Are there any web sites on the advantages and directions for split filtration with VC papers, particulaly Ilford MG? I've read varying experiences both singing its praises and and others who can tell no significant difference.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), July 22, 2000

Answers

Stephen Anchell has the definitive book on it. Also Eddie Ephramus has a good book called "Gradient Light". James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), July 22, 2000.

Go in your darkroom and play with your VC filters and you'll see what split filtration does. It's not a panacea for all situations, but it works where it's appropriate. I don't think you could exactly praise it a lot, or dismiss it entirely. The ability to employ split filtration is just a logical outgrowth of graded filtration. Sort of like the Slurpee is possible because we can turn liquid water into blocks of ice or something inbetween..

-- Keith Nichols (knichols@iopener.net), July 22, 2000.

I've done a little experimentation and see no difference. I guess I'd like to know what printing situations might benefit from split filtration?

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), July 23, 2000.

I've used split filtration for so called "impossible negatives" with some success. Nothing, however, will replace a properly exposed and developed negative.

-- Robert Orofino (rorofino@iopener.net), July 23, 2000.

You might be interested in an old article of mine: How a piece of bent wire changed my life. (Don't bother following the links, they are broken. I'll fix them one day. Honest.)

The benefits, to me, are that it gives me an easy way to have different contrast grades on different parts of the image. It's very hard to do that without split filtration.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan@snibgo.com), July 23, 2000.

Alan;

I looked at your article. I've book marked it for further reading!

Thanks

Gene

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), July 23, 2000.

Thanks for the great article Alan. Your concept of dodging with a particular filter alludes me at the moment......perhaps it will come. I understand how you burn in with a particular filter, but.... Good food for thought!

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), July 24, 2000.

Alan, even with your excellent explanation I think split filter printing still sounds more complicated than it really is. Printers just have to try it to see how intutitive it is. There is no doubt in my mind that it gives you more control over contrast than any other method.

I would disagree, however, that you necessarily waste more paper since you are determining exposure AND contrast with the two test strips. On your third sheet you are ready to made a "straight" print that has the correct exposure and contrast. Using conventional printing methods you may be able to produce an acceptable straight print on your second sheet but how do you know that this is the best contrast grade? I was always inclined to keep trying higher contrast grades if the initial straight print looked OK.

This is probably a minor point, but I think split filter printing might help those that tend to get hung up on grade numbers. You make your decisions based on what the print looks like and grades are totally disregarded. (I hope this makes sense.)

-- Joe Miller (jmmiller@poka.com), July 25, 2000.

Yes, it's like a written description of how to tie a shoelace, it's really much easier than it sounds. Especially if the description includes theoretical details of tension and friction. I plead guilty.

I partly agree with Joe about the wasted paper issue. It depends on how you print. For constant-contrast prints, I waste more paper on split-filter, but that may be just me.

I totally agree about the grade numbers. They are useful for densitometry purposes (calibrating film exposure and processing), but not useful in printing. I might see that the rocks on the print need darker blacks in a certain area: OK, so I burn that area through the high-contrast filter. I don't care what the effective grade number is.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan@snibgo.com), July 25, 2000.

I have a print here in front of me that is a good example of what split filter printing is capable of. From inside a Bodie doorway looking out into a blinding snow storm. Very large contrast range. Snow drift through the door. Not much texture in the snow drift. Very dark interior. I printed it starting with a #2 filter on Kodak Polymax Fine Art FD surface at 11x14. Dark grey inside and light grey outside. Nice muddy print. Went to a #3 filter and the grey mud turned a nice light muddy tone. #4 and snow was nice but the interior was black. Back to #2 and half the exposure. Up to a #5 and twice the exposure dodging where necassary. Snow was textural and the interior was soft grey with a nice glow through the door. I'm not a densitometrist so I don't know the physics behind it but on some negs it works better than straight filters alone. I use the low contrast filter to get the print close with respect to the midtones and shadows and go straight to the high contrast filters to sharpen up the black shadows and things like grain in wood and moulding shadows. With this basic structure I can add flashing and selective burning and dodging with different filters and a little bleaching to bring out the rest of what I see in the image. It ain't all science. It's a little alchemy and a little luck thrown in too. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), July 25, 2000.

It's interesting that the current article by Maryan Pelland on the Black & White World website, seems to imply that there is something "magic" about using split filter printing to make an unmanipulated print. As far as I know, the only effect detectable in the print would be an intermediate contrast grade not available in a filter set. Am I interpreting the article incorrectly?

-- Chris Ellinger (ellinger@umich.edu), August 02, 2000.

Chris, In my experience - you are right. Split filtering is a way of getting an "in-between" grade when using filter gels. If you are printing with a color head or a VC coldlight, the technique is a bit useless since you have a much wider and subtler range of contrast control. There are also printers out there that believe that this technique really offers no different result than finding the proper contrast for the negative and then exercising further control in the developer through changes in time , dilution and agitation method. One tip for those that wish to try this thou - is to create a single cross hatch test strip using one filter than the other - rather than two seperate test strips.

-- jim megargee (jmegargee@nyc.rr.com), August 03, 2000.

I searched the web some more and found infromation about the Heiland( I think that's the name) VC head. Is a computerized B&W printing head with a probe that can eliminate the use of test strips and get you to the "best" straight print on the first try (so it is claimed). Sounds too good to be true. It costs about $1000, but is only being made for a select number enlargers which does not include my Omega.

Anyone have experience with this system?

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), August 09, 2000.

I've had my heiland splitgrade for a few days now. Yes, it's quite nice. The trick is to know which part of the negative to meter. The times I've had to use more than one sheet of paper was because i measured the wrong parts of the negative. Also it still doesnt save you from dodging and burning if the negative still needs it.
I would recommend it. But let me play a bit more for a final opinion.
Also I have to see if it works with stained negatives.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), February 14, 2001.