5 and it's too low of contrast, but you can't go any higher. Then where are you with split-grade for highlight and shadow control? There's no room to move -printing at #5 is not high enough, so obviously anything below that is going to be too flat as well for shadow/highlight density.
On the flip side, you have a negative that is way too hot and high in contrast and you print at #00 and even then you find that it's too high in contrast in the highlights and midtones. Then you also have nowhere else to go.
My point is, if you can nail a print with split-grade, you can nail it with a straight filter. They might look SLIGHTLY different, but I doubt they would differ enough to say that "this negative ONLY works with split-grade printing".
Of course this entire ramble is null and void if what you meant to say was "I couldn't get the print to look the way I wanted it to without my PREFERRED technique, split-grade printing". From what I can see from that photograph (which is a great image by the way), it shouldn't be a difficult task to print straight with some dodging and burning and post processing bleaching and toning.
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
Jeff...
You would have had a perfect example of this if you included the results from a straight print with one contrast. It could really help people piece together how they differ through theory in practice. Either way, a great and easy explanation with examples to people who want to try split-grade for the first time. Thanks for adding some knowledge to the forum.
You would have had a perfect example of this if you included the results from a straight print with one contrast. It could really help people piece together how they differ through theory in practice. Either way, a great and easy explanation with examples to people who want to try split-grade for the first time. Thanks for adding some knowledge to the forum.
jawarden
Well-known
Thanks, it's my pleasure.
This negative isn't a difficult one actually, and didn't need any special attention. The negative was properly exposed and the scene was captured within the dynamic range of the film, so I think the print would have looked about the same with a single contrast print.
For a single contrast exposure my guess is that I would use a grade 3 to print this barn image, or perhaps a 2. Or possibly a 2 1/2. I suppose that's the point though: if you're using split contrast printing there isn't that up front guessing about which single contrast filter will give you complete coverage, because the coverage is built into the process. You get to a proper working print quickly and without guesswork, and then decide how and when to dodge/burn, which is when it gets more flexible and interesting, i.e. dodging highlights without unintentionally lightening shadows, or maybe burning shadows without screwing up the highlights you worked so hard for. Or enjoying the flexibility of dodging and burning in both passes if that suits your needs.
At any rate, my experiments have shown to my satisfaction that both approaches work. Split contrast printing is very easy and fast to do, so I encourage anyone who is curious about it to just try for yourself like I did. It just takes a few minutes and then you'll be gifted with an opinion based on your own experience.
Have fun.
Jeff
jawarden
Well-known
I think you may be right. I tried to print a negative that was beyond hope with a single contrast filter and failed. I then tried the split contrast method on the same negative and it didn't improve anything as far as I could see. My conclusion for now is that split contrast printing isn't a tool to be used for printing unprintable negatives. Unprintable negatives might just be unprintable, regardless of technique.
So let's avoid those unprintable negatives.
Jeff