Split grade printing question

[Ben Calwell]

I've been reading online and watching You Tube videos about split-grade printing. I've always strived to scale my negatives to print on Grade 2 paper, but since graded papers have gone the way of the dinosaurs, I'm forced to use VC papers.
My question is: when is split-grade printing called for? What kind of negative needs to be printed with a combination of low grade and high grade filter? I get the impression that some printers use split-grade printing for every negative.
If a negative prints fine at Grade 2, what's the point in printing it with a combo of low- and a high-contrast filter?

[cowanw]

For me, my 8x10 Zone VI enlarger is broken and I cannot do mixed settings. My 5x7 Ilford 500 system is set in half grades only and my 6x6 LPL is a dial in yellow/magenta system.
You are quite right that overall exposure is the same with a mixed versus a split printing. Being more or less incremental may or may not be significant. A certain number of blue photons plus a certain number of green photons must always give the same effect no matter how they are delivered.
But where split printing shines is burning (or dodging) with just blue light or just green light (whether a additive or subtractive system).
Or it may just be that not everybody thinks, learns, comprehends the concepts the same way.
If all your negatives print fine at Grade 2, then there is no point for you in printing it with a combo of low- and a high-contrast filter. You are good to go!

[Alan9940]

IMO, if a negative can be printed normally on a grade 2 paper or using a grade 2 filter on VC paper, then split-grade printing is of no use; or, more specifically, is not required. Where I find split-grade printing to be a valuable tool is when attempting to print a difficult negative. For me, that's a negative where I cannot get the high and low values to look right at the same time. In that instance, I'll print the high values to my liking through a low contrast filter, then hit the shadow end with a high contrast filter. I don't always use grade 0 and grade 5, as commonly advised about the 'net. Each negative can have different contrast grade needs for each end. YMMV, of course. This is simply how I work.

That said, if you look up Steve Sherman, he specifically designs his negatives to print with more blue light vs green light. According to him, this provides more local contrast that cannot be achieved through any normally developed and printed negative. His prints are certainly lovely.

[Ben Calwell]

Thanks - my old cold light head delivers high contrast on VC paper. I’m thinking I could use that to my advantage on certain negatives, in conjunction with yellow filtration.

[cowanw]

Yellow is minus blue and so yes, if your bare bulb light is high contrast then yellow will take blue away. This assumes that your bare bulb has the required green in it and recognizes that, if you are manipulating the light only by taking light away, your exposure times may need to be longer. And if you lack green, you will actually not change the contrast at all with a yellow filter, merely decrease exposure.

[bob carnie]

I split print every negative... to me its a matter of what does the print need to look like, and with that in mind what kind of negative do I have in my hand at the time... I evaluate the scene I want to produce, then evaluate the negative and with two filter I make the print look like what I envision.

I never change the apeture or time once I have a good first test print close to where I want it with a single filter.... All I do is establish this first balance, which is normally a light and soft print of where I want to go. I then add what I call blasts of grade 5 to increase the contrast to where I want to be, I just hit the timer, sometimes I have a 10 second (filter 1) starting point at two stops down from balance(yes I will adjust the bulbs in the enlarger head to get to this point) and then I have seen myself hitting the grade 5 up to 6 times, while dodging mid areas while I do this.
I also will start backwards and use a Grade 4 filter to determine the basic exposure contrast of the print and will flash in by hitting with a 1 filter and will dodge while I am doing this.

For most scenes I will burn in highlights with a grade 5 filter , which seems silly but , I am trying to make any lower tones within the highlight areas darken to create local contrast... This is the exact opposite but same effect as putting a highlight reducing mask on a contrast mask when I printed positives on Cibachrome, it separates the highlight region

When printing we are always trying to fool the eye, I always dodge as I feel its the weapon of mass destruction.. I started split printing in the late 90's when after beta testing Ilford Warmtone I felt it was a viable way of making the type of prints I want.

[Doremus Scudder]

Split-printing really shines when there are areas you would like to print with different contrast. If you're split-printing, but not dodging or burning with different filtration from the base exposure, then you can achieve exactly the same result with a single intermediate contrast setting.

Many split-grade printers, like Bob above, end up printing most highlights at a different contrast than mids and lows just by their method. I'll often dial in full contrast and burn highlights as well. The possibilities are endless.

That said, there were a whole lot of really great prints made on graded paper at one contrast setting. One can do that with VC paper as well. I usually make my best print at one contrast setting and then determine if split printing will benefit the print. I resort to split-printing in a pretty small percentage of my work with the exception of some judicious highlight burning at the high contrast setting, which I end up doing fairly often.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[John Layton]

When I began split grade printing about seven years ago...I tended to think in terms of "equivalents" to numbered contrast filters, and initially valued the fine tuning that split grade offered to delve between these values. This tendency fizzled out...to where I no longer thought in terms of numerical contrast values at all. Indeed, to the extent that I typically now utilize a variety of spectra in creating a single print, the process has gotten to feel much less "linear." What I have found over time, is that my approach to creating prints has changed to something which feels much more fluid and intuitive, while at the same time I think I work harder, and find myself more constantly engaged...because the toolbox is now much more comprehensive and thus more demanding. The reward for this is that I now find myself more consistently satisfied with my prints, and more confident...when I get a negative which I might have hesitated to print in the past - that I can go ahead and make it work for me.

[Greg]

To be honest it has been quite a few years since I split printed anything, but from around 1980 till 2000 I pretty much split printed most of my negatives. I read how several photographers did their split printing, and tried probably 4 of their procedures. In the end settled on one procedure and modified it to fit my method of printing. I ended up actually using a color head. Never had any problems with movement between adjusting the filters cause my enlarger columns were very solidly "bolted" the the wall behind them. Used a Leitz Focomat V 35 Color and a Durst Laborator CE 1000 with a CLS450 color head. Recently have gone back to printing with that same Durst Laborator CE 1000 with a CLS450 color head. Now trying to find my notes on how I did it back then. Unfortunately have only found my lab notebooks going back to 1991. So now have records of all the B&W film that I had processed since then, but in 1991 I was split printing by habit and kept no notes on how I did it... However you decide to split print, keep detailed notes.

[Drew Wiley]

Split printing is just one more optional tool in my substantial tool box. Use it when I need to.