Some dark room workers advocate split filteration with Multigrade papers to print highlighlights and the dark areas. For example they may print with 10 seconds of 00 filter to get the right highlight tones, then 25 seconds with No5 filter to get the right shadow tones. These times are found using test strips; and the ratio of filters is determined to give the overall correct exposure.

They argue that this will handle the contrasty negative, particularly the outdoors scene. This method supposedly gives the right balance to the shadows and also to the highlights.

I have tried this several times with different negatives but find no difference with prints I make without any filters. Prints without any filters print at Grade 2, with Multigrade papers.

Has anyone done any of these experiments/printing and had definitive proof that split filtration really works?? I am wondering if this is a myth; my experiments point this way.

Please advise, as I am either doing something wrong, can't judge my prints or the split filtration method does not improve printing. Help please.

And thanks... David

-- David Strachan (strachan@cww.octec.org.au), February 11, 1999

Answers

Try it this way: Do a test strip (say, two second exposures, moving a card across the paper, so you get ten exposures from 2 to 20 seconds) with #5 filter until you get a rich black, without worrying about any other tones. Then expose a whole test strip at your "minimum exposure for maximum black" time. Now replace the filter with #0. Do another incremental test strip exposure on the second strip, this time one second exposures. You laid down the black with the first exposure, now you are looking at the high tones, and picking the one with barely textured highlights. The final print is your exposure time for black with the #5, followed by exposure time for highlights with #0. Now if you have a perfect negative, the two times add up to a number 2 filter, and you might just as well use a number 2, or open up a stop and use no filter. But if the negative isn't exactly a number 2 or 3, this method will give you the right contrast grade, even it it's 3.24. And this is only your begining "straight print," before dodging and burning.

-- Phil Stiles (pjs@worldpath.net), February 11, 1999.

If you print highlights and shadows to the same density you'll get the same paper curve shape whether you use single-filter or split-filter methods. Or iow you'll get the same grade either way. Printing specific areas with different filters for appropriate degrees of contrast is a great technique, but making the whole print with split-filter exposures makes no difference at all.

-- John Hicks / John's Camera Shop (jbh@magicnet.net), February 12, 1999.

I tried split filtering once. It didn't make any difference. But this is not a myth: unless you use filters under the lens (gingerly placed), how does one change the filtration without risk of shifting the image? With a big sturdy enlarger locked down shift is probably not a problem. I use a Rollie-Nikor 6x7 dichroic and I don't trust everything to remain exactly in place when I turn the filter knobs. I do reluctantly burn sky/clouds at low contrast because resolution isn't so critical with puffy clouds. I don't like the idea of under-the-lens filters.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), February 12, 1999.

As mentioned above, split filter printing has worked best for me when dealing with local contrast in burning and dodging. I use the split method for the entire print also, it is easier to get the desired overall contrast, that I want on the print. The over all contrast may be 1 or 2 or 2.3 or 3.1 or 4.5 "grade", it just depends on the negative. I never have been sold on grade 2 as "normal", I am not that good at making every negative conform to the grade 2 "rule".

One other thing that I have found, the use of filters is less effective than using a VC head (which is what I use). I wouldn't dismiss the process out of hand, but I wouldn't expect a revolutionary break through in your printing either, split printing has it's place and is a very useful tool when used, but like everything else in photograhy, it is just a tool. How well you use it in conjunction with your other tools and talents will make the biggest difference in your prints, that and making a lot of prints.

-- Marv Thompson (mthompson@clinton.net), February 12, 1999.

I have used split grading from time to time with very good results. I suggest always using the higher grade(5) for your 1st exposure, then using the lower grade (0) for your 2nd exposure. I read this somewhere and it did make a difference. Keep trying this and you will notice the results in certain prints. I doubt that the effort involved is worth using this technique for all prints, however.

-- Regina Hugo (vhugo@earthlink.net), February 16, 1999.

Hmm, I am kind of surprised that some have not seen any difference. I find that if I use grade 5 filtration to lay down my shadow areas, and then a grade 0 or 1 to lay down the highlights I can control large contrast swings fairly easily.

For example, I printed a scene that had a white stucco building and a large tree in the foreground. The tree bark would come out dark and muddy when the white stucco was placed on Zone VII. To get the tree bark correct the stucco was all white with no detail.

I split printed using grade 4 filtration for 4 seconds and then grade 1 for 10 seconds. This resulted in rich blacks, great shadow detail and excellent detail in the white stucco of the building. Midtone zones were perfect.

I think the key is to vary the exposure time for the initial grade 4 exposure. Just taking the ideal exposure and dividing it evenly between grade 0 or 1 and grade 4 filtration may be no better than exposing at a grade 2. This technique has resulted in far less dodging and burning in my experience.

-- Michael J. Kravit (mkravit@mindspring.com), June 23, 1999.

Hi!

Split-grade printing is very usefull and will save you time and money and give you excelent prints. I use it every time i print and the results are very good.

First you set the enlarger on ex. grade 2 and expose the print from right to left 2sec., 4sec. up to 10. Then you set the enlarger to ex. grade 4 and expose The Same Print from top to bottom same ratio 2-10 sec. Then develop it and you will get several squares from which you now can choose the base for the print. You choose the square from highlight and shadow area at the same time- get the white white and the black black- and the rest of the tones should follow in the 'right' order.

To make it clear: when you print you set the enlarger on ex. grade 2 and expose it for ex. 4 seconds and then expose on the same print the seconds which you arrived on with grade four ex. 10. Some times one grade might only be 1 second and the other 20, but one can still see a difference. But i would advice you to always on your test strips keep the lowest filter from left to right (or right to left) and the highest filter form top to bottom (or bottow to top) to avoid forgetting times when you expose a print 11.seconds on grade 1 and 17 on grade 4.5 and you still want to burn 3 seconds on grade 0 and dodge 5 seconds in the corner where there where not enough light. It can be a lot to remember but you will soon get into it and never let it go.

Try this first with a negative with a large tonal scale, preferable in natural light without to much contrast and then it is easier to choose and find the riht exposure. Then you can move on to other more difficoult negatives with either more or less contrast. I find it usefull to place the 'right' exposure after the initial test over the areas that includes the most important highlights and also include a dark shadow area. And it is easy to improve a print if you think it is to gray- try filters 3 and 4.5 instead of 2 and 4- and your print is now less gray and hopefully perfect. I tend to overexpose negatives but i also like to underexpose under different conditions. It works with everything and if you do not see a difference then i would try a different proffesion or find out why the filters do not work.

Of course a negative is only a starting point form which to make whatever print you like. Good luck.

-- Ketil Hardy (d0307kah@solent.ac.uk), December 11, 1999.

A challenge; make two prints of greyscales using split-filter methods and using a single filter, both with the same IDMin and IDMax, read the resulting greyscale prints with a densitometer and you'll see that the curves are the same. Therefore both methods deliver the same results.

I didn't believe Phil Davis when he suggested that I was engaging in "wishfull seeing" so tested it myself. He was right.

Otoh, I'll agree with anyone that if you're using single filters rather than a VC or dichro head it's possible to get in-between grades that are impossible with a single filter.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), December 12, 1999.

I agree that split grade, without dodging or burning, doesn't give you anything extra. However, by dodging and burning differently with the two filters, we can easily modify the contrast across a print, and this can be a wonderful technique. See herefor a description, alas not illustrated yet.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), December 13, 1999.

A challenge regardless of what Phil Davis says. Take one of you negs and learn to print it using Eddie Ephramues techniques on split filter printing. It works. I've demonstrated it numerous times. It won't work on grey scales. That's not what it does. I use it to lay down a soft base exposure and then i very contrasty exposure on top of that. It's not the same as laying down one contrast grade by itself. Try it. If you don't see a difference, don't worry about it. I see a difference so I use it. Don't take someone elses word whether it works or not, do a test yourself. James

-- Mr.Lumberjack (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), December 19, 1999.

Those that believe that a"split filtering" creates any difference in the final print are carring what my grandfather used to call a "lazy mans" load. There is no measurable difference between a split filtered print and a print that is printed upon the correct contrast. Not only does this continued belief cost more expense in the darkroom, it creates a darkroom worker with a mis-understanding of the materials and their abilities.

-- jim megargee (mvjim@interport.net), December 19, 1999.

Whether split-contrast printing creates the same image or not, in the end, as a single contrast, is not the point: if a person is used to seeing in tones and zones (as Adams might say), then split contrast printing is simply a tool of visualization, without which you may as well have a mini-lab run off 4x6's for you utilizing their own methods which are probably not at all satisfactory for your own vision. When I have a difficult negative, I use split contrast filtration, because it allows me to disseminate the information on the negative more in a way I can comprehend, and so hopefully can therefore visualize more easily than dealing with a messy or otherwise tricky set of values. shawn

-- shawn gibson (s_g@stu.wdw.utoronto.ca), December 20, 1999.