Split grade printing tutorial

It's worth knowing, though, that unless you dodge differentially at the two contrasts there is ALWAYS a single grade that will deliver the same result.

Cheers,

R.
 
There is no difference in result between split grade and mixed filter printing, except that it enables you to use different masks or dodge-and-burn differently on each part of the exposure.

That is, unless you intend to do the above (which can be useful, but is hard to master), the choice between split or mixed is purely technical. With a dedicated variable contrast head you'll use whatever technology it employs, with a colour head or separate filters it depends on what you have (or can work out) better scales for. Split filtering allows for more easy guesses at intermediate grades, and needs only two filters (or two settings on a colour head), so it is my method of choice for the Laborator and Agfa (which are wall mount professional enlargers). But I use mixed filtering on table top enlargers, as these don't have the rigidity to swap or adjust filters between exposures without a loss in sharpness or positioning.
 
Two exposures, each with its own Magenta and Yellow filter settings.
I do this all the time with my color-head enlarger to get the print that I like.

In fact, this is the only way I can get a good result printing a color-negative as B&W print.
 
I like the precision of setting the blacks and highlights this way, but got tired of the fiddly 2 exposure system. I always thought this would be a great way to approach contrast with a dual tube VC cold light head like the old Zone VI. Fred Picker discussed that in his Zone VI catalog, and probably in his newsletters.

I eventually worked out a system of contrast adjustment using dichro color heads that gives me the type of control I want. I do now own one of the ZVI heads, but have not fitted it to an enlarger. I may get around to that someday, but am pretty happy with my system for the color head.
 
Mark C said:
I like the precision of setting the blacks and highlights this way, but got tired of the fiddly 2 exposure system. I always thought this would be a great way to approach contrast with a dual tube VC cold light head like the old Zone VI. Fred Picker discussed that in his Zone VI catalog, and probably in his newsletters.

I eventually worked out a system of contrast adjustment using dichro color heads that gives me the type of control I want. I do now own one of the ZVI heads, but have not fitted it to an enlarger. I may get around to that someday, but am pretty happy with my system for the color head.
Click to expand...
They are not set separately. There is always a single contrast grade that will give exactly the same results.The only technical reason to use split-grade is if you want to dodge or burn differentially during the two exposures.

Cheers,

R.
 
It used to be quite a fad sometime ago but as Roger points out unless you are using different contrast grades for local adjustments you can achieve the same result with single filters.
I guess one could argue that it is possible to get in-between grades e.g. 3 1/4 if using the say an ilford multigrade filter set and it would of course be useful if a particular grade filter is missing.
I personally think it is a bit like stand development where some people swear it's the magic bullet to answer their printing problems.
 
I started using this method last week and found it really helped with a difficult, high contrast negative. I was able to use the grade 0 exposure almost as a pre-flash to tame the highlights, then use the grade 5 to get the shadows right.

I think the split grade approach ended up being much quicker in establishing the basic contrast/exposure than trying to do it all in one go (and I have a variable contrast head so I can get the 'inbetween' grades if necessary).

But the real beauty of it—as others have mentioned—was to be able to dodge during the soft grade exposure to bring the highlights back up in certain areas without also affecting the shadows. In other words, split grade printing gives you the ability to dodge and burn contrast rather than just exposure.

I think I'll probably use split grade printing as my standard method from now on.
 
Split grade printing is potentially a lot more powerful than just a dodging and burning technique.

There is a great chapter on it in Way Beyond Monochrome. I suggest anyone who is interest look there for accurate information.
 
The Heiland splitgrade system does just that. It exposes either the hard or soft first - you get to choose. You can then dodge or burn in either. It's not cheap, but it works well.
 
Ansel said:
Split grade printing is potentially a lot more powerful than just a dodging and burning technique.

There is a great chapter on it in Way Beyond Monochrome. I suggest anyone who is interest look there for accurate information.
Click to expand...
Would you be kind enough to explain how, in a few words? Because all the nonsense about printing highlights and shadows separately is just that: nonsense. Unless you dodge and burn differentially at the different exposures there is ALWAYS a single exposure at a single grade that will give the same results.

Or do you deny this?

If you are going to deny it, there's no sense in discussing the matter further.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger, can you explain the specifics about split-filter printing giving the same results as a single grade?

Honestly I don't believe that. My mentor has used it and taught me the technique, and I have used it for difficult negatives often.
 
Roger Hicks said:
They are not set separately. There is always a single contrast grade that will give exactly the same results.The only technical reason to use split-grade is if you want to dodge or burn differentially during the two exposures.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger,

I understand that you can get the same result with a single contrast grade, but you do (or can) set the black and white with separate test prints and exposures. That can be a very quick and effective way to nail down precisely the overall contrast you want. A number of enlarger systems were built around this principle, including automated ones.

I don't use this method anymore, and am not pushing it, just pointing out what I liked about it. I eventually found a way to get the type of control I want with color heads.
 
Roger Hicks said:
They are not set separately. There is always a single contrast grade that will give exactly the same results.The only technical reason to use split-grade is if you want to dodge or burn differentially during the two exposures.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I've heard of the technique but never tried it. What I have seen is my son-in-law use a desitometer. He reads a shadow and a highlight, then makes amazing b/w prints. Has me intrigued enough to want to try it with my Luna Pro SBC.
 
In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are two completely different issues being discussed here.

One is whether this method can produce a different result than a single exposure. Aside from dodging and buring the separate exposures, it can not. This fact has been established over and over. I've done extensive tests myself to confirm that since some people continue to deny it.

The second issue is the value of this method of printing. I found some things about it extremely useful, but eventually got tired of the fiddly nature and potential for sharpness loss since my setups all required touching the enlarger between exposures.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Would you be kind enough to explain how, in a few words? Because all the nonsense about printing highlights and shadows separately is just that: nonsense. Unless you dodge and burn differentially at the different exposures there is ALWAYS a single exposure at a single grade that will give the same results.

Or do you deny this?

If you are going to deny it, there's no sense in discussing the matter further.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Hi Roger, I dont want to get into an argument. Its a great tool for contrast control. You can achieve a degree of control not possible using a single grade. Here's a link to the basic intro chapter from the book (the full book has a lot more on this).

http://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/WBM2/TOC_files/BasicSplitGradePrintingEd2.pdf
 
Ansel said:
Hi Roger, I dont want to get into an argument. Its a great tool for contrast control. You can achieve a degree of control not possible using a single grade. Here's a link to the basic intro chapter from the book (the full book has a lot more on this).

http://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/WBM2/TOC_files/BasicSplitGradePrintingEd2.pdf
Click to expand...
Um... Well...Yes. But I didn't say that it had to be a whole grade, or even a half grade. VC heads can give you 1.3 . . or 2.1 . . or 3.7 . . . whatever. For whatever reason, the link didn't work.

Cheers,

R.
 
Corran said:
Roger, can you explain the specifics about split-filter printing giving the same results as a single grade?

Honestly I don't believe that. My mentor has used it and taught me the technique, and I have used it for difficult negatives often.
Click to expand...
Look at the D/log E curves for two different grades. The curves are additive. It doesn't matter whether you make the two exposures sequentially or simultaneously.

I've no doubt that your mentor gets great pictures that way. Nor do I deny that some people may find it easier than using a single grade/single exposure. But many, many people are saved by the flexibility of neg/pos printing; and unfortunately, quite a few of them then go on to devise totally worthless theories about why their pictures work.

Frances hit upon split-grade on her own, many years ago. As she says, "I doubt I was the first. Many came up with the same idea at the same time." Full of enthusiasm, she explained her theories to someone who knew a lot more about sensitometry. He explained to our satisfaction about the D/log E curves. But as she says, "It's not a rational sensitometric argument. It's an emotional argument. That's why it's so hard to let go of it. It FEELS right."

Cheers,

R.
 
Let's be specific so we don't get into unnecessary arguments.
Here an example of my typical multiple-exposure settings:

For the 1st exposure, I usually want the contrast, so I set my color head to
Magenta: 13 (my Fujimoto goes from 0 to 17) and Yellow: 0
Exposure: 14 seconds (due to high filter value obscuring more light)

For the 2nd exposure, I want to fill in the greys, so my setting is now:
Magenta: 0 and Yellow: 5
Exposure: 6 seconds

No dodging or burning is involved here. This gives me the right amount of contrast that I like on the print.

Can I achieve the same result using some combination of Magenta and Yellow with one single exposure? Maybe.

But the above method works for me, and it fits the way I think better, so I'm going to keep doing it.
 
shadowfox said:
Let's be specific so we don't get into unnecessary arguments.
Here an example of my typical multiple-exposure settings:

For the 1st exposure, I usually want the contrast, so I set my color head to
Magenta: 13 (my Fujimoto goes from 0 to 17) and Yellow: 0
Exposure: 14 seconds (due to high filter value obscuring more light)

For the 2nd exposure, I want to fill in the greys, so my setting is now:
Magenta: 0 and Yellow: 5
Exposure: 6 seconds

No dodging or burning is involved here. This gives me the right amount of contrast that I like on the print.

Can I achieve the same result using some combination of Magenta and Yellow with one single exposure? Maybe.

But the above method works for me, and it fits the way I think better, so I'm going to keep doing it.
Click to expand...
Dear Will,

Not just "maybe". Sensitometrically, the answer is "Without doubt".

Do you find your approach easier and more intuitive? Yes. So, far and away, it's the best way for you (and for many others). Again, "Without doubt".

The only problem I have with split-grade printing is the fantasy, entertained by some, that they are in some way "laying down" the shadows and highlights separately. No, they aren't.

No-one should ever be discouraged from using split-grade if they want to. They should however be discouraged from constructing meaningless fantasies about it, if only because too many B+W photographers are fed too many meaningless fantasies that stand in the way of actually understanding what they are doing.

Quite a lot of good photographers, with a shaky (or in this case non-existent) grasp on theory try to make life more difficult for beginners. Jargon is bad enough (and the Zone System is very bad for this), but at least the Zone System is based on sensitometry. Jargon plus bad theory is far worse.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom