Author Topic: Split Grade Printing... (Read 11889 times)

ChristopherCoy · « **on:** December 14, 2012, 09:21:10 PM »

I posted this on APUG but I want to get your opinions too.

Yesterday I starting printing this image. Its a good negative, perhaps slightly under exposed. I missed the focus on this one slightly, as the tuft of fur sticking out of the neck on the left is more in focus than the eyes. This is the very first roll that I put through the Yashica 635, and this was about the 4th photo I had taken on a roll of TMAX100 - 120. The exposure was around 1/60th at 5.6 if I remember correctly.

I did my normal filter 2 exposure and came up with this. I think this is like 15 secs. Its muddy, gray, and just kinda blah.

CatOrig by ChristopherCoy, on Flickr

And then I tried to do a split grade print using the method I found on youtube.
http://youtu.be/5XgmJk2Fmpw
A friend of mine suggested I read Les Mclean's article online, and so I did. I found it much less confusing than the youtube video.
http://www.lesmcleanphotography.com/articles.php?page=full&article=21

I used Les' method, and I ended up with this. This is a 'soft' exposure of 8 seconds with filter 0, and a hard exposure of 6 seconds with filter 5. It also has and extra 10 seconds of vignetting on the edges.

CatSG by ChristopherCoy, on Flickr

So far, this is what I've learned. There is a noticeable difference in the right (cats left) eye, the split grade version is opened up and not so 'dead'. The highlights on the legs are cleaner and not so muddy. The shadow on the back is opened WAY up, which is nice because the cat is actually orange and white. And the grain in the wood on the floor is not so flat.

comparison by ChristopherCoy, on Flickr

I'd like to know what you're opinion of my progress is, and also any suggestions that you think may make this print better?

These are straight scans of my PRINTS at 96 dpi, not negative scans. I did absolutely NOTHING to them except convert them from .tiff to .jpg files.

ChristopherCoy · « **Reply #1 on:** December 15, 2012, 12:30:57 AM »

Ok. So this is where I am now, after some suggestions of lowering the 'soft' exposure.

4secs with the 00 filter, 6 secs with the 5 filter, and then 4 secs added to the edges for vignette. I also had to dodge the cats left eye during the #5 filter to keep it from going 'dead'.

CatSG2 by ChristopherCoy, on Flickr

Andrej K · « **Reply #2 on:** December 15, 2012, 07:10:35 AM »

Nice example, thank you!
I am also experimenting with split grade printing - it works like a charm most of the time but there are also negatives where it does not work at all and there the only way is to find the "right" grade and then dodge and dodge...

jojonas~ · « **Reply #3 on:** December 15, 2012, 11:04:58 AM »

an improvement with every print!
I can't offer much advise, but atleast I can say that

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #4 on:** December 15, 2012, 11:30:53 AM »

I'll echo Jojonas. I know nothing, other than, each print is better.

LT · « **Reply #5 on:** December 15, 2012, 01:23:08 PM »

I use split grade (0 & 5) almost exclusively for my own printing. I do develop negs to a higher overall density to help with this though. When I am printing for other people, I generally use single grades as it is much quicker.

I think the issue with your original Grade 2 print is that it is over exposed and is too flat in contrast. You could have got a much more acceptable initial print by decreasing exposure and upping the grade.

This may not apply to you (you might be doing it already), but I think the best thing printers can do to improve their output is to stop judging prints on the whole tonal range, and start following this workflow:

1. Find the most important highlight, and do a test strip over that at your usual grade (2 1/2 or whatever). Select the time that shows the first step above paper white - this will be your overall print exposure time.

2. Do a work print at this exposure time. Judge the shadows - look for the most important shadow in which you want detail to remain. If this is blocked up and black, then you need to go to a lower grade, if the print is flat with no real blacks, then you need to up the grade.

And that is it. Compensate for dry-down. You can mess around with dodging and burning if you want a punchier interpretive print

-------

As far as your split grade is concerned. As already said, you are getting better with each try. I think at the moment, it is lacking some bite to the local contrast in the cat's white fur. I would be tempted now to do a grade 5 test strip over the top of this area to determine a burn-in exposure to really make it pop.

----------

I have quite a few Printer's Art articles on my website where I am using split-grade, they might be useful to you - see them in practice so to speak - http://leontaylorphotography.tumblr.com/articles

John Robison · « **Reply #6 on:** December 15, 2012, 04:13:14 PM »

What does the cat think? If the subject is alright with the last print then it's OK.

ChristopherCoy · « **Reply #7 on:** December 15, 2012, 07:42:13 PM »

I've seen more of this cat than I care to, trust me. And it's not even my cat!!! It was in a candle shop that we went into last weekend. I just liked the light. I'm a dog person myself.

mcduff · « **Reply #8 on:** December 15, 2012, 08:20:38 PM »

Leon thanks for that workflow suggestion! I will try that next time I am in the DR over the way I was taught in the dark ages of having the test strip over the 'most important' part of the image - which frankly says 'the hell with the rest of the image' haha. Thinking about it a bit more I am likely setting the time for the shadow areas which explains why I often feel stuff is too blown out in the highlights. Often I try to resolve this with burning versus changing the contrast. I will try this more methodological technique (maybe tomorrow)!

Francois · « **Reply #9 on:** December 15, 2012, 08:34:43 PM »

This and a stop based approach to printing are pretty much the best way to go.

Don't forget: expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

LT · « **Reply #10 on:** December 15, 2012, 09:11:14 PM »

Quote from: Francois on December 15, 2012, 08:34:43 PM

Don't forget: expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

That's for film exposure ... Printing = expose for highlights, contrast grade for shadows, keep developing time / temp constant.

Francois · « **Reply #11 on:** December 15, 2012, 10:27:33 PM »

I know. But when you do that, it makes the negative so much easier to print!

ChristopherCoy · « **Reply #12 on:** December 15, 2012, 10:57:09 PM »

Quote from: Francois on December 15, 2012, 08:34:43 PM

Don't forget: expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

Someone else mentioned this to me the other day... I may try it on my next roll.

Francois · « **Reply #13 on:** December 16, 2012, 02:54:19 PM »

You'll see, when you compare to the old method, it's like night and day.

Don't forget, your exposure meter can easily be fooled. The only thing it knows is middle gray (the 18% gray card) and it tries to bring everything to this.

Dave Elden · « **Reply #14 on:** December 16, 2012, 05:28:55 PM »

Quote from: Leon on December 15, 2012, 01:23:08 PM

I use split grade (0 & 5) almost exclusively for my own printing. I do develop negs to a higher overall density to help with this though. When I am printing for other people, I generally use single grades as it is much quicker.

Just curious as to why you would use "split grade" printing when it takes you longer. The end result is precisely the same as single grade printing at an appropriate grade & time so I had always assumed that printers who preferred to split grade found it faster and/or easier to get to the same point. If not I see no benefit?

PS I enjoyed those printer' art pieces in the magazine, thanks for posting the link to them.

LT · « **Reply #15 on:** December 16, 2012, 08:23:52 PM »

Quote from: Dave Elden on December 16, 2012, 05:28:55 PM

Quote from: Leon on December 15, 2012, 01:23:08 PM
I use split grade (0 & 5) almost exclusively for my own printing. I do develop negs to a higher overall density to help with this though. When I am printing for other people, I generally use single grades as it is much quicker.

Just curious as to why you would use "split grade" printing when it takes you longer. The end result is precisely the same as single grade printing at an appropriate grade & time so I had always assumed that printers who preferred to split grade found it faster and/or easier to get to the same point. If not I see no benefit?

It is absolutely not the same end result, and that is why it is worth the time. The same for waiting 3 -5 minutes for fibre paper to develop versus 60 seconds for resin paper. It is just worth it.

It's all about the fine control of both global and local contrast. You have access to a multitude of 'in between' grades, limited only by the smallest step on your enlarger timer. You have the option to burn only highlight or shadows, a delicate grade 5 burn on lighter areas is an excellent way to add pop and zing - takes practice though. And, the ability to compensate separately for shadows and highlights for split toning is extremely helpful.

Francois · « **Reply #16 on:** December 16, 2012, 09:06:40 PM »

We all have our different ways of doing things.
I'm personally not a big fan of split grade printing. It's probably because I tend to like my images on the contrasty side. But as always, it depends on the subject.

One thing I have done a few times is print part of the image at grade 2 and then print the rest of the image at grade 5. The way I did it is a hassle, but it did work just fine (with a lot of exposure calculations I should add).

Dave Elden · « **Reply #17 on:** December 16, 2012, 09:14:29 PM »

Leon; OK, I understand that burning-in with a different contrast than the basic exposure is a very useful control (I use it frequently and it is a key benefit of VC paper), I thought you were comparing split grade with single grade for the basic exposure where the results will be the same (unless, using discrete filters, you require finer contrast steps than 1/2 grade - I find I rarely need any finer but YMMV).

I haven't tried this but I would also expect that using a split grade approach to the basic exposure and then burning-in split grade-wise would give identical results to burning-in split grade-wise on top of a single grade basic exposure. Of course one way or the other might be easier in practice for some reason on a given print but the end result would be the same.

Francois; there are different ways of doing things and ways of doing different things, I'm trying to make sure I can see the distinction here

Yes, I also understand the technique you are referring to and have used when necessary, e.g. printing one area with only shadow detail at high contrast and the rest of the print at a normal contrast.

LT · « **Reply #18 on:** December 16, 2012, 09:51:00 PM »

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you happy with your prints, there is no need to change.

I like to think my prints are of a reasonably high standard, and I do attribute this to technique as much as I do to vision. Access to finer grade control than 1/2 steps really does make the difference in an expressive print, according to my mileage anyway.

Dave Elden · « **Reply #19 on:** December 16, 2012, 10:39:40 PM »

Thanks, agreed on the pudding thing. This has been a good discussion for me, I occasionally get asked about split grade for basic exposures and always give the answer it is a different route to the same result from the single grade method that I introduce students to as a standard. I still think this is true (in fact I processed a few step wedges in the DR this morning to convince myself of it, e.g. 15s@g5+35s@g00 is indistinguishable from 35s@g1). Of course they also learn how to control local density & contrast as well - and the school does place some emphasis on craft skills & achievement (their motto is "Vision, Content, Craft").

Thx,

Dave.

mcduff · « **Reply #20 on:** December 17, 2012, 02:01:24 AM »

I was playing in the darkroom today with a couple of ideas from this thread: firstly the notion of exposing for the highlights and then using the contrast filters to deal with the shadow detail. I will likely continue to play with this. Secondly I played with the split grade technique. I had enough luck with both to see the merits. I frequently blow out the highlights and need to burn them in. I still did some burning, so it does not automatically make a problematic neg perfect .

The split grade I did (not that excessive .5 and 2.5) seemed to give me a bit more midtones. I will probably try it again a bit more extreme. If I get a chance I will post it later on tonite in the weekend thread.

SLVR · « **Reply #21 on:** December 17, 2012, 03:28:19 AM »

My results from today with mcduff! I'm looking at my prints and wishing that my blacks were blacker while maintaining the detail in the hair.

10 sec of 0.5, 10 sec of 2.5, and 30 sec of 0.5 for the vignette.

LT · « **Reply #22 on:** December 17, 2012, 06:52:23 AM »

McDuff - if your highlights are still bloiwb out, you are not giving enough =on your soft grade exposure, or not choosing the correct highlight to bas ethe exposure on.

Tintin. Try using grades 0 and 5. Your horse need much stronger contrast.

LT · « **Reply #23 on:** December 17, 2012, 06:55:52 AM »

Dave, its not about a step wedge, its about fine tuning contrast to a particular negative and expressive control when realising the image. Mind you, I like evaporated milk with my apple pie, others like custard.

Nigel · « **Reply #24 on:** December 17, 2012, 08:59:30 AM »

Quote

I like evaporated milk with my apple pie, others like custard.

Leon - I was with you all the way, but I'm sorry that's just WRONG!

mcduff · « **Reply #25 on:** December 17, 2012, 01:41:08 PM »

Thanks Leon. I will try this again when Xmas stuff is not making my life so frenetic and I have a bit more time. I will also try it with more extreme grades than the .5 and 2.5 I was using. I also need to buy some new paper- I am using stuff I do not like and that ain't helping.

BTW, that evaporated milk / custard stuff is crazy talk. Everyone knows you have a slice of cheese with your apple pie ;-p

Don

Dave Elden · « **Reply #26 on:** December 17, 2012, 03:51:14 PM »

Quote from: mcduff on December 17, 2012, 01:41:08 PM

I will also try it with more extreme grades than the .5 and 2.5 I was using.

I can't see any reason not to use the 00/5 grades, using 1/2 & 21/2 obviously limits you to that contrast range.

Leon, the step wedge is just a tool to actually measure contrast so agreed it's not about the tool but the results. Again I am just trying to understand what is fundamentally a practical application of sensitometry well enough to explain to someone else. A step wedge is just a convenient sensitometric tool in the darkroom. As to aesthetics, well in the end that is the tough part.

ChristopherCoy · « **Reply #27 on:** December 17, 2012, 06:31:11 PM »

Y'all are all crazy! Everyone knows its supposed to be a big scoop of vanilla ice cream on top of a warm apple pie slice! Where's y'alls suthu'n charm???

LT · « **Reply #28 on:** December 17, 2012, 09:19:14 PM »

I-Scream? Cheese? You've gone wrong in the head-tank.

You'll be serving sickly maple syrup with fried sausage meat next.

(Never, ever mix the sweet with the savoury. Its just plain wrong)

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #29 on:** December 17, 2012, 09:54:52 PM »

I know nothing about split grade printing, but, how about quince cheese with cheese - I know it's sweet and savoury, but, just tossing it out there!

jojonas~ · « **Reply #30 on:** December 18, 2012, 08:48:43 AM »

wasn't there a foodwasters forum for stuff like this?

Miles · « **Reply #31 on:** December 18, 2012, 11:05:33 PM »

Mmmmmmm ... the metallic tang of Evap ... Magic.

Cheese with everything is right.

Jeff Warden · « **Reply #32 on:** December 19, 2012, 05:34:03 PM »

Total agreement with Leon about everything except the international dessert food controversy. Perhaps exposure to fix can damage taste buds? :-)

It's true that split grade printing offers finer contrast steps than the 1/2 step increments in the Ilford filter set, but that's not the benefit for me; the benefit is that I'm not thinking about those contrast increments anymore. I'm just focusing on high and low contrast, not wondering if this image might be better at 3 1/2 instead of 3, if that makes sense. Local dodging/burning in either/both passes is addictive.

There's more than one way to make a good print. I thought it would be worth my while to learn the split grade technique to see what the fuss was about and I'm very happy that I put in that effort.

LT · « **Reply #33 on:** December 19, 2012, 07:41:47 PM »

Quote from: Miles on December 18, 2012, 11:05:33 PM

Mmmmmmm ... the metallic tang of Evap ...

Ohhhh yes, I hear you brother. Not Silly sweet condensed rubbish though. Only pure, slightly acidic, generally chemical-esque evap. I think it has something to do with having parents who went through post-war rationing.

Crumble ain't a crumble until it's partially dissolved in evaperoo.

Francois · « **Reply #34 on:** December 19, 2012, 09:03:40 PM »

I bet the stuff is great for giving you white-ish highlights.

LT · « **Reply #35 on:** December 20, 2012, 07:29:41 PM »

Quote from: Francois on December 19, 2012, 09:03:40 PM

I bet the stuff is great for giving you white-ish highlights.

Great idea François. I'll try it out for some drag-bleaching next time I'm in the darkened room. I reckon it will give a lovely off-white/ yellow tone.

Francois · « **Reply #36 on:** December 20, 2012, 09:53:15 PM »