Upon the urging of John Elder's post on this site and the recent article by Bill Pierce in the Digital Journalist (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0112/nutsandbolts.htm), I decided to give split printing a try.

I must admit, I was skeptical going in; it seemed like doing the same work twice to me and just too much hassle. Why complicate things doing two exposures to achieve a result that could be accomplished with one exposure? Well, I was wrong on both counts. It's not more work--it's less; and it's not harder--it's actually simpler and easier.

(For those unfamiliar with split printing, the basic procedure is to make one exposure through your highest number filter and one through the lowest number. Very simply, the #5 filter controls black and the #0 controls white; midvalues are a blend of each. So, you want more detail in your shadows without impacting the lighter values? Just reduce the exposure through the #5 filter, or dodge the specific area that needs help. Got an offending shadow on a woman's face? Dodge that area to soften the shadow without upsetting the lighter values of her skin.)

Following the directions in Pierce's column, it took a few test strips and a couple of failed attempts before I got my first acceptable print. But this was a tough one to print. It was a brightly lit row of arched limestone columns, with its archways in deep shadow. The negative showed minimal detail in the deeply shadowed areas. Yet after finding my way along with split printing, I got a surprisingly good print without resorting to split developing, waterbaths, flashing, multiple filtration, masking, bleaching or extraordinary dodging and burning.

(For those interested in details, I had placed the most deeply shaded areas at Zone II and the columns at Zone VIII+, using normal development. And, please, don't anyone comment that I should have placed the shadows at Zone IV and developed it in Rodinal at 1:400, etc., etc. This was shot with 35mm on a scouting ventue for later LF exploration.)

Anyway, after making that split filter print, I went back to try to duplicate it using normal filtration. With a #2 filter, the stone face of the columns looked pretty good, but the shadows were pure mud. With a #3 filter, the shadows improved, but still did not have nearly as much detail as with the split print, and the sunlit stonework was very hot and required a lot of manipulative burning. Obviously going to a higher number filter would have helped separate the shaded areas, but would have exacerbated the problem of the brightly lit columns. I could also have flashed the print, but I'm sure you all know that getting a good result with flashing is often easier said than accomplished. Anyway, if I'd been patient enough, I probably could have equaled the split filter print using some form of manipulation, but not without great effort and a wastebasket full of failed attempts. Moreover, there just wasn't any point.

The fact is, this is the easiest way to achieve tonal control I've ever seen. I strongly urge anyone who uses variable contrast paper to give split printing a try. Bill Pierce's aforementioned article offers clear and simple steps on how to go about it, which I found most helpful. For you old timers like me, this is the same Bill Pierce who wrote the "Nuts and Bolts" column in Camera 35 magazine.

Additional thanks to John Elder for helping me overcome my inertia.

-- Ted Kaufman (writercrmp@aol.com), January 07, 2002

Answers

> easiest way to achieve tonal control

I've done split printing every now and then; I think your statement really sums it up.

Using two filters imho certainly doesn't impart any magic, as some insist, but I think it allows us to hit the "right" degree of contrast and exposure much more easily with difficult negs.

-- John Hicks (jhicks31@bellsouth.net), January 07, 2002.

Splitting doesn't always require using the hardest and softest filters, does it? I mean, if the neg prints too soft with a 2 filter and too hard with a three, then a 2-1/2 filter is called for, or a split exposure using the 2 and the 3. I get the impression that when the zero and five filters are featured, some who aren't experienced with VC papers infer that split filtration involves a somehow different and arcane technology from what they've been practicing using the whole and half-number filters between zero and five. My experience is that any split filtration is just a way to get a result falling between two filters when you don't have the single filter designed to give that result.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols1@mindspring.com), January 07, 2002.

1. Flashing is easy and predictable. Just like any other things, you shouldn't expect to get a dramatic effect from a single trick without artificial look. One trick is to use a not-so-safe safe light filter with a little brighter light bulb. You can also do this while you are developing the paper. (get an unsafe light, preferrably with a timer, if you use flashing often) At least with Agfa MCP, this is much easier to give good control than empty enlarger even if I stop down the lens and use precise timing control.

2. I think how much paper gets thrown away is strongly dependent on the printer's experience on the particular technique, and also on whether s/he made enough investment in calibrating the technique.

3. I much prefer to determine base contrast and exposure for midtones and then make necessary manipulations for shadows and highlights. Therefore I usually do not use split filtration technique. However, with brief blue-only second exposure, one can give a bit of boost preferentially in shadow contrast, and I sometimes use this trick (usually followed by selenium toning for further boost), and find it quite effective.

-- Ryuji Suzuki (rsuzuki@rs.cncdsl.com), January 07, 2002.

Rather than split filtering the entire print, I often use a different filter for selected parts of the print. For example, if I need to burn in the detail on a lace dress, I might use a 0 or a 1 filter even if the rest of the exposure was done with, for example, a 2 1/2 or 3.

Also, I might hold back and entire section of a print (sky for example), and print with a different grade filter to get the detail or contrast I want.

So don't forget about this simple if more limited application of using several filter grades on the same print.

-- Jim Rock (jameswrock@aol.com), January 07, 2002.

Split filter printing does NOT mean printing one part of the print with a #2 filter and another part with a #3 filter. Burning in a sky with a #1 filter while exposing the rest of the image with a number #3 is not what split filter printing is about.

Split filter printing uses the highest grade filter and the lowest grade--period. This, for example, allows one to darken areas around a highlight without dulling the highlight, or dodge a highlight (even tiny highlights) in a dark area without otherwise affecting the rest of the print. This is because the high contrast filter has little affect on highlights, and conversely, the low contrast filter does not affect dark values. Please read the article I mentioned by Bill Pierce. His explanation is well worth reading.

Ryuji, try taping a styrofoam coffee cup over your enlarger lens and use your enlarger, complete with timer to flash prints. It acts much like a dome-shaped bank light, emitting a very soft, repeatable light. Nonetheless, the line between holding down a highlight and dulling it is often very slight. And I contend a well used trashcan is more a function of standards than ineptitude.

-- Ted Kaufman (writercrmp@aol.com), January 07, 2002.

About flashing.

I tried many different types of light sources, but I found that mostly red-orange with slight green, practically no blue light activates only a tiny fraction of my multigrade paper within a reasonable flashing exposure duration. A very dim white light (or multigrade filtered light containing rich green and/or blue) would activate almost all emulsion component very weakly. The former is "low contrast," very slow to build up visible density ubt still helps to show highlight details. The latter would fog paper more easily, high speed in increasing visible density, and "high contrast." (THink about log flashing time as a total exposure since the intensity is held fixed.)

So I prefer to have a crappy unsafe safelight for that purpose.

-- Ryuji Suzuki (rsuzuki@rs.cncdsl.com), January 08, 2002.

Ryuji, what you're doing with your safelight perfectly describes the highlight exposure of split filter printing. In essense, you're using a light that only causes a response in the highlight layer of the emulsion. You could do that same thing under the enlarger using the styrofoam cup by dialing down the filtration to its lowest setting, which is basically yellow light with dichrotic heads and filter packs or green with cold lights. In any case, its an effective method. One more thing, your system does have one distinct advantage--portability. It would be very difficult to flash a developing print with my enlarger--messy, too!

-- Ted Kaufman (writercrmp@aol.com), January 08, 2002.

Ted, I think this flashing discussion is converging but let me add some random comments and clarification that might makes it less clear.

I assume your "highlight layer" in your second sentense was meant "low contrast layer." I know this is a commonly used phrase but for those technically oriented: I think most multicontrast paper products today have multiple kinds of sensitized particles (or a certain distribution of range of sensitized particles) in one layer of emulsion. My Ilford spec sheets for MG IV RC or FB (edition of 1995 and 1996 - don't know if they have newer data sheet) don't give much detail for it (they number emulsion I, II, III though), but AGFA MCP spec sheet does.

Yes, I could do the same thing with an yellow-orange filter in my enlarger with a blurring stylofoam cup. But then the exposure is a function of too many things and the result is not too predictable. First of all, the flashing exposure will depend on the average density of the negative, format, lens, magnification, how I hold the cup, etc. My enlarger's negative carrier has masking blades to reduce the lens flare, and their setting also affects exposure, making it more complicated.

It's a matter of preference but I like to keep simple thing simple. With a painted party light with a cheap timer or a cheap dimmer, I gain much more flexibility, and again, I can flash prints while they are being developed.

Low contrast part of split filtration is not the same as this "low contrast" flashing. Yellow exposure gives only a tiny amount of exposure to the highlight area of the image while it gives a lot more exposure to the shadow areas. I find things like clouds in a misty sky show up very well with a bit of flashing and a bit of burning in with a mid- or high-contrast filter. (but again, Ilford MG IV paper is very different from my paper and MG IV users may have totally different opinions.)

Summarizing what I wrote on this thread, (1) flashing isn't hard, and gives *different* kind of effect on highlight areas from split filtration; (2) I prefer to set contrast and density for lighter end of midtone range with a single filter, but I can still use blue filter to make a second overall exposure to give a boost in shadow contrast, unless the plain normal print required grade 4 or 5. This is a grossly modified variation of split filtration but based on the same idea; (3) besides this, what can be achieved with split filtration can also be achieved with an appropriate single filter. Half grade spacing is usually sufficient. (4) I like to combine multiple techniques to achieve a single effect: shadow boost exposure and selenium toning, flashing and burning-in, etc. As a wild principle, I don't expect any single technique to effectively create dramatic effect without undesirably obvious artificial look.

-- Ryuji Suzuki (rsuzuki@rs.cncdsl.com), January 08, 2002.

Ted,

I think you are getting a little rigid when you say "Split filter printing uses the highest grade filter and the lowest grade--period." In my experience and based on what I have read, split filtration is when you use two filters on the same print or section of the print to get a better product. Here is an article you might want to look at that discusses "flexibility" in split filter printing:

http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/splitfilter.html

Maybe "pure" split filter printing (if there is such a thing as "pure" with any photographic technique) is printing with the harshest and softest filter (in which case you should use 00 and not 0 as the soft point).

If printing with a 1 and a 4, or a 0 and a 3 1/2 gets you the best result, you have used a split filtration technique to improve your work. Often the most creative processes are the result of deviating from a "pure" process, which often happens when you make a "mistake" and then realize it got you the effect you wanted.

It is good to see someone enthused with a new process that opens a new avenue for creativity -- this often happens to me. But don't let this enthusiasm prevent you from deviating from a pure process. If a 4 & 1 filter combination produces a better print, who cares what you call it? Using split filters lets us exploit the benefits of VC paper, and may even make some realize that graded paper may not be the best in all situations.

If I am off on my anaylsis, I would be happy to be corrected. I am just an amature who enjoys the magic of the darkroom, and always willing to learn something new.

There is no criticism of your post and response that is intended. I now have various articles on split filter printing, and these have been very helpful. So thanks for spurring me to do a little more research on the issue.

-- Jim Rock (jameswrock@aol.com), January 09, 2002.

Jim, thanks for sending the link. I read the article and concluded she (the author) doesn't understand the concept very well--certainly not like Bill Pierce, who is a very accomplished printer.

Anyway, the reason for the most contrasty and least contrasty filtration is not as extreme as it may sound. You first establish the least exposure needed through the film base (frame border) to attain maximum black using your most contrasty filter. That gives you the basic exposure that will allow full black yet maintain maximum shadow detail in the thinnest portion of your negatives. The least contrasty filter (0, 00, 000 ... whatever number your filter says on it--they are really only arbitrary numbers) exposure determines the highlight density; the combination of the two exposures determines the overall contrast and density. You can achieve *any* contrast level and overall print density you want with ONLY those two filters by varying the exposure for each.

That does not say you can't make a worthwhile print using a #4 and a #1 filter, but doing so constricts the range of capability that is possible--it simply cuts off a portion of the spectrum. Moreover, varying the filter numbers just adds more variables that make it unnecessarily more complicated; with the highest and lowest filters you can fill then entire range between them with a palette containing as much or as little contrast and tone as you choose.

-- Ted Kaufman (writercrmp@aol.com), January 09, 2002.

Ted, I'm totally with you on this, same page, chapter and verse.

I discussed this briefly in a previous thread.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007Mly

-- Paul Swenson (paulphoto@humboldt1.com), January 09, 2002.

Ted, I gotta admit, I'm intrigued with this method. I'm not 100% on how to go about using it though (I've read through this thread and Bill P's article).

Let's say I have a negative that I want to print. First I run a test print with a grade 5 filter and figure out what minimal time gives me maximum black (assume I'll be looking at sprocket holes). I figure this is the dial-in time for my shadow area(s).

How do I go about dialing-in my highs and midtones? Do I do another test print and see at what point do I get maximum black just by using filter 0 or 00?

I can see where varying the time of each filter on the same print could give me different contrast ranges. When you make a test/work print (after dialing in your times using the method listed above), do you generally anchor your print by using your maximum black time for the shadow areas (without changing it from your measurements above - just use it and trust it?) and then create the variation (for the test print) with time with your highs and mids (with the 0 or 00 filter)? Do you worry about the enlarger head going out of focus while you mess around with the filter (settings or switching gelatins)?

Sorry for what may sound like idiotic babbling. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the whole split filtering idea. Thanks!

-- Johnny Motown (johnny.motown+bwworld@att.net), January 10, 2002.

Johnny, you got the first part correct for the high contrast filter. (I should note that in an earlier post I said to choose the first step that yields full black. I should have said choose the next step lighter from full black.)

For the low contrast filter, put the negative you want to print in the carrier and expose a test strip for the highlight region of the image. You are looking for an exposure that provides the highlight tone you want in your final print. Once you have this, just combine the two exposures for your print. Dodging/burning is the same as other printing, except that you have more control since you don't need to be as precise, and you have more options. To soften the contrast on a face, for example, dodging the high contrast exposure, or to increase shadow detail without losing maximum black dodge the shadow area during the low contrast exposure).

As for a loss of sharpness during the multiple exposure, I really can't answer for anyone but myself. I use a Beseler 45V-XL, which has a massive girder for a centerpost. It is extremely stable. I've had no problem with image softening, but it might be a factor with a less stable enlarger. If you think vibration is a problem, wait a bit before making your second expose to give the column vibration time to settle. I've heard of people who have clamped there enlarger column to the wall, which would certainly help if you suspect that is a problem. My lighthead is a Aristo VC4500 coldlight. A coldlight is not so inclined to cause a negative to "pop." If you use a condenser, you may need to go to a glass negative carrier to ensure the negative stays in focus. An alternative is to leave the enlarger lamp on until the negative pops, then focus and hope it stays popped until you finish.

But don't let all this discussion discourage you. The best thing is to try it and see if you have a problem at all. Good luck!

-- Ted Kaufman (writercrmp@aol.com), January 10, 2002.

One more thing, for most negatives, I've found you can leave the high contrast exposure at whatever you determine from your test strip. The low contrast time will vary more from negative to negative according to the overall density and highlight brightness and separation you want. It might be worthwhile, once you determine your basic exposures, to make separate prints with each filter. This will give you a good idea of what each filter contributes and will help you to achieve a plan for any manipulations you deem necessary.

-- Ted Kaufman (writercrmp@aol.com), January 10, 2002.

Ted, thank you for your answers! I'm going to give this a try once the college darkroom opens back up from the Holiday break!

-- Johnny Motown (johnny.motown+bwworld@att.net), January 11, 2002.

Ted explain it quite well...but maybe I can offer a little more detail...or just different way to explain.

I use two method for this.

1. I make normal test strip/print (like always with me I use a full size paper not a cut strip of paper). I make the first pass left to right with the low grade setting on my dichroic head, using the lowest repeatable setting my timer will alow (let say 2 sec interval). I then make a nother pass from top to bottom at same interval with the high grade setting. Dev/Fix and then I have a test sheet with a checker board pattern of different exposure contrast. I choose the square which comes the closest to what I am wanting and then start to make my first working print...Using the time arrived from the square I choose from the crosshatch pattern.

2. I make two separate test sheets one whith lowest grade and one whith hardest grade...dev/fix both the same and then i choose the interval just before the interval with a textured black on one sheet and a textured white on the other. I then make the work print exposure first using the softer grade exp. and the harder grade exp.

Soory for my english my wife is not helping me write this tonight.

I hope this make some kind of sense,

Luc.

By the way this is the method that Sabastio Salgado's Printer uses for many of his prints. But its a secret non!

-- Luc Desjardins (lucvision@hotmail.com), January 19, 2002.

Soory I forgot to say something...maybe it is obvious. In method #2 The reason I choose the times just before the textured shadow or highlight is that when you make the two exposure there is a overlap with the two. And obviously if you are using for example 2 second interval for your test strip/sheet, then when you make the print using combined exposures, you must make the exposure with the same intervals to add up ro the total...but I guess we all knoe this uh.

Luc.

-- Luc Desjardins (lucvision@hotmail.com), January 19, 2002.