Blue filter for split printing..

[Robbie Bedell]

I have started to experiment with blue/green filter split printing rather than the Ilford magenta filters I was using. I have a glass #47 blue which is recommended, but it is VERY dark... So dark I can hardly see the image. Can I switch to any blue filter or does it have to be the dark #47? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Robbie

http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com

[Kirk Gittings]

This is a new one on me. What does a blue filter do?

[Drew Wiley]

The VC paper has one emulsion sensitive to blue, the other to green. Theoretically, green
and blue sharp-cutting filters would do the best job, and that's what I use for split printing
on my high-output VC54 coldlight for 8X10 printing. But for all practical purposes yellow and magenta filters can be substituted, and will allow more visible light thru. I've compared
results between the GB method using glass filters on the coldlight, GB on my additive
colorhead, and MY on my subtractive colorhead, and have be able to obtain identical results.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yeah I've always used the yellow/magenta filters.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Robbie,
I use the darkest blue Roscoe filter from a multi-pack that I ordered from them years ago. It's not nearly as dark as my kodak wratten #47. I get very high contrast with it. I also use their darkest green filter.

Kirk, doesn't a magenta filter act as an ND filter?

[Kirk Gittings]

Not that I am aware of. For as long as I have printed VC I have used y&m filters, originally the old Kodak ones, then some Ilford ones and now a color head. They always worked fine-maybe I missed something over the years?

[bob carnie]

The Ilford multi head uses a combination of blue and green light.

I use the magenta and yellow on my equipment or the magenta and yellow filters by Ilford.


Not that I am aware of. For as long as I have printed VC I have used y&m filters, originally the old Kodak ones, then some Ilford ones and now a color head. They always worked fine-maybe I missed something over the years?

[Sevo]

You NEED a green respectively blue blocking filter - most "blue" filters are of the merely attenuating "colour correction" kind that gently reduces red and yellow, and are unsuitable for green/blue separation purposes. But for Multigrade, you'd better go the yellow/magenta way - these do the job just as good or even better, and as they include the (useless for the paper) red channel on each filter, they are much easier to see by.

[Bill Burk]

Magenta and Yellow filters are simply the additive result of Blue+Red and Green+Red. It's the Blue and Green light doing all the work. Additively adding Red does nothing to the paper, but helps you see the light better.

[Steve Smith]

The VC paper has one emulsion sensitive to blue, the other to green.

Actually, there are often more than two layers of emulsion. They are all sensitive to blue and their sensitivity to green varies with contrast.


Steve.

[Drew Wiley]

Magenta BLOCKS green, being the complement, while yellow blocks the blue portion of otherwise white light. Just basic color theory, in this case subtractive. Colorheads are
convenient in this case. However, an ideal coldlight for VC printing will have blue-green
light which you edit either using subtractive MY filters or more efficiently using strong GB.
I use 58 green and 47 blue, but then my cold light is very bright, so no problem seeing what is going on when dodging/burning. And I have these filter on hand anyway for color
separation work, so why not. But for most situtions YM filtration is more practical.

[Sevo]

However, an ideal coldlight for VC printing will have blue-green
light

As LEDs are monochromatic down to a single spectral line (or very few), VC LED heads must be built around blue and green LEDs - there is no wide-spectrum yellow LED that would also expose a green sensitive emulsion, and "magenta" LEDs are merely blue LEDs with a superimposed translucent red phosphor. A few more comfortable VC LED heads had a set of red or orange LEDs to be able to mix "white" light for focusing - but I don't know whether this still true for any of the currently available ones.

[Drew Wiley]

Steve - depends on the brand of paper. Blue light exposes the high contrast layer, but with certain papers you need a least a token amt of exp to the green layer too to get
DMax. And with some papers using only blue light gives you something resembling a lith unless you have an unusually soft neg to begin with. Normally when I split print I simply use some unfiltered light, then punch for either
the blacks using blue or M, or burn in for low contrast detail using green or Y. Small negs
(35mm or 120) go right to a 4x5 subtractive colorhead enlarger because they generally need a bit of magenta boost anyway due to greater magnification.

[Drew Wiley]

Sevo - traditional VC cold lights like Aristo did not use LED's (they weren't invented yet!),
but a mixture of gases in a fluorescent tube, or sometimes overlapping tubes, each with
a different color. Mine is a V54 which is a single woven tube of blue-green. I also have a
couple of enlargers with true RGB tricolor heads, using halogen lights then dichroic filtration. Ordinary subtractive colorheads give off a tungsten-balanced version of white
light, so YMC dichroic filters are used to proportionately subtract the complemetary color.
The purpose of a yellow filter is not to expose a yellow-sensitive emulsion, but to subtract
blue light. It's subtractive, just as in color printing.

[Sevo]

Sevo - traditional VC cold lights like Aristo did not use LED's (they weren't invented yet!),


Hereabouts, LED heads are old enough to be almost traditional by now. By now, high power blue LEDs have been around for some twelve years, and Heiland offered their first "Splitgrade" heads soon after. But before that there were none - even though green LEDs have been available for more than thirty years, green alone does not make a VC head. But as far as the choice of spectrum goes, CCFL were quite similar - the phosphors they used contain the same rare earths and emit the same spectral lines.



The purpose of a yellow filter is not to expose a yellow-sensitive emulsion, but to subtract
blue light. It's subtractive, just as in color printing.

Right. But that is one of the things that cannot be done with LED light (or other single spectrum sources like sodium vapour). Their yellow IS indeed purely yellow, while other yellows need not be - the human eye considers any non-blue with equal amounts of red and green yellow.

[Robbie Bedell]

Wow, I just made a trip downtown and when I got back I found thirteen replies! You guys are great.. I have been printing for years with the yellow/magenta filters but thought I would try the blue/green since I recently purchased a brand new V54 coldlight tube. For some reason I am finding it a little difficult to see the the projected image with the green light from the new tube..combining that with the blue/green filters makes it worse. I guess I will just go back to the yellow/magenta if there really is not so much difference. I am hoping I'm not going to regret this whole endeavor. I dove into it for a short-term project and ended up spending more than I had planned. I still have another enlarger with an old Ilford Multigrade 400hl head to fall back on...If I really don't like the cold light anymore I might just sell the whole thing! Thanks all!! Robbie http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com

[Steve Smith]

Hereabouts, LED heads are old enough to be almost traditional by now.

And hereabouts, it's the only enlarger light source I have. I did have to make it myself though!


Steve.

[patrickjames]

Blue light is very difficult for the eye to focus which you have discovered. I do recall reading about a specific gel combination to be used with VC papers that is not a 47/58 filter combo. I don't recall what it is though, and a quick google is swamped by digital detritus. If you search for it, you may find it, or someone here may remember what it is. It was a well known photographer that used the combo.

I have always used the M/Y combo with Saunder VCCE heads over the years but I have printed with B/G filters too with enlargers that do not have filtration built in, and on an Omega with an Oriental VC head. In some circumstances with some papers you may get more contrast out of a 47 (or 47b, can't remember) filter than you can get from magenta. Oriental has stated this in their literature. I believe this has to do with the sensitivities of the emulsion layers overlapping. The simplicity of using B/G filters is certainly attractive for someone who split prints anyway and very high quality filters can be bought to put in the light path between the lens and the paper. How much difference the quality of the filter makes is probably negligible by most accounts. There is no practical difference in print quality otherwise. If you have Ilford filters you would be better off going back to them and reserving the blue filter for problem negs.


Edit- Looks like I overlapped your post.

[Drew Wiley]

47 is totally sharp-cutting for this application. 47B is almost a full stop darker with no
advantage (not guessing - I've tested them). Both are way way more selective than any
magenta filter you can get. But just how selective does it need to be to have any practical
signficance? The problem with ordinary blue filters is that there's quite a jump from cc's to
deep separation filters, with little between. True to some extent with green too. Most colorheads will give you about 200 cc or Y or M, which is a heck of a lot. I don't know that
one even needs absolute cutoff, though I often do it that way myself.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

As LEDs are monochromatic down to a single spectral line (or very few) [...]

Sevo, my experience of the new generation of "bright" LEDs, red and orange, is that they have much wider spectra than just a single line. When I was building a new safelight, two months ago, I tested quite a few LEDs, including ready-made lamps, components, and strips. I have found that all so-called "bright" red LEDs had yellow spectrum in them, and the orange ones even had small amounts of green. In the end, I had to add a gel Lee filter to my safelight.

On the other hand, the old-fashioned, rather dark LEDs, indeed, had fairly narrow spectra. I am not an expert in LEDs, and I do not know why is this difference so pronounced between the brighter and dimmer ones. The difference may perhaps be an artefact of my testing. Bottom line, just a few bright red LEDs would not be paper safe, but plenty more of them, with a filter, would be ok, and the spectrum was very clear. My experience has been corroborated by others with whom I corresponded on APUG.

For those reasons, when I read about LED-based VC heads I am very curious as to how clean is the blue channel, are they speed-matched across paper grades, and can they achieve the same lowest and highest grades as a dichroic system. Since you seem to have experience of that, I would very much appreciate your comments, too.

[ic-racer]

I have started to experiment with blue/green filter split printing rather than the Ilford magenta filters I was using. I have a glass #47 blue which is recommended, but it is VERY dark... So dark I can hardly see the image. Can I switch to any blue filter or does it have to be the dark #47? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Robbie

http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com

Problems with the Ilford filters? Or do you just want to go with glass filters? You know, of course, the results would be identical if you use yellow or blue. I used some Rosco filters about 12" across at one time because they were much cheaper then the Ilford filters in that size. For the record I used Rosco Primary Blue #80 and Primary Green #91. These two seemed to get the maximum from the paper, but I'm sure there are other colors that would have worked just as good.

[Sevo]

On the other hand, the old-fashioned, rather dark LEDs, indeed, had fairly narrow spectra. I am not an expert in LEDs, and I do not know why is this difference so pronounced between the brighter and dimmer ones.

New high power colour LEDs for lighting applications all are blue LEDs with a conversion phosphor - as that type of "LED fluorescent" is the technology white LEDs are based upon, all research in power increases went into blue LEDs, and other monochromatic designs stalled at the power levels feasible in the mid nineties, while blue LEDs (and their FL derivates) now have anywhere between 10-200 times that output power.

[Robbie Bedell]

Well Ic-racer, that is just what I did not know. But in my perpetual quest to make great prints I thought I at least had to try it! Robbie

http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com

[Brian Ellis]

Sevo, my experience of the new generation of "bright" LEDs, red and orange, is that they have much wider spectra than just a single line. When I was building a new safelight, two months ago, I tested quite a few LEDs, including ready-made lamps, components, and strips. I have found that all so-called "bright" red LEDs had yellow spectrum in them, and the orange ones even had small amounts of green. In the end, I had to add a gel Lee filter to my safelight.

On the other hand, the old-fashioned, rather dark LEDs, indeed, had fairly narrow spectra. I am not an expert in LEDs, and I do not know why is this difference so pronounced between the brighter and dimmer ones. The difference may perhaps be an artefact of my testing. Bottom line, just a few bright red LEDs would not be paper safe, but plenty more of them, with a filter, would be ok, and the spectrum was very clear. My experience has been corroborated by others with whom I corresponded on APUG.

For those reasons, when I read about LED-based VC heads I am very curious as to how clean is the blue channel, are they speed-matched across paper grades, and can they achieve the same lowest and highest grades as a dichroic system. . . .

If by "speed matched" you mean increments that match paper grades (e.g. 1.0 on the Aristo VCL 4500 head = grade 1, 2.0 = grade 2, etc., the answer is no, that VC head isn't "speed matched" like that. That head also doesn't increase contrast linearly as the blue light is increased. The late Phil Davis did a test for me after one of his workshops that showed me what settings on my VCL4500 were the equivalent of which paper grades. I no longer have the results handy and don't remember them but I do remember a couple fairly large gaps that existed in going from one grade to the next (e.g. if 2.2 was the equivalent of a grade 2 on whatever graded paper was being used for comparison I might have had to go to 3.7 for grade 3.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

If by "speed matched" you mean increments that match paper grades (e.g. 1.0 on the Aristo VCL 4500 head = grade 1, 2.0 = grade 2, etc., the answer is no, that VC head isn't "speed matched" like that. That head also doesn't increase contrast linearly as the blue light is increased. The late Phil Davis did a test for me after one of his workshops that showed me what settings on my VCL4500 were the equivalent of which paper grades. I no longer have the results handy and don't remember them but I do remember a couple fairly large gaps that existed in going from one grade to the next (e.g. if 2.2 was the equivalent of a grade 2 on whatever graded paper was being used for comparison I might have had to go to 3.7 for grade 3.

Thank you, Brian, for sharing your experience, it is useful to me, as it reinforces my understanding that there is not much of an agreement between "grades" of different papers, filters, or other light sources, and a more scientific reference, such as the ISO-R. Indeed, when I have tested my 500H head, by exposing a step tablet at each grade setting using the same exposure, I have found the following relationship between the grades displayed by the controller, and the ISO-R reference:

84767

I have no issues with such grade "spacing", in fact, I was quite happy to see that the range progression was so regular with my light source. Mind it, I have recently changed the bulbs to a new type, and I will recalibrate it once more. I am curious what the results would be for the LED VC source which Sevo mentioned.

However, when I asked about the LED VC head being "speed matched" I was asking if the resulting paper characteristic curves would intersect at the same point, at reflection density of 0.60 above paper base, in other words, the ISO speed point for paper. The reason for asking this, is that if this feature is present, then changing the grade does not require changing the exposure to achieve the same 0.60 density, and it is easy to calculate the necessary exposure change to keep the same highlights. For example, going up half-a-grade, on my, speed-matched system, usually requires me to extend the base exposure by an average of 8%, bearing in mind my own grade spacing. I find this helpful, as it is easier for me to experiment with increasing the printing grade, while knowing how to compensate the exposure. This speed matching is something that under-the-lens filters can also achieve, though usually with a 1 f/stop jump at grade 4. I wonder if Sevo's head would offer the same.

[Robert Bowring]

Maybe it is just me but I have never understood the advantage of split printing. Over the years I think I have tried just about every combination of filters, color heads, cold light heads, variable contrast heads, filters above the lens, below the lens, etc. I have always been able to match the split filter print with one made with VC filters or my VCL4500 cold light. Maybe there would be a specific negative that would benefit from split printing but I have not found it yet. Split printing just seems to be a lot more work to get the same result. Just my opinion.

[Steve Smith]

Split grade printing can have benefits if your dodging and burning is different for the two grades. e.g. you treat the shadows more with one grade and highlights with another.

If though, you are doing a straight print with x seconds of one grade and y seconds of another, this could be achieved equally as well with a single exposure of a grade somewhere in between.


Steve.

[Sevo]

Maybe it is just me but I have never understood the advantage of split printing.

There is only one: You only need one pair of filters. This is generally irrelevant if you have a colour head, or an enlarger where the cheap paper manufacturers filters fit the tray - but it can be necessary when you can only place the filters below the lens, where the original polyester filters are not quite up to mural size fine art prints, and where a full set of optical grade glass or gelatin filters would be prohibitively expensive - if you can get it at all (most of the filters in the set are no standard item from any of the filter makers).

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Maybe it is just me but I have never understood the advantage of split printing. Over the years I think I have tried just about every combination of filters, color heads, cold light heads, variable contrast heads, filters above the lens, below the lens, etc. I have always been able to match the split filter print with one made with VC filters or my VCL4500 cold light. Maybe there would be a specific negative that would benefit from split printing but I have not found it yet. Split printing just seems to be a lot more work to get the same result. Just my opinion.

I fully agree with you, Robert, that it is possible to match every split-grade print with one made with a single, intermediate filter.

Other than the clear benefit of burning-in with different grades, another possible advantage, however, is that some people prefer the process of discovering the correct grade by printing with each extreme separately, and some even do not like to think about grades at all. I used to split-grade a lot, and I found it to be a great help in learning to print better, but eventually it became a crutch that made me print with too much contrast. Nowadays, I don't split-grade, I start with a low contrast and I build up the grade as needed. However, I appreciate this is a good technique for those who find it difficult to select the correct grade for a print, and others, who just like the way it works.

[Drew Wiley]

I'll only use fine glass filters below the lens, though there are some optical quality resin ones made. Gels or polyester never, unless it's just for contact printing in a frame below.
But I don't see why having some device which allegedly repicates specific paper grades
would actually mean anything. Graded papers have largely disappeared, and even though
of us who routinely used them at one time know full well that grade designation varied
considerably from product to product. One needs to make a test or trial print anyway.
Who care what grade it supposedly simulates? Seems senseless to pretend that VC papers
are graded, whether on split prints or not.

[Robert Bowring]

I agree Rafal. I use test strips to determine the highlight exposure and then adjust the contrast to get the shadows I want. Like Drew I really don't know and don't care what the nominal contrast grade is. I know that if I need more contrast I can just add some. If I need less contrast I can just subtract some.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

But I don't see why having some device which allegedly repicates specific paper grades
would actually mean anything. Graded papers have largely disappeared, and even though
of us who routinely used them at one time know full well that grade designation varied
considerably from product to product. One needs to make a test or trial print anyway.
Who care what grade it supposedly simulates? Seems senseless to pretend that VC papers
are graded, whether on split prints or not.

Drew, I am not sure if your question was directed at me, and if you were querying the general wisdom of using a VC head, or specifically the concept of replicating paper grades by a VC head. Let me share my perspective on both.

I have been printing with graded papers, before I switched to VC about 15 years ago. I also used filters, at first, but for the past 12 years I have relied on a VC head for my enlarger (an Ilford 500H dichroic head), and I would not go back to filters. Dialling in the contrast, especially for burning-in, is much easier for me, and with this head, I am also enjoying a brighter image on the easel than I had with filters. I am sure there are many other reasons people like VC light sources. I am concerned about the future of mine, which is quite old, so I am researching the replacement options, and LED VCs would be high on the list.

Which leads me to your second question, as to who cares what grade it simulates. I need a repeatable, and a measurable way of knowing what is the contrast setting of the head, that I use. Most of the VC heads that I have seen, Ilford, Saunders/LPL, and De Vere, do that by displaying a grade number. Colour heads display a numerical specification of colour filtration in use. Of the two, I do not like remembering colour head settings, and I prefer to know a single number. Over time, a decade or longer, that number means a lot to me, as I use it with the same paper, over and over. I am not concerned with that number representing an actual grade of a paper long gone, or still being made. I need to know, however, what did I use, for my notes, so I can do it again, in the future, and so I can compare my efforts, and get better at printing. I still burn through paper doing tests, but I am subtler and more precise in my output—I hope.

This leads me to why I asked the question to Sevo, earlier on the thread. The issue with green and blue LEDs, that I have read about repeatedly, is that unlike filters, they were not pure enough, spectrally, at the normal output levels. As a result, they were unable to reach the highest contrasts supported by Ilford papers, with normal printing times. I would not like a head that could not let me print as hard as I wished to, even if I needed that just for a rare burn. Also, knowing the approximate spacing of the grades would tell me more how linear it would be, and it would help me better understand if I would need to change my printing practice.

I hope you understand my request a little better now, and I have already explained why I was looking for a speed-matched system in my earlier post—again, this is not about simulating any paper grades. However, grades are a convenient way to talk about a subject all B&W photographers understand, even with all of its ambiguity.

Drew, I hope I have not misunderstood your question. I appreciate you sharing your long years of experience, thank you for that.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh I get it Rafal. My old negatives were developed standardized to something like Grade 3
Seagull, and I just kept the custom all along. Now that pretty much matches mid-range on
current VC papers with LF negs too, and then I can tweak from this point if needed. I have several enlargers, a couple of them with fancy feedback circuitry, and have no problem whatsoever going between automated contrast controls or manual split printing with just two filters. I print color too, so have three color channels on the fancier heads.
With the additive ones, the red channel is simply ignored when printing b&w paper, unless
neutral density is required. I'm still a little skeptical about the utility of current LED technology when it comes to color printing per se. Haven't liked what I've seen so far.
CC values in conventional colorheads are certainly not an exact science, but are generally
workable in a relative sense.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Drew, you are spot on with what I have tried to express, thank you for following me through, and apologies for not being clearer in my earlier post. I should add that I hope, one day, to be able to get to the point of having all of my negatives print on the grade/contrast that I intended them to, when I took them. I am getting better, but I still very much need a grade above and a grade below my usual target of 2.5, though sometimes I target a lower or a higher paper contrast, adapting to the way MGIV behaves.

I realise you are an expert in colour, and you don't need me to say that, but I fully agree with your suspicion as to the suitability of today's LED heads for colour printing. However, this technology is developing very fast, and I expect that, as long as the market continues to exist, they will get there in the next 3 years or so. Hopefully, by that time, I will have an option of buying an affordable, reliable, and a convenient to use VC LED source for my B&W work. In the meantime, I will keep on asking here and elsewhere for any signs of new developments. I'll start a separate thread.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

I agree Rafal. I use test strips to determine the highlight exposure and then adjust the contrast to get the shadows I want. Like Drew I really don't know and don't care what the nominal contrast grade is. I know that if I need more contrast I can just add some. If I need less contrast I can just subtract some.

Strips for highlights and overall exposure, then contrast for shadows, that is also my current practice. Out of interest, Robert, when you get the contrast right, how do record it, for a future reference? That is, if you make notes.

[bob carnie]

I tend to disagree with the first part . I doubt any single filter can match a combination of two filters.
I tend to agree with the last line and half on how Rafal describes.
I use a modified split print method, which is not a 0 and 5 , but rather a lower filter and the 5 for contrast , 00 to fill in some tone.
With dodging and burning and a bit of flashing there is very few negatives that cannot be tamed.
I also use a % time method and once I have determined the main exposure I will never adjust the timer.



I fully agree with you, Robert, that it is possible to match every split-grade print with one made with a single, intermediate filter.

Other than the clear benefit of burning-in with different grades, another possible advantage, however, is that some people prefer the process of discovering the correct grade by printing with each extreme separately, and some even do not like to think about grades at all. I used to split-grade a lot, and I found it to be a great help in learning to print better, but eventually it became a crutch that made me print with too much contrast. Nowadays, I don't split-grade, I start with a low contrast and I build up the grade as needed. However, I appreciate this is a good technique for those who find it difficult to select the correct grade for a print, and others, who just like the way it works.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

I tend to disagree with the first part . I doubt any single filter can match a combination of two filters.
I tend to agree with the last line and half on how Rafal describes.
I use a modified split print method, which is not a 0 and 5 , but rather a lower filter and the 5 for contrast , 00 to fill in some tone.
With dodging and burning and a bit of flashing there is very few negatives that cannot be tamed.
I also use a % time method and once I have determined the main exposure I will never adjust the timer.

Bob, I think I see your point. Ready made, intermediate-value VC filters do not come in many enough intermediate varieties, they are usually spaced a bit crudely, at about halves of Ilford and Kodak designated grades: 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 etc. If, however, you did not use a physical filter, but were able to dial-in any intermediate setting by selecting your own mixture of green and blue, then, I firmly believe, you would be able to match a split-grade exposure made with one then the other filter. In that respect, I give it to you, Bob, that it is an advantage of split-grade printing, that it can offer finer selection of contrast grades than ready-made intermediate filters. I hope I am following your thoughts, but if your experience is otherwise, please correct me.

PS. I would love to see you print, one day. I have read a lot of your posts, your experience is impressive.

[Bill Burk]

Being a Graded Paper guy, my record-keeping is simple. Example: Grade 2, Dektol 1:2.

But if I were in your shoes I'd make a family of test strips with Stouffer scale and the different filter settings and keep these strips as records of contrast I was getting. Name it by Grade if you like, or not. Just keep it for future reference in case your equipment changes. Then at least you'll be able to say "I used to get a real Grade 4 with a No.47 and Aristo... why can't I hit this with the LED?"

p.s. I had scrambled the letters of "this" in the last question, and it made as much sense...

[Robbie Bedell]

Bob Carnie, You just hit the nail on the head for me. This is what I have been doing all along with the yellow/magenta (I am the original OP here) I was mixing filters for different parts of the print. I only was curious as to whether using blue/green would be any different because I can't see the image very well through the blue filter I am using. I make no records. I have never been able to repeat a print fom notes I have taken. There are too many variables. I also believe that starting from scratch from each negative, whether it be a new one or old, I always learn something new, some small nuance I had not noticed. It's work but I learn by my mistakes. Again, Thank you to all for your knowledge...Robbie

http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com

[Bill Burk]

Do you use the No. 47 because you have it on-hand? After all, it is the blue color separation filter for the yellow plate.

Or is the blue really correct for the job?

Does a fine glass deep magenta filter properly matched to the multigrade paper exist?

I guess it's time for me to see what I get with MGIV and my color separation filters by time % with my greenish Aristo head...

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Being a Graded Paper guy, my record-keeping is simple. Example: Grade 2, Dektol 1:2.

But if I were in your shoes I'd make a family of test strips with Stouffer scale and the different filter settings and keep these strips as records of contrast I was getting. Name it by Grade if you like, or not. Just keep it for future reference in case your equipment changes. Then at least you'll be able to say "I used to get a real Grade 4 with a No.47 and Aristo... why can't I hit this with the LED?"

Indeed, Bill, that's why I asked Robbie about his records, since he uses a mixture of timed exposures through filters. When I used to do split-grade, I used to just note down the duration of the two exposures, and I was wondering if OP did otherwise. With the 500H head, I simply write down the "grade" selected on the controller, and since I have exposed a series of Stouffers at all grade settings, and I have plotted the curves (thanks to your very helpful guidance), I now know exactly what ISO (R) I have been using. Since, unlike grades, ISO (R) are a fixed, and an absolute measurement, I should be able to transfer this, if ever needed, to another system. In the meantime, I have internalised those "grades" from my controller, and they are like a friend to me.

Incidentally, this may be of value to those who practice split-grade printing, and who might care about their equivalent, intermediate grade. You can convert the duration of the two exposures, that is time in seconds through the blue (thard) and the green (tsoft) (or magenta and yellow) filters into the resulting, actual grade. You would need to calibrate the formula to your filters, but for the Ilford grades produced by the 500H, with its original, dichroic filters, the formula is:


Resulting Grade = 3 x Log10 (thard/tsoft) + 2

For example, if your hard filtration exposure is 10 s, and the soft one is the same, at 10 s, the grade = 3 x Log10 (10/10) + 2 = 3 x 0 + 2 = grade 2, using Ilford grading. As shown on leaflets enclosed with Ilford MGIV paper (table 1) grade 2 stands for ISO (R) 100–110 (105 in my set-up). To calibrate the formula, if grade 2 happens to require uneven durations of hard and soft exposures, multiply thard (or tsoft) by a coefficient that will make their fraction equal to 1. By the way, this is also tangentially related to filters being speed-matched. In fact, with these VC papers, you could use any colour filters, as long as they would provide enough of a difference between their blue and green spectra, though the printing times could end up awkward, and extreme grades unobtainable.

I have verified it, and I was able to get an identical print using a resulting single, intermediate grade, as I was getting using two exposures (soft and hard), as long, as the resulting grade was one I could dial-in on the system (see my earlier comment to Bob's reply). This is the basis of my statement, earlier to Robbie, agreeing that a split-grade exposure through two filters has an identical effect as a single, intermediate exposure. This formula was corroborated by Chris Woodhouse, of RH Designs, and co-author of Way Beyond Monochrome, in my private correspondence with him.

[Robert Bowring]

I use a vcl4500 head on my enlarger. When I finally determine the contrast that I want I just jot down the number given on the head. I don't really know how that number relates to the actual contrast grade of the paper and it really does not matter to me. I know that if I want to make another print sometime I can dial that number into the head and it will give me the same contrast as the original print. By your comments I think this is pretty much the same thing you do with the Ilford head. I also record the exposure and the height of the enlarger head. One other thing that I have discovered is that if I change the contrast either using filters or adjusting the variable contrast head I will have to alter the exposure. Just about all of the manufacturers state that for most filters the exposure should remain the same. I have never found that to be true.

[bob carnie]

This only applys to the paper I am mentioning .

There is a huge consideration to consider which I am not scientifically proficient to prove but through years of split printing with Ilford Warmtone have practically observed, and seemingly
backed up by others more proficient with sensitometry over on a thread on APUG. The thread is hard to find but searching the word Gamma will help.

the 0 and 00 filter used with Ilford Warmtone does not have a good response, in fact I have noticed it solarizes in the deepest part of a print.

It took me years to see this and was pointed out by one of my clients during one of our extensive printing by direction sessions.

To solve this, solarization or muddying of the low tones we move up to a 1/2 or 1 or 1 1/2 or 2 filter and 5 combination which allows me great control.

This lead me to the method I use today which is a low filter for the main exposure, matched with 1, 2,or 3 exposures of 5 filter at the same time as the main. This allows me not
to touch the timer once the main exposure is determined as well allows for dodging and burning in a % method which is liberating for me.

I find huge benefit from using a filter just below the ideal filter for the main exposure, keeping the print on the light side to allow the blasts of 5 for contrast.
A single filter cannot match this method, you will either compromise by having a too flat image with no need to dodge and burn, but basically a flat lame looking print
or a print with good contrast for 80% of the image with blocked up shadow areas and highlights that require extensive burning which basically dulls the highlights.

by using two filter method and letting the bulk of the image come in just a bit softer and lighter with the main exposure and then using the 5 and 00 to adjust contrast and put tone
to separate from paper white is the way I work ... therefore I do not split print in the traditional way as I feel using the 0 to lay down the main exposure compromises the shadows.

hope this makes sense.

Then there are those here - who are Zone Masters who control each negative under any lighting conditions and can pull off a negative that does not require any finaggling
whatsoever . I worship those people as I know I will never evolve to that point.

[Bill Burk]

Do you use the No. 47 because you have it on-hand? After all, it is the blue color separation filter for the yellow plate.

Or is the blue really correct for the job?...

By the way, I believe that the No. 47 Blue and No. 61 Green that I have on-hand are well-suited filters for the job (selectively exposing the two layers of a multigrade paper). I was just wondering if they were ideally-suited for the paper (understand they do not pass human-eye-helping Red).

[Robbie Bedell]

Bill, I have the #58 green and the #47 blue. I am not sure where I learned they were the 'correct' ones. I think it may have been in some writing by Steve Anchell. If If rememeber correctly he also said he worked on helping make the new V54 cold light. I had been using an earlier tube in conjuction with the yellow filter which, after now experimenting with the new tube, worked very well. I actually think I had been able to achive a highwer contrast with that set-up (with which I only used yellow/magenta filters.) Unfortunately I broke that tube in the process of removing it from the head to make way for the V54.

http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com

[Brian Ellis]

Maybe it is just me but I have never understood the advantage of split printing. Over the years I think I have tried just about every combination of filters, color heads, cold light heads, variable contrast heads, filters above the lens, below the lens, etc. I have always been able to match the split filter print with one made with VC filters or my VCL4500 cold light. Maybe there would be a specific negative that would benefit from split printing but I have not found it yet. Split printing just seems to be a lot more work to get the same result. Just my opinion.

People sometimes use the term "split printing" in different ways. Some people refer split printing as the practice of making two exposures for the basic print, one using predominantly blue light for shadows/darker midtones, the other using predominantly green light (highlights/lighter midtones).Others refer to making the basic exposure the usual way (one exposure, one filter or combination blue/green light), then making adjustments to local contrast by burning with a different combination (e.g. a lot of blue light to darken a shadow area without affecting an adjacent brighter area).

With respect to the first way, the late Phil Davis wrote an article for an old issue of the magazine Photo Techniques, probably September or October of 1994, in which he agreed with you. After going through a number of tests and examples he demonstrated that there was no difference, that he could make the same print with a single filter and exposure as he could with two exposures and two filters. After reading the article, the details of which I no longer remember, I thought he was right. But I find it best to not get into arguments about it, people who use that method can be a little zealous about it and to me if they think they get better prints that way fine.

For people who use the term the second way, the ability to burn (i.e. adjust local contrast) with a different combination of blue/green light than was used for the base exposure is to me a significant benefit and a huge advantage of using VC papers.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, I'd specifically recommend 58 green and 47 blue. You don't need anything stronger.
I matched a high-output kick-ass V54 to these. But per Bob, I don't think anyone alive or
dead ever managed to make the Zone System a silver bullet. Seems that whenever I start
work on what I think will be a perfect neg it turns out to be hell, and then the one I expect
to be hell becomes a hole-in-one print. Besides, the difference between a good print and
a great one can be pretty damn subtle, and I never know which will be which until everything is toned and fully dried. Like Stieglitz, I tend to think there's only one best print
of anything, though I might modify that idea by making deliberately different tweaks on an
image in which I come up liking more than one final print. But I rarely keep records on black
and white workflow because any tiny change in paper choice or developer gives you a whole new ballgame anyway. Or maybe this has just become so instinctive to me that I
just do it in the darkroom and don't think about it much anymore. I save those headaches
for learning wholly new techniques, at the moment mostly in color.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

I use a vcl4500 head on my enlarger. When I finally determine the contrast that I want I just jot down the number given on the head. I don't really know how that number relates to the actual contrast grade of the paper and it really does not matter to me.[...] One other thing that I have discovered is that if I change the contrast either using filters or adjusting the variable contrast head I will have to alter the exposure. Just about all of the manufacturers state that for most filters the exposure should remain the same. I have never found that to be true.

Robert, that is exactly my current practice.

Regarding your point about the exposure not remaining the same, let me share my thoughts. If your head is designated as VCCE, that is CE stands for "Constant Exposure", then you have a speed-matched system. If not, please ignore the rest of my post, and I apologise for taking the space explaining speed matching...

People believe that the exposure stays the same when you change a grade in a speed-matched system—but for what? Highlights, shadows or mid-tones? We know, that if one changes contrast, shadows have to become blacker. But what also happens, in a speed-matched system of filters, or a head like yours (I hope) or mine, is that highlights become whiter. In other words, the contrast changes equally on both sides of some midtone. The only thing that stays constant, is that midtone, which was chosen to be one that has a density of 0.60 logD above paper base, which happens to be the ISO paper speed-point. That is why you will find exposure changing—it has to, as with a higher contrast, there is less relative paper exposure range on both ends, of highlights and shadows, that produces anything other than a paper base white or a Dmax.

For practical use, many of us seem to settle on a highlight first, and we want to keep it constant, as we increase (or decrease) the contrast, to adjust for the shadows. To do that, you must adjust exposure, because the only constant, is that 0.60 midtone—a rather dark one, may I say, and not even a Zone V. However, the beauty of speed-matching is that you can very easily calculate by how much you need to increase exposure when you go up a grade—provided that your head's grades are evenly spaced (hence my earlier questions to Sevo on this thread about the head he mentioned). On my head (500H) I am in constant exposure land, as I just add 8% to base exposure, as I go half-grade up, and my highlights stay the same, while the shadows deepen. It makes me save a sheet of paper, or more, on a good day. Since I do not know how your grades have been spaced, you may need to follow a simple procedure for finding that out. It is described in Way Beyond Monochrome vol 2, chapter "Exposure Compensation for Contrast Change" page 315. Let me know if you have any questions.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

There is a huge consideration to consider which I am not scientifically proficient to prove but through years of split printing with Ilford Warmtone have practically observed, and seemingly
backed up by others more proficient with sensitometry over on a thread on APUG. The thread is hard to find but searching the word Gamma will help.

the 0 and 00 filter used with Ilford Warmtone does not have a good response, in fact I have noticed it solarizes in the deepest part of a print.

It took me years to see this and was pointed out by one of my clients during one of our extensive printing by direction sessions.

To solve this, solarization or muddying of the low tones we move up to a 1/2 or 1 or 1 1/2 or 2 filter and 5 combination which allows me great control.

Bob, you are absolutely right, that this paper has a rather strange-looking characteristic curve at the extremely low grades, such as your 00 and 0 would be. This is caused by the fact that the paper has three (not two emulsions) that have a compromise in their additive behaviour at a certain low midtone exposed at grades 00 and 0 only. I learned about this issue from a paper by Nicolas Lindan, "The Workings of Variable Contrast Papers and Local Gamma" (http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/appnotevcworkings.pdf), quite some time ago, and I think this is the one you may be referring to in your post. I can certainly see that issue in my own curves for this paper, please see the blue and red curves, representing the grades you have described, in the attachment. You can see that it goes rather wobbly in darker midtones, especially for 00, where it suddenly darkens a low midtone, jumping almost a full f-stop. By the way, please do not treat these curves as gospel, because they were affected by an exposure problem of my enlarger head, and their intersection point is all over the place—but their shape, however, is correct. I'll get fresh ones some time soon, I am quite new to my densitometer, and I still prefer to print, rather than plot good curves, though they are fun, too. By the way, notice how curves for grades 2.5 and upwards are book-perfect with this paper. Personally, I aim my negatives at grade 2.5, partly for that very reason. Bill has been helping me, a lot, to make sense out of film for that, but that is another story.

84832

Back to wobbly soft curves. I believe, that this issue would affect a split-grade printer, who was laying down more than just delicate highlights, say some beefier midtones, using the 00 and 0 filters. It would also affect a print made only using those 0 and 00 grades. However, this issue should not affect a worker printing using grades from 1 upwards, or a split-printer, who lays highlights using grade 1 or higher—it looks like you have found the same in your experience. However, this paper's behaviour affects the response of some midtones, and I suppose it is either something one likes or they don't. Personally, it works for my images, and I continue to use MGIV WT as my main paper with MGIV as the other one, and I don't think I would like Ilford to change it! Apparently, Polymax had the same issue—but I've never tried it, as I used to use graded papers earlier.

I appreciate you describing your procedure. I am always full of admiration for your experience, and your willingness to share it. I hope I have a chance, one day, to see you print, with my own eyes. I am more than sure, that I would learn a lot.


By the way, I believe that the No. 47 Blue and No. 61 Green that I have on-hand are well-suited filters for the job (selectively exposing the two layers of a multigrade paper). I was just wondering if they were ideally-suited for the paper (understand they do not pass human-eye-helping Red).

Bill, I couldn't say anything about those specific filters since I do not use them, but I believe, that it should not matter too much, as long as they are kind to your eyes, and that they let you dodge and burn with ease. You may be familiar with the next few concepts, so my apologies if I am preaching to the expert—I know how important sensitometry is to you—perhaps someone else may find it useful.

Ilford VC papers, to the best of my understanding, simply require one filter to be relatively green, and the other one quite blue, with either one having too much of the other's colour. Other added colours (that is red, which makes magenta and yellow) do not have an effect, it is only the green and the blue that matter.

If the filters' green and blue spectra overlap, you will not get the extreme grades, such as 00, 0, or maybe 0.5, and perhaps not 4.5 or 5. If they do not overlap, they will give you the extremes. So, I would say, try exposing a Stouffer using each filter alone using the same exposure and process, preferably no safelight or making sure it is awfully safe. Dry the paper. Use a reflection densitometer to find DMax, and paper base. Calculate the 90% of achieved Dmax, now called iDmax. Find the 0.04 above base exposure (iDmin), and find the difference between iDmax and iDmin, giving you your relative ER—or just count the number of bars, knowing how they are spaced on your tablet.

For the green (or magenta) filter, if you got ER of 1.4 or more then you have a good grade 0 filter: 1.4 is ISO R140 and it is the ISO definition of the beginning of the 0 grade which goes to R170, with no formal further division into 00 etc. If you got R170, you have the greatest soft filter according to ISO R. For the blue (or yellow) filter, if you got ER of 0.50, that is R50, then you got an ideal grade 5 filter—and ISO defines 5 as R50-R60. Those would be the extremes used by ISO R, but I suppose you could get a filter to get more, but beware of odd behaviours of those extremely soft grades.

To make them truly ideal, you would want them to be matched in density, so that you got grade 2 (R100–R110) when you exposed paper to an equal amount of time through each—but only if you are the type of person who likes to calculate things in your head. Otherwise, it could not matter less, except for reciprocity's sake.


People sometimes use the term "split printing" in different ways. Some people refer split printing as the practice of making two exposures for the basic print, one using predominantly blue light for shadows/darker midtones, the other using predominantly green light (highlights/lighter midtones).Others refer to making the basic exposure the usual way (one exposure, one filter or combination blue/green light), then making adjustments to local contrast by burning with a different combination (e.g. a lot of blue light to darken a shadow area without affecting an adjacent brighter area).

With respect to the first way, the late Phil Davis wrote an article for an old issue of the magazine Photo Techniques, probably September or October of 1994, in which he agreed with you. After going through a number of tests and examples he demonstrated that there was no difference, that he could make the same print with a single filter and exposure as he could with two exposures and two filters. After reading the article, the details of which I no longer remember, I thought he was right. But I find it best to not get into arguments about it, people who use that method can be a little zealous about it and to me if they think they get better prints that way fine.

For people who use the term the second way, the ability to burn (i.e. adjust local contrast) with a different combination of blue/green light than was used for the base exposure is to me a significant benefit and a huge advantage of using VC papers.

I fully agree with you, Brian, and I only hope that I have not offended anyone. I am not trying to be smart-ass about this, I was just questioned, earlier on the thread, why I asked about grades for VC papers and all of that... I hope I have managed to share some of my thinking. Now, I hope it will make my prints better—nah—for that, I know I need to follow Bob, and just practice more, type less. Thanks for humouring me, though, everyone.

[cowanw]

This only applys to the paper I am mentioning .

There is a huge consideration to consider which I am not scientifically proficient to prove but through years of split printing with Ilford Warmtone have practically observed, and seemingly
backed up by others more proficient with sensitometry over on a thread on APUG. The thread is hard to find but searching the word Gamma will help.

the 0 and 00 filter used with Ilford Warmtone does not have a good response, in fact I have noticed it solarizes in the deepest part of a print.

It took me years to see this and was pointed out by one of my clients during one of our extensive printing by direction sessions.

To solve this, solarization or muddying of the low tones we move up to a 1/2 or 1 or 1 1/2 or 2 filter and 5 combination which allows me great control.

This lead me to the method I use today which is a low filter for the main exposure, matched with 1, 2,or 3 exposures of 5 filter at the same time as the main. This allows me not
to touch the timer once the main exposure is determined as well allows for dodging and burning in a % method which is liberating for me.

I find huge benefit from using a filter just below the ideal filter for the main exposure, keeping the print on the light side to allow the blasts of 5 for contrast.
A single filter cannot match this method, you will either compromise by having a too flat image with no need to dodge and burn, but basically a flat lame looking print
or a print with good contrast for 80% of the image with blocked up shadow areas and highlights that require extensive burning which basically dulls the highlights.

by using two filter method and letting the bulk of the image come in just a bit softer and lighter with the main exposure and then using the 5 and 00 to adjust contrast and put tone
to separate from paper white is the way I work ... therefore I do not split print in the traditional way as I feel using the 0 to lay down the main exposure compromises the shadows.

hope this makes sense.

Then there are those here - who are Zone Masters who control each negative under any lighting conditions and can pull off a negative that does not require any finaggling
whatsoever . I worship those people as I know I will never evolve to that point.
I searched but I couldn't find the post you are reporting.
But I find this very interesting.
On the face of it, this should not be, since the soft setting you are using is really just a combination of a green time and a blue time and then you are adding more blue time.
Perhaps Simon can chime in about the specifics of warmtone.
If you look at the results below you can understand my puzzlement since a 100% green, grade 00, 10 sec. exposure becomes a 97 % grade 1/2 10.4 sec exposure if you add .4 of blue.
I will take some warmtone and see if I can replicate you findings. (My first thought was you were just using too much green and getting muddy highlights, but you are a smart cookie, so it's worth looking at, perhaps developer plays a role)
FWIW, to the discussion
This is a graph of my zone vi variable head printing a 21 step Stouffer negative.
Notice it takes a 25% change to go from 4-5 but only an 8% change from 00 to 0

Grade Blue Green Stouffer steps (21)

5 100% 0% 5.5 steps

4.5 80% 20%

4 76% 24% 6 steps

3.5 52% 48%

3 43% 57% 8 steps

2.5 35% 65%

2 28% 72% 9 steps

1.5 22% 78%

1 18% 82% 10 steps

0.5 12% 88%

0 8% 92% 11.5 steps

00.5 3% 97%

00 0% 100% 13.5 steps

[Bill Burk]

Bill, I couldn't say anything about those specific filters since I do not use them, but I believe, that it should not matter too much, as long as they are kind to your eyes, and that they let you dodge and burn with ease. You may be familiar with the next few concepts.

Funny, I looked at the graphs I could find in my butchered copy of Kodak Filters (at one time I cut these specific filters out, presumably to carry around in my wallet)... Anyway now I believe the cutoffs of Green 58 vs Green 61 are similar and either one would suffice. Considering the degree of (im)precision I work to, I can't see any reason to switch... But Magenta and Yellow filters, by definition, are kinder to the eyes... when you want to dodge and burn with ease.

Your information looks great...

[Steve Sherman]

For years I have used an above the negative stage home made cold light on a 5x7 Beseler enlarger. I use Roscoe Theatre gels, the blue is # 68 and the green is # 369 OR 389 (cvan't remember right now) As you say the blue is difficult to see, the green very easy. The big advantage over the yellow / magenta arrangement, the former is "Additive" and the later is subtractive in nature. In other words where contrast is constant, the blue / green printing time is considerably faster than the yellow / magenta which subtracts light to bias the appropriate contrast needed.

In fact, recently I acquired an Ilford 500 head on a Durst 138 enlarger, I am able to get just as much contrast with the old Beseler and very inexpensive theatre gels as I do with the Ilford 500 head. There are several involved in this post who can attest to the print quality I am able to get from Ilford Multi-contrast papers. Here is a link to CT. Show Lighting

http://www.showlightingcorp.com/

Two 20x24 gels, one each color will cost less than $20.00

Cheers!

[ic-racer]

I
Incidentally, this may be of value to those who practice split-grade printing...

I did something similar. I calibrated my two filters in graphic form back when I only had the two filters. The colored lines are "equi-density" for a middle gray. The black radial lines are "equi-contrast."
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/ic-racer/FineScale2.jpg

[Steve Sherman]

This only applys to the paper I am mentioning .

There is a huge consideration to consider which I am not scientifically proficient to prove but through years of split printing with Ilford Warmtone have practically observed, and seemingly
backed up by others more proficient with sensitometry over on a thread on APUG. The thread is hard to find but searching the word Gamma will help.

the 0 and 00 filter used with Ilford Warmtone does not have a good response, in fact I have noticed it solarizes in the deepest part of a print.

It took me years to see this and was pointed out by one of my clients during one of our extensive printing by direction sessions.

To solve this, solarization or muddying of the low tones we move up to a 1/2 or 1 or 1 1/2 or 2 filter and 5 combination which allows me great control.

This lead me to the method I use today which is a low filter for the main exposure, matched with 1, 2,or 3 exposures of 5 filter at the same time as the main. This allows me not
to touch the timer once the main exposure is determined as well allows for dodging and burning in a % method which is liberating for me.

I find huge benefit from using a filter just below the ideal filter for the main exposure, keeping the print on the light side to allow the blasts of 5 for contrast.
A single filter cannot match this method, you will either compromise by having a too flat image with no need to dodge and burn, but basically a flat lame looking print
or a print with good contrast for 80% of the image with blocked up shadow areas and highlights that require extensive burning which basically dulls the highlights.

by using two filter method and letting the bulk of the image come in just a bit softer and lighter with the main exposure and then using the 5 and 00 to adjust contrast and put tone
to separate from paper white is the way I work ... therefore I do not split print in the traditional way as I feel using the 0 to lay down the main exposure compromises the shadows.

hope this makes sense.

Then there are those here - who are Zone Masters who control each negative under any lighting conditions and can pull off a negative that does not require any finaggling
whatsoever . I worship those people as I know I will never evolve to that point.

While I haven't experienced what Bob is talking about i look forward to experimenting with his ideas as his printing observations and abilities are second to none.

[bob carnie]

Rafal Steve

Thank you both for the kind words , I feel like a brushing bride ready to throw my flowers to the crowd.

I should mention that ILFORD WARM TONE glossy is my go to paper, I was lucky to Beta test this brand and I have used it ever since. I use Galerie G4 with an extended red sensitivity on the lambda and its my other go to paper.

A few tricks that I have gotten into with this paper is ...
1. start at a 1 or 1 1/2 filter which allows me to put in a really nice balance...
2. never touch the aperture or timer and visualize the exposure sequence and the dodges and burns before I put the paper in the easel.
3. use a % dodge and burn technique which means I hit the timer and count my dodges in all the filter settings as well as the burns.

4.and most importantly ............ Burn in the Highlights with Grade 5 every print, then burn with 00 to mimic tone , almost like flashing in tone....... think camouflage or like spotting,,, give the eye something to anchor on and fill in with soft tone. Les McLean does this as well to great prints.
5.second most importantly....... visualize the path you are going to do, be able to repeat it, after the exposure is made put all filters back to the starting point.... look at the print as it emerges as it will show you your dodge
and burn ..... turn on room lights for only 30 seconds max after fix...... repeat above with modifications until you have a print you are happy with wet.... make two more with slight mods on each.

next day observe which print you like the best and put that in your brain scanner and the next time its part of the process..
Make 10000 prints don't exercise , drink rum, every night, marry a lovely woman who is a photographer , who also is a great chef, get gout and complain to all.

[Robbie Bedell]

Great advice Bob. I can proudly say I have mastered your last paragraph! Robbie

http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com

[bob carnie]

how did you cure the gout??? its killing me


Great advice Bob. I can proudly say I have mastered your last paragraph! Robbie

http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com

[Robbie Bedell]

Well, I did not master that part...But I think I had a touch of it once and ate lots of cherries and drank cherry juice..

http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com

[Drew Wiley]

Bob ... I caught a bad run of gout from watching a Barry Lyndon disc. Too much port and
pheasant. A swig of pure Monmorency tart cherry juice, or dried munchy same, seems to
work better than prescription meds, also Vit C. ... But per MGWT, when it comes to getting
detail way into the extremes (0 grade range), dev composition seems to be more important
than just the color of light options. General ...A deep green 58 or 68 prints much faster than any tricolor blue. No way to get them speed matched without an ND filter added, which would just make things unnessarily hard to see. I can't recommend this approach
unless one has a serious light source. Some cold light heads are just too weak. Mine isn't.