Mac, I would have to agree with you as you say you; “ I find the process of arriving at the best initial exposure much easier with split grade printing” Basically with four sheets of paper you can nail down the two exposure times and have at least one print with which will be very close to a final dodge and burn. I myself can’t do this with a single filter technique. Yes you maybe able to do it with a single filter, but I also find it takes longer, and lot harder IMHO.
Thanks,
Hi there,
"From a technical standpoint printing that way accomplishes nothing that couldn't have been accomplished with a single exposure, as Phil Davis demonstrated in his 1994 article in Photo Techniques magazine."
Really? I guess he forgot split diffusion, works well with portraits.
Just a thought.
Dan,
I find the test sheets from the process useful for determining starting points in the dodging and burning. I have even made a third sheet, like the second, but keeping the 5 filter constant and stepping the 0 filter. For some scenes this gives you two good starting points for dodging and burning. Other scenes with smaller areas that need adjustment, it's not so helpful. Still, if you do the 0 test, find your exposure, then the 5 test on top of the 0 exposure, you've got a good starting reference for your 5 filter dodging/burning.
Regarding FB vs RC. I use FB. I've used RC, but I've decided I like the look of FB better, and I also hear it lasts longer.
Here's the problem. FB is a pain compared to RC. It curls badly when it dries. And from what I understand, if you don't wash it properly, it will last far worse than RC. If you are going to jump into FB, you need to be ready for it.
On the washing front, you can use an archival washer. I bought one that I like a lot, but only use it for stuff I really know I want to keep. It's time and water consuming. You can also use multiple tray washing as described here and there on the various forums and maybe the Ilford site? You can and should test a print here and there after the wash procedure you use to be sure you got all the nasty stuff out. If you don't, you'll wish you'd used RC, which washes easier.
To flatten, you can use an iron, or weights, or any of a number of innovative and creative approaches. Or you can buy a dry mount press. That's the route I took. They are expensive to ship, but if you find one used locally, and it's clean (be sure it's not filthy), you won't be out too much money.
Just buying some FB and treating it like you used to treat your RC, you'll be frustrated. With a bit of time and effort, you'll probably like FB much better. The way I see it, there is probably a good reason that the vast majority of fine art b/w is sold on FB and not RC.
Don't forget about toning. If you're into permanance, you'll also need to enter that discussion. Poisons and contradictions await there.
By the way, maybe not right now, but next time you're up for a challenge and a new tool, check out flashing. I had a landscape with some flowers in the extreme foreground, a bunch of desert soil leading to some rough cliffs in the mid ground, and far distant hills and a hazy sky beyond that. I just couldn't burn in those far hills at all. And I loved the rest of the shot. I learned to flash the paper and all of a sudden I had those hills with all their detail, and even a few clouds in the sky. It's the most rewarding print I've done. Haven't used it since, and hope not to need it too often, but if you find yourself trying to burn some area for a minute and a half with very little luck, check it out.
Lastly, remember the goal here is to produce a negative that will print perfectly on grade 2 paper with as little manipulation as possible. Or that's my goal. The extra tools and techniques are necessary but shouldn't become too much of a crutch.
Listen to me. I get a 4x5 a year ago and I already sound like an annoying know-it-all photographic philosopher.
Cheers,
Mac
There's one use of split contrast printing that makes sense: burning at a different contrast than the main exposure.
The other commonly cited use (getting a greater contrast range than would be possible with a individual filters) is fictional. If you see a difference, it's because you're filters aren't strong enough (they do fade over time).
I experimented with split filtration for a while, but realized i almost never needed to locally adjust contrast. so for me it was a waste of time.
If you do want to do it, forget about using a #0 and a #5 filter. It's much better to do additive filtration with a blue and green filter. You'll print much faster and get the maximum rang of the paper. A google search will point you to the best color gels to use.
actually I think the biggest advantage is *dodging* at different contrast grades. You can dodge out all of the low filter (0, 00) in your shadows, and keep a good black, but get all the detail from the negative. Dodging shadows in single filter printing leads to muddy gray shadows.
I've tried split filtering (0 and 5) and can see no difference. Burning with different filters is a very useful technique.
I had some bad experience with Ilford MG RC paper and have only use FB for the last 10 years. Maybe I got a bad batch(s) of RC, but I had cracked emulsions, strange stains and problems dry mounting. RC looks like a digital print made on Canon Photo Pro. Too shiny!
Here is a tip, If you want a bit more gloss than air dried FB glossy, steam the print surface before spotting and mounting. There is a noticable difference.
If you really value your work, do it on FB paper. Speaking from 50+ years of B&W printing starting when all we had was FB!
There is no short cut to producing a fine print.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks