Split-grade printing - first attempt

[Griz]

I learned to split-grade print from Les McLean, who taught me to test for the soft exposure first, selecting the time that just starts to put tone in the important highlight areas. Then determine the exposure needed for he shadows.

My own observations lead me to believe that the soft exposure brings up the highlights, some of the midtones, and a little of the shadows. The hard exposure affects highlight almost not at all, the midtones to a slight degree, and the shadows to a great degree. Exposing for the shadows first then laying down the highlight exposure will darken the shadows more than what was initially intended. And reduce contrast.

I like to think of split grade printing as an elastic process. You "pin" the highlights where you want them with the soft exposure, then "stretch" the shadows to wherever you want them with the hard exposure.

Hi Dan, I envy your time spent training with Les! It was 1980 the last time I had an instructor over my shoulder in the darkroom. All of my (re)training is coming via internet searches, and these forums, so I greatly appreciate the comments.

I just scanned a print of the base (soft) exposure, to give you an idea of where I was starting from. Unfortunately, my Photobucket account has developed a hiccup, and I can't access it right now. Once that gets straightened out, I'll post it, and if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to get your thoughts on it.

Cheers!
Griz

[cliveh]

With correct exposure/development and lighting conditions, you should not need to split-grade print.

[cliveh]

[QUOTE which accounts for around 97.325% of my images[/QUOTE]

How do you account for such a precise figure?

[Griz]

With correct exposure/development and lighting conditions, you should not need to split-grade print.

This was a less than ideal situation, P&S camera, direct sunlight with deep shadows, but I still wanted to save these shots of my son and best rabbit dog. I believe the split-grade printing enabled me to make a couple of acceptable prints. It's worth the time to me, to learn the process.

Griz

[Griz]

Hi Dan, I envy your time spent training with Les! It was 1980 the last time I had an instructor over my shoulder in the darkroom. All of my (re)training is coming via internet searches, and these forums, so I greatly appreciate the comments.

I just scanned a print of the base (soft) exposure, to give you an idea of where I was starting from. Unfortunately, my Photobucket account has developed a hiccup, and I can't access it right now. Once that gets straightened out, I'll post it, and if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to get your thoughts on it.

Cheers!
Griz

Hi Dan, Photobucket is back online, so here is the scan of the base exposure that I mentioned:

[Bob Carnie]

Whats wrong with split grade print???

With correct exposure/development and lighting conditions, you should not need to split-grade print.

[Blighty]

[QUOTE which accounts for around 97.325% of my images

How do you account for such a precise figure?[/QUOTE]

This is actually a rough estimate

[Blighty]

With correct exposure/development and lighting conditions, you should not need to split-grade print.

For a straight print i.e. one soft exposure followed by one hard exposure, you're probably right and for some negs this is how I choose to do it. However, varying the ratio of soft/hard exposure in specific areas of the print allows me a degree of control over contrast in a way that a single grade could never do. The point is, split-grade printing is a tool I choose to use. Your point seems to imply, and I apologise if I've got it wrong here, that split-grade is merely a remedy for printing badly exposed negs.

[silveror0]

With correct exposure/development and lighting conditions, you should not need to split-grade print.

Just try controlling the lighting in landscape photography.

[cliveh]

Whats wrong with split grade print???

Nothing, for those who wish to use this technique.