brusby
Well-known
Sorry Erik but you're just wrong on all counts. Maybe YOU can't do it. But it's not impossible or even difficult.
I printed with different filters all the time. And doing it in a commercial studio required me, and every other serious professional printer, often to make multiple prints, from just a few to 100 or more from a single negative -- even adjusting on the fly for exhausting chemicals. The first and last had to match so closely that critical art directors and ad supervisors couldn't notice the difference.
Multiple test strips? Test strips are for amateurs. Nothing against amateurs, but if you know how to print and do so on a regular basis they are rarely if ever needed.
And you suggest printing one print a day. That would put any serious printers out of business.
What I don't understand about you is why you continue to say things that are just patently false.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I do not say things that are false, why should I? I just say how I think about printing b+w photographs. For many years I have printed single graded b+w and single filtered multigrade. I know what it is. Since five years or so I make split grade prints. A world of difference. So now I know both worlds. All I can say: try split grade printing. I can help with advise if you want.
About test strips: they are very important when making split grade prints. Photographic paper is very expensive nowadays.
Erik.
brusby
Well-known
I've done split grade printing or printing with different contrast filters for the same negative, since the 70's. The papers and filters may have changed but the principles are the same. The laws of physics still apply. Regardless of the particular process, it's just a matter of getting the right amount of light, through the right contrast filters to produce the desired exposure.
You seem to like to make it sound like some magic or voodoo. Maybe to impress an audience that doesn't know any better?
Erik van Straten
Veteran
brusby
Well-known
Nor with you Erik, when you insist on telling other people that things are impossible just because you can't or won't do them.
retinax
Well-known
Do you mean that you can get intermediate grades with split grade? Then yes. But the same is possible with a colour head which allows stepless filtration.
But it seems you don't appreciate the fact that an intermediate grade filter passes blue and green light in a certain proportion, and all the difference between the filters is that proportion. Varying it is functionally equivalent to varying the time paper gets exposed with just blue or just green light, as you do when split grade printing.
Corran
Well-known
Erik, I am happy that you have a method that works for you. That's great. And I will say, you are very slightly right, in that you can have minute "equivalent" grades when S/F printing, rather than just 2, 2.5, 3, etcetera. I would posit though that the difference between half-grades is so small as to be essentially meaningless.
Ironically, the two different exposures used with S/F printing is actually a huge benefit in one specific area - burning and dodging the higher/lower tones individually. This does make S/F printing an asset in the darkroom, especially a difficult negative.
And, here's an example. For this image I wanted rich midtones, the water to be white but have some texture in the highest zone, and a little bit of detail underneath the rock on the bottom left as well as no muddy tones in the shadows. This is a contact print from 4x5, which I print under my Beseler 45mxt and I used the 00 filter to burn down the water a little bit and dodged the bottom area slightly during the main exposure (I don't remember what filter).
A straight print, using either a combination S/F or single filter approach, left the bottom half dead and lifeless with no detail underneath the rock and the top midtones would be flat with no feeling of light coming from the canopy if printed down till the waterfall texture showed up with the 00 filter. I made a straight print but didn't scan it, probably thrown away now.
This is the biggest advantage to S/F printing, but if you don't want to use it, that's fine - it just renders the use of S/F printing meaningless unless you consistently need 1/4 grades.
Of course you can try this yourself. Make your S/F print, and then make a straight print with every filter, matching the prints as close as possible, and find the filter that is closest to the S/F print. I understand paper is expensive, but this will help you see that the S/F print is "equivalent" to a certain grade.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Well, you can of course use a filter head! The essential difference is that with split grade two (or more) exposures are used, with different filters. Then we speak of split grade. That is all I say. What filters are used, Ilford or a color head, makes of course no difference.
Erik.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes, when you burn and dodge with another filter (or filter combination) or even no filter, yes, than it is split grade of course, because then there are several exposures with different filtrations. That is the essence of split grade. This example supports my claims.
Wonderful photo, by the way.
Erik.
Corran
Well-known
It has nothing to do with your claims.
I'm not interested in arguing with you here. I am merely posting for anyone who happens to be researching silver printing:
Split filter printing is not magic and any print made with S/F exposures with no dodging/burning can be identically made with one exposure and a graded filter in the 1-4 range. New silver printers should learn how to print using graded filters first before attempting any kind of S/F print.
I'm not interested in arguing with you here. I am merely posting for anyone who happens to be researching silver printing:
Split filter printing is not magic and any print made with S/F exposures with no dodging/burning can be identically made with one exposure and a graded filter in the 1-4 range. New silver printers should learn how to print using graded filters first before attempting any kind of S/F print.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
retinax
Well-known
Erik, neither brushy nor Corran nor I were arguing what is and isn't split grade. Our point is that split grade printed straight gives a result that is no different from a print made in a single exposure, at the right grade. Like Corran I'm not mainly arguing this point to convince you, but not to let misinformation stand unopposed, for anyone who doesn't know and reads it.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I agree that split grade printed straight - both exposures equal with different filters - can be exactly the same as an exposure with one filter. That is a well known fact. But that is of course of no use. Than it is better to use one filter. The fun of split grade printing is that you can get with two different exposures - one with filter 00 and the other with filter 5 - the whole range of gradations from ultra soft to extra hard only by varying the exposure time of one of the two or of both. That is all I want to say. I really do not understand what the problem of Brusby and Corran is with this statement.
Erik.
retinax
Well-known
Straight means no dodging and burning, not both exposures for the same time. What's that about?
The rest reads like you're just arguing that split grade printing allows stepless adjustment of contrast, while filters come in discrete steps?
Again, varying the proportions of the exposure time with the hard and soft filters in split grade printing does exactly the same thing that changing filters does in "simple" printing - it varies the proportions of green and blues light that reach the paper. The paper doesn't care whether it receives blue and green light at different times or at the same time. Thus the prints are identical, except for stepless vs. discrete grades of contrast. Do you object?
brothernature
Established
I'm not sure what the disagreement is about at this point, I think it's starting to repeat itself. I think we get the gist of how everyone feels about SF printing vs using a single grade.
When I scan film, the first thing I do in Lightroom is look at the histogram and check the highlights and shadows. I turn on the clipping indicator and drag the highlights until I see a part of the image clip, then do the same with the shadows.
This is probably an imperfect comparison in many ways, but it reminded me of split filter printing. Exposing the 00 filter for just long enough to get detail in the very brightest part of the image, then exposing the 5 filter until the darkest part of the image loses detail.
Going back to Lightroom, after pulling in the highlights/shadows, the image usually looks okay, but I typically bump up or lower the contrast.
I think some in this thread mentioned wanting to do this in the darkroom.
How would you achieve this while printing? Say I've figured out my times for the 00 and 5 filters, but I want to give the image more "punch" without losing shadow detail. When I was first introduced to split filter printing, I was told that you control overall contrast by upping the low-contrast filter. It seems another answer could be to increase the time for the 5 filter and dodge the darkest parts of the image you don't want to lose detail in.
I hope this doesn't re-ignite the debate, but I thought it might be a helpful analogy for those that brought up wanting to control mid-tones.
When I scan film, the first thing I do in Lightroom is look at the histogram and check the highlights and shadows. I turn on the clipping indicator and drag the highlights until I see a part of the image clip, then do the same with the shadows.
This is probably an imperfect comparison in many ways, but it reminded me of split filter printing. Exposing the 00 filter for just long enough to get detail in the very brightest part of the image, then exposing the 5 filter until the darkest part of the image loses detail.
Going back to Lightroom, after pulling in the highlights/shadows, the image usually looks okay, but I typically bump up or lower the contrast.
I think some in this thread mentioned wanting to do this in the darkroom.
How would you achieve this while printing? Say I've figured out my times for the 00 and 5 filters, but I want to give the image more "punch" without losing shadow detail. When I was first introduced to split filter printing, I was told that you control overall contrast by upping the low-contrast filter. It seems another answer could be to increase the time for the 5 filter and dodge the darkest parts of the image you don't want to lose detail in.
I hope this doesn't re-ignite the debate, but I thought it might be a helpful analogy for those that brought up wanting to control mid-tones.
Corran
Well-known
Exactly this.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes, certainly, because not only the colour of the exposures is important, also the length of the exposures is.
In split grade printing there are two exposures: one with filter 00 (usually long) and the other with filter 5 (usually very short).
In "simple" printing there is only one exposure with one filter. That is the BIG difference with split grade printing. (burning and dodging not taken into account)
Split grade printing is double. "Simple" printing is single.
In some ways "simple" printing resembles mono and split grade printing resembles stereo.
Erik.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Good points, Brothernature
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes, increasing the time for the 5 filter increases the contrast because it darkens the shadows. You have to control the time of the exposure for not losing the details in the darkest parts. Test strips.
Erik.
brothernature
Established
I understand that, I'm describing a situation where you've already reached the longest exposure for the 5 filter you can have that doesn't block the darkest part of the image, but you still want to further increase the contrast.