Tailoring negatives for VC paper

[ed_pierce2]

After many years of using only graded papers, I've finally become

interested in working with the new VC papers. I've got a few

different kinds, and am currently using the split printing method

with green and blue filters and my cold light head. I also have a

complete set of the Ilford filters and have tested them and

determined thier contrast 'grades'.

 

I'm trying to figure out a way to determine my optimum film

development time for this printing method. In the past I tailored my

negatives to grade 2 by finding the minimum exposure needed to

produce maximum black through clear film, and then adjusting my film

development to achieve a proper Zone VIII at the same exposure. I

could do the same with my filter which I've determined to

be "#2"...but it's not the same. Split printing throws the idea

of 'grades' out the window.

 

The other half of the calibration process, determining film speed,

was easy with split printing...just used the blue filter through

clear film. So I have my speed down.

 

Has anyone tried calibrating thier process for VC split printing? I'm

planning on shooting four negatives of three scenes...low, medium,

and high contrast, and developing the negs for various times and see

what happens. Any other experiences are appreciated. Thanks

[chris_todd]

I can add two points to ponder. First, like I have said to people on the forums before, don't spend a bunch of time split printing with the two extreme filters, combining and all that and making a test print, just to find you have created grade 3 and could have just grabbed the filter to begin with. Split printing is great for getting in between grades that exist with a simple filter, otherwise, it is a huge waste of time. Just grab grade 3 already. Second, unlike old graded papers that looked great whether they were grade 1 or 3, VC paper is not the same stuff. The blacks you get at 3 will be better than the ones at grade 1. The paper has two parts to its emulsion, and I feel it needs a strong mix of both to look good. That happens generally around grade 3 to 3 1/2. That is a grade above the old standard of 2, but that is what the paper likes. And, afterall, it is the paper going on the wall, not the negative. I suspect you will find this to be true when you do your three scene test. Maybe your results wil differ, but I always head negatives for grade 3 at this point, and I usually like them better at 3 1/2. Ironically, I found that out years ago before I even printed my own photos on VC, working in a historical society lab. Their VC head was left at 3 1/2 when I was working there. It was only changed when needed. That's not to say I don't have portfolio prints made at grade 2, but I can tell by looking at them that they are a compromise. Anyway, just a couple thoughts to ponder. I love Ilford Multigrade IV paper, and use it for all of my portfolio work now.

[john_stockdale2]

You might want to have a look at an excellent article made available by Paul Butzi at

 

http://www.butzi.net/articles/articles.htm

 

The article is about calibration of a dichro head, but the principles hold for other VC heads. It's not directly about tailoring negative processing. Using the Stouffer step negative is covered, and this is a good way to get "your bearings" with VC paper.

 

My approach to your basic question would be to tailor my negs to a grade 2 (or maybe 3 for 35mm) graded paper. Then just adjust the VC process as necessary.

 

I have a funny VC head which is hard to calibrate, and I go back to graded paper to check my testing.

[ken_heflinger]

Ed,

 

I too use split grade printing. I now develop my negs to make it easier to do split grade printing. What I did was adjust my development time such that I could get a good print using exposure times that left me enough room to work under the enlarger. I changed my development time to obtain negs that printed with about 60% of the exposure with the #00 filter and the remaining 40% of the time with the #5 filter. This way I was able to dodge and burn to alter contrast easier because both of the exposure times are long enough to work with. If one exposure is too short it is hard to take advantage of split grade printing (i.e. changing contrast within a single print).

 

 

Have fun

Ken

[lex_jenkins]

I haven't used graded papers since I was in school. All I've done to make allowances for variable contrast paper is to try to expose my negatives for as close to a full tonal range as possible. So I hardly ever use on-camera filters anymore, other than a green filter for portraits. I don't want to lose tonality in one area while emphasizing it in another. I'd rather do that during printing.

 

As for split-filter printing, I use it one of three ways:

 

1. To finesse a contrast grade not easily obtainable with a single filter;

 

2. To prolong printing time for easier dodging/burning;

 

3. In separate stages to achieve a full tonal range. For example, a landscape might print fine in the lower half at grade 3 but with a white sky. So I might print the lower half at grade 3 and the sky at grade 1. That's something I could never quite manage with graded papers. The negative had to be perfect. Which often meant using an on-camera filter.

 

And since I having used sheet film since photography school I don't bother with the zone system, at least not in any recognizable fashion. Unless I plan to expose an entire roll a particular way and develop it appropriately, I just bracket. Yeh, I know...some folks regard bracketing for serious b&w work as a duffer approach. All I can say is, it works for me.

 

As a variation of option 3, I've also borrowed a split-filter printing technique described by Ron Prager in Shutterbug a couple of years ago. Basically it involves choosing the desired overall contrast grade - say, 3 for discussion purposes. Print for half the total exposure time at grade 4 or 5. Print for the other half at grade 1, 0 or lower. During all or part of the yellow filtration stage, use a diffusion filter. Depending on the type of diffusion filter used and amount of time used, the effect can be reminiscent of infrared, bromoil, pictorialist techniques, even a charcoal drawing. I tend to use a fairly subtle diffuser - a sheet of clear acetate dulled with hairspray. The results are consistent and a nice alternative to a straight print.

 

The effect is entirely different from using a diffusion filter during all or part of the exposure at a single contrast grade. When printed this way the entire print appears rather soft overall. The split filter technique preserves detail better because no diffusion is used to print in the blacks. So the final image has a sort of glow, not just softness. Again, can't do that with graded papers.

[al_kaplan1]

I try to adjust my negatives to print with a #2 filter for the mid tones. If I'm not getting a clean black I'll bump the print a few seconds with the #4.

[chris_waller]

I use Ilford Multigrade papers, mainly RC but also occasionally

FB. I tune my negs to print on grade 2.5 this being the mid-point

of the range. I don't split print, and rarely do I have to stray more

than 1/2 a grade to get a print with a full range of tones.

[ed_pierce2]

Thanks all of you for your insightful comments. I failed to mention that with my light source, an early Zone VI, straight printing with the filters doesn't work well. I have to put a 40Y filter over the negative and had a big speed loss.

 

I currently tailor my negs for grade 2 graded. The advantage here is the neg will work with both kinds of paper. But, I want to see if I can do better with VC.

 

Ken, I think you're on to something there. Right now my average print needs about 25 seconds with the green filter, but only about 5 seconds with the blue filter (don't want to change the f-stop). The green's too long. I'll try a shorter dev time and get the two exposures near equal.

[dk_thompson]

fwiw--I split filter print with an old Aristo D2H head alot at work in our lab. When you print alot of old negatives and negs that weren't fine-tuned to your process, you wind up with densities & contrast and other things (unfortunately) all over the place. There is no one "perfect" negative ever--at least not in a lab. Split filter printing is perfect for dealing with old negatives, especially duplicates of glass plates etc., because you can control contrast on both ends of the scale better than with a straight grade, and if you have to you can burn in detail much better on the harder grades and try to cut down on flare etc. in the original scene. OTOH--when it comes to the studio shots and copy negs we produce in house, they're always pretty much straight prints because we light & expose them well, and our processors are in control. I can pull out negs I shot ten years ago, and print them with the same time & contrast (on a dichro head) that I used on a neg I shot yesterday...

 

btw--I don't use a cc40Y on the head. I just use the filters as is & throw out the concept of any set grade & do it visually. After awhile you'll see which filters work the best, and if push comes to shove, just use the two, 0 or -1 and 5+ or sometimes I use a wratten 47B filter as my high contrast filter. The harder grades always print faster than the softer ones, even on my Aristo variable contrast head I have at home....when I use the colorheads, I just think in terms of points like I would be c--printing. That said, it would be easier for me to try to produce a good neg that would print easily as a grade 2 or whatever, with one set exposure, rather than doing it in two. I have made hundreds of prints back to back, split filtered (production runs), but it's been sorta a PIA and something that needed to be done for that specific shot. If I had my way, they'd all print effortlessly.....MY opinions as always.