Anyone use Split-Contrast Printing?

[jawarden]

For those interested, here's an update.

Someone mentioned comparing split contrast to single, so last night I did that.

Two weeks ago I printed the above image of my son using the single contrast method, with a grade 3 filter. The image was taken with an old Yashica Mat at sunset, and I like it. I didn't start experimenting with split contrast printing until after I printed this, so I thought it would be a good candidate for experimentation. I remember thinking when I printed it that another half stop or so of light on his face might be nice, but I didn't bother because I figured I'd mess up the dark values of his eyes or hair in the process. I'm happy with the print, although looking back perhaps a grade 3 1/2 filter would have been better. These images are made with my fax/copier using satin finish Ilford paper so the quality of scan is not great but good enough to show the differences.

So just for fun I re-printed the image last night, without looking at the old print. I wanted to see if there would be any difference, and what would happen if I dodged his face on the 00 exposure. First, here is the working print with split contrast:

Note the difference in the sky and contrast.

Then I did the dirty deed of editing by dodging the innocent boy's face, and the result is below:

And below is a comparison of last week's single grade print next to last night's split contrast + dodging version.

So there you go.

The 'best' result is bound to be different for different people. When viewing the prints in my hand, the one I like best is the split grade version, but without the dodging. I think I dodged a little too long, leaving the victim with bright face/dark hands. I'll get the hang of it in time, but it was late so I decided to call it a night and enjoyed a Glenfiddich.

What this experiment taught me is the relative ease of making an adjustment like this using split contrast printing. It's quite easy to get in there and dodge a face in the 00 exposure without ruining the eyes, hair or other dark values. Not going overboard with the dodging is the hard part, no matter if we use single or split contrast.

Good fun, this hobby.

Jeff

 

[Rob-F]

No, but I have used split development, with two trays, one filled with Dektol, followed by one with Selectol. It does seem to bring out more gradation.

 

[Fawley]

There is ALWAYS a single filter that will give the same result as split-grade but some people find split-grade easier, so if it works for you, it works for you. It is not one whit inferior, but nor is it one whit better.

I remember a lovely argument between a split-grade devotee and one of Ilford's technical people. Eventually, the printer regretfully accepted that the sensitometric argument was unanswerable, but said, "But that's just for test charts and things, not real pictures." The Ilford guy replied, "The paper is refreshingly ignorant of what you print on it."

Cheers,

R.

Roger,
I realize you posted this 2 weeks ago and maybe you won't even see this, but could you explain this a bit further? Or could someone else? I started split grading about a year ago with ( I think) good success. It makes sense to me that you can get two different contrast grades, in different areas on a single print, by dodging an area while exposing at one filter setting and then burning in the same area at a different setting. Or are we talking at cross purposes here?

 

[sepiareverb]

Burning with different grade light is one area that VC printing has huge benefits over graded papers. We used to burn and paint on straight developer or cold water with graded papers. And then there was the bleaching after the fact. Bleaching and redeveloping. I knew a guy who would pick the prints up and rub them between his hands at great speed to get more tone out of the paper. Lots of tricks one learned to get things 'right'. And I expect all of them still work even with VC papers if they'd ever be needed. I still keep a plastic container of ice water next to my developing tray, and have several brushes at the ready for ice or some stronger developer. Don't use them like I used to tho.

 

[shadowfox]

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.

See the bolded above.
That's *exactly* what my intention for using split-grade, multiple-exposure technique.

Why else would I be doing it for? 😕😕

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,
I realize you posted this 2 weeks ago and maybe you won't even see this, but could you explain this a bit further? Or could someone else? I started split grading about a year ago with ( I think) good success. It makes sense to me that you can get two different contrast grades, in different areas on a single print, by dodging an area while exposing at one filter setting and then burning in the same area at a different setting. Or are we talking at cross purposes here?

Cross purposes, I fear. If you're dodging and burning at different grades, it is impossible to replicate that with a single grade. But for a whole print, without dodging and burning at different grades, there is always a single grade that equates to split contrast. The idea of 'laying down' the highlights and shadows separately, without local dodging at different grades, is sensitometrically indefensible. BUT, if you find it easier that way, it's not one whit inferior to finding the right single grade to begin with.

Cheers,

R.

 

[FrankS]

I think that split printing can improve on a single exposure with a single middle grade if the 00 and #5 exposure times need to be different for the best results. That can't be achieved with a single middle contrast filter.
(This is even without dodging and/burning involved.)

 

[jawarden]

The idea of 'laying down' the highlights and shadows separately, without local dodging at different grades, is sensitometrically indefensible.

Hi Roger,

I'm curious about something. If I use the split contrast technique, is it possible to land on a contrast that's not one of the ten in my stack from Ilford? It seems logical to me that the split contrast method might result in a working print that would equal a contrast grade 3.8 for instance, as opposed to Ilford's 3.5 or 4.

Jeff

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think that split printing can improve on a single exposure with a single middle grade if the 00 and #5 exposure times need to be different for the best results. That can't be achieved with a single middle contrast filter.
(This is even without dodging and/burning involved.)

Dear Frank,

All the sensitometrists and manufacturers I've met disagree with you. HOW is it going to do this?

This doesn't mean that split grade isn't more intuitive for some people.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

I'm curious about something. If I use the split contrast technique, is it possible to land on a contrast that's not one of the ten in my stack from Ilford? It seems logical to me that the split contrast method might result in a working print that would equal a contrast grade 3.8 for instance, as opposed to Ilford's 3.5 or 4.

Jeff

Dear Jeff.

Yes, it is entirely possible -- as it is with dial-in filtration of single grades (i.e. not discrete filters). Opinions differ on the value of quarter-grades. Personally I'm in favour.

Cheers.

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

I'm curious about something. If I use the split contrast technique, is it possible to land on a contrast that's not one of the ten in my stack from Ilford? It seems logical to me that the split contrast method might result in a working print that would equal a contrast grade 3.8 for instance, as opposed to Ilford's 3.5 or 4.

Jeff

Dear Jeff.

Yes, it is entirely possible -- as it is with dial-in filtration of single grades (i.e. not discrete filters). Opinions differ on the value of quarter-grades. Personally I'm in favour.

Cheers.

R.

 

[justsayda]

As a darkroom "returnee" after many years, I tried split-grade printing.

Asking around, it seems that some swear by it, while others think it's the Emperor's new clothes.

Personally, having been reminded what a faff darkroom work is, I'm going to buy a scanner instead.

 

[Fawley]

Cross purposes, I fear. If you're dodging and burning at different grades, it is impossible to replicate that with a single grade. But for a whole print, without dodging and burning at different grades, there is always a single grade that equates to split contrast. The idea of 'laying down' the highlights and shadows separately, without local dodging at different grades, is sensitometrically indefensible. BUT, if you find it easier that way, it's not one whit inferior to finding the right single grade to begin with.

Cheers,

R.

Thanks for the clarification Rodger. I think what we need here is some unification of jargon. I agree with what you're saying. I don't see that exposing whole prints at different contrast grades achieves anything beyond fine tuning the actual grade to decimal point precision. I call what I am doing, Split Grading, a technique I learned from a couple of Eddie Ephraums books.

 

[jawarden]

I don't see that exposing whole prints at different contrast grades achieves anything beyond fine tuning the actual grade to decimal point precision.

Exactly. I think that's what is happening.

I think a lot of the argument about this type of printing is theoretical instead of practical. Those that say split contrast results are always achievable by single contrast methods are correct, I think. However, that 'always' argument relies on a fictitious collection of contrast filters in fine decimal point grades. I don't know if such a set of contrast filters exist, but they're sure not in my darkroom, and if they were available I'd never buy them because the split contrast method gives the same flexibility with only two filters.

So perhaps turning that statement around and making it practical would be helpful. Here's the argument I'm warming up to: when making a working print without dodging or burning, you can never replicate the split contrast method with a single contrast filter unless the negative happens to require one of the half step contrast grades that are in your personal darkroom.

Jeff

 

[semrich]

When I first started printing I had some basic instruction from fellow member Taylan. I learned about test strips, developing basics, dry down, changing exposure times and changing filters.

I then struggled some with the relationship to f stop, exposure, filter grades, and knowing where to start. Then I came across just 2 pages in the book "Basics Photography 06 - Working in Black & White, by David Prakel" about Split-filter printing. One page described a basic method and the second page was a picture of a full print of test strips horizontal for the #00 filter and exposures and vertical strips for the #5 exposures. I did exactly what was shown and low and behold, it was like the top of my head was opened and printing knowledge was poured in and I had an intuitive sense of printing.

I continue to work that way and am getting good prints as a result. I also find that many times I can dodge with the #00 filter and avoid having to do the more difficult burning.

For me it's not a question of one process being better that the other, split-filter printing got me printing and I love it. If I had continued to struggle the way I was I might have been discouraged and given up on it.

 

[shadowfox]

Cross purposes, I fear. If you're dodging and burning at different grades, it is impossible to replicate that with a single grade. But for a whole print, without dodging and burning at different grades, there is always a single grade that equates to split contrast. The idea of 'laying down' the highlights and shadows separately, without local dodging at different grades, is sensitometrically indefensible. BUT, if you find it easier that way, it's not one whit inferior to finding the right single grade to begin with.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

I think I finally get what you're saying.

In my non-traditional approach to printing, having the ability to dodge and burn withing each of the multiple exposures (at different filter grade) is a no-brainer. As it gives me exactly the way to get the look that I liked, the way I envision approaching it. And that's what I've been calling split-grade printing all along.

But you're saying that with burning/dodging out of the picture, a single exposure with enough filter step precision can always accomplish what two exposures with different filter grades can.

Make sense now.

 

[FrankS]

And I still think not, if the best result is obtained with different printing times for the soft and hard filters. A single exposure with a middle contrast filter could not give this result.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In my non-traditional approach to printing, having the ability to dodge and burn within each of the multiple exposures (at different filter grade) is a no-brainer.

Dear Will,

Absolutely!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A single exposure with a middle contrast filter could not give this result.

Dear Frank,

Why not? (assuming it's the right 'middle contrast filter')?

I didn't want to believe this either. But look at the D/log E curves and it's hard not to believe it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[braver]

I do this from time to time, but only to say, use lower than normal contrast on a sky or something. Get a decent exposure that gets much of the grays right, perhaps add some gray to a light area with a low number filter, and some black to the shadows with a high number filter. My darkroom teacher made a point about never using the 00 and 5 filters as they so drastically change the light that they're hard to control. Or something 🙂 I'm doing this for three years now, same film, same development, same camera (and therefore lightmeter), and I find that I can just bang out prints that make me happy at filter #2, usually 12 secs for an 8x10. When I really get to work on something big, I do tend to burn stuff at a #4 filter. But basically, you work something out that works for the way you shoot, and don't get into the darkroom equivalent of pixel peeping. Before you now it you're breaking out the densitometers and declaring all sorts of semi scientific 'knowledge' about how prints 'should' be made 😉