Split-grade printing - first attempt

[ic-racer]

And while you're at it, make sure the scene illumination compensates for the illumination falloff of your enlarger bulb, diffuser, and lens. Real simple. Yeah,
sure.

Exactly. I remember back on the 1980s when I first saw the light falloff curve for my enlarger lens. After that I realized there was nothing 'wrong' with the observation that many of my prints benefited by some edge burn. Prior to that I had been caught up with trying to show the world "as it is" with no dodging or burning.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yeah ... if you expose and develop everything correctly, you shouldn't need to split-print. Shouldn't
need to dodge/burn either, or change you f-stop. Just politely ask the sun to maintain the correctly
ligthing ratio for you every time. And while you're at it, make sure the scene illumination compensates for the illumination falloff of your enlarger bulb, diffuser, and lens. Real simple. Yeah,
sure.

Why not post a sarcastic reply instead?

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I got a little ticked by the expression, "have your cake and eat it too". Sometimes the way I think, that means deliberately breaking the Zone rules by overdeveloping a "normal" scene ratio to
expand the midtone and highlight gradation, and then punching in the delicacy of the extremes using
either unsharp masking or split printing. The latter is easier.

[Michael R 1974]

This picture will likely not print very well with just a straight shot of high contrast filtration and low contrast filtration respectively.

The contrast of the scene is fairly high, and there's not detail in the hottest highlights, as well as the darkest shadows, which means the negative was underexposed and overdeveloped.

A very relevant point. One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is a proper assessment of what's in the negative before making the decision to print using a particular technique, split grade or otherwise. Particularly with a negative that looks like it could be tricky, I suggest always starting with a very soft proof (as Adams and many others have always recommended) especially if you are a less experienced worker. This will allow you to see what's in the negative. Which parts of the shadows have good detail, do the highlights have detail etc. Then decide how to proceed.

[Griz]

A very relevant point. One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is a proper assessment of what's in the negative before making the decision to print using a particular technique, split grade or otherwise. Particularly with a negative that looks like it could be tricky, I suggest always starting with a very soft proof (as Adams and many others have always recommended) especially if you are a less experienced worker. This will allow you to see what's in the negative. Which parts of the shadows have good detail, do the highlights have detail etc. Then decide how to proceed.

Makes good sense, Michael. I knew going in that these were poor negatives, unfortunately they are some of the best shots that I have of one of my favorite hunting dogs, so I'm trying to make the best of the situation. There is relatively good shadow detail in the negs, at the expense of the highlight detail. The prints will never be excellent quality, but I think I can get them good enough to add to my memory wall, and get in some practice at the same time.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, and for your suggestions!

Griz

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well, I got a little ticked by the expression, "have your cake and eat it too". Sometimes the way I think, that means deliberately breaking the Zone rules by overdeveloping a "normal" scene ratio to
expand the midtone and highlight gradation, and then punching in the delicacy of the extremes using
either unsharp masking or split printing. The latter is easier.

I agree with you that sometimes a negative of higher than normal contrast makes for a better print. Both because of the midtone separation you mention, and because it makes me work harder in the darkroom.