Split grade printing. Useful?

[fidget]

I am a relative beginner in the darkroom, I'm getting a little better at visualising and then putting together what I want in my prints (it's a learning curve which operates bit by bit, but is very satisfying).
I wondered about split grade printing and have read several posts and articles about it, these sometimes contradict each other. For example, I read that any split grade exposure can be replaced by an appropriate other single grade exposure. I can understand this, I guess that this would use the average.
OTOH, I read with interest how, for example, weak highlights can be teased out of a poor neg at the lowest grade, for fairly long exposures, then a high grade used to build in the shadows and mid tones. I can understand this too!
I am not trying to compare or confuse this with good dodging and burning techniques, some negs area little too complicated for dodging and burning fine detail.
Is there a simple routine that I might use to try this out?
Is it useful?

Dave

[kaiyen]

I think that what's really being said is that not every print needs to be split-filtered. There are some that will print fine with a single filter, exposed once, with dodging and burning. Having said that, a friend of mine who is a fine printer split filters all the time, because he can sometimes get more highlight detail out of it, and has more control over the intensity of the shadows. He just figures that if some don't need it, but some do, he might as well do it all the time.

allan

[fidget]

I should add that as a beginner, I get a good proportion of thin, high contrast negs that might benefit from a little split grade printing.
My guess is that a single grade exposure might not expose the highlights enough, due to the property of the paper which tolerates some exposure before any actual change takes place, so needing a pre-flashing type of remedy, is that what this is?

[kaiyen]

Fidget,
First, some terminology. A high contrast negative cannot, by definition, be thin. At least not in the general sense. A high contrast negative has high density in the highlights, and traditionally that is a thick negative. Now, what I think you mean is that you don't have enough shadow detail, and therefore the negative is "thin" specifically in the shadows. Yes?

I haven't done a ton of wet printing so I'll leave this to others for the real nitty-gritty. Pre-flashing will help, but I think a good start would be to try split-filtering to see the difference. You will get be able to be a lot more aggressive on your times to get highlight detail because the low contrast filter is adding so little at a time.

allan

[drewbarb]

There's a lot of noise about split filtered printing out there. Of course there's a lot of really good information, but I have found that there's a lot of B.S. too. For instance:
... I read that any split grade exposure can be replaced by an appropriate other single grade exposure. Dave

This is only true with a very small minority of negatives. Remember, print results are always a combination of materials and technique. Modern variable contrast papers are capable of producing a range of tones which exceeds what can be produced through a single contrast filter with 95% of negatives out there. Without covering the same territory we got into in another thread within the last 24 hours, I will just say that split-filter printing is a very useful technique, and when employed properly will almost always yeild prints which show a greater range of detail and tonal separation than prints made with simpler techniques.

Is there a simple routine that I might use to try this out?
Is it useful?
Dave
Check out the thread on MG vs. Graded papers- sorry I'm to lame to figure out how to post a link at the minute. Good luck!

[drewbarb]

One other great thing about split filter printing- it completely obviates the need for pre-flashing, which is a technique I simply can't stand- it's too heavy handed and clumsy!

[fidget]

Alan and drewbarb,
thanks for the explanations, sorry to labour you with newbie questions, which you've probably responded to many times.
I believe that I understand this better now, particularly since you mention that it can be an alternative to pre-flashing, as I couldn't easily understand how it could be wildly useful in addition to pre-flashing. So, on my next darkroom session, I will take my thin...er, poor neg and experiment. Thanks.
Dave...

[Tim Gray]

Not that I'm a master printer or that I've used split grade printing, but from what I understand, you *can* duplicate the results of split grade printing with a single exposure at a single grade. This however is assuming 2 things - you can get the appropriate grade (must use a VC head or a color head that lets you get in between settings) and that you can actually find the right grade and exposure.

This is an academic argument though. In reality, while you can achieve the same results with normal printing as you can split-grade, it might be much easier and faster to do it the split-grade method (or vice versa).

Here's some good info at APUG:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum41/33142-splitgrade-vs-single-filter.html

[markinlondon]

I'm a yes and no person on this one. I sometimes use it for very contrasty negatives where it seems to work well. I use it much less now my negatives are more "normal". I think the only thing to do is try it and see if you prefer the results.

[markinlondon]

Incidentally, split filter printing is mentioned in my early '50's Ilford Manual of Photography as a way to use multigrade paper (invented 1940).

[sepiareverb]

I often use a very short second exposure at grade 5 to really set a good black tone in the deepest shadows- most recently an image of a railing against a very bright white and yellow wall, with some dark wood stairs below. I printed a touch soft to get good separation between the white and the yellow, and to keep the stairs from getting too dark. The second exposure of .8 seconds was just enough to take the railing back to a complete black.

A tool. I don't use it always, but nice to know how when it's needed. I make the best print I can say grade 2, forgetting about trying to keep the deep black tone, then run a strip of paper at that time/grade 2. This strip is then left in the easel, the filter is brought up to G5 and I run a test strip on that same sheet, in the same place at .2 or .3 second steps. The final print then gets two exposures, and I get all the highlight detail I want and a maximum black. Again, this isn't for every print, but it can sure save a lot of time tweaking exposure & development time.

[PlantedTao]

I think that what's really being said is that not every print needs to be split-filtered. There are some that will print fine with a single filter, exposed once, with dodging and burning......
allan

Some of my prints have benefited greatly from split filter. The only way I have been able to determine is by doing test prints. I'm a beginner too, so I go thru lots of test strips, but it has helped the learning curve.
Do a test strip with a #2.5 and see where you are at. If it looks like you can get all you tones in on a 2 or 2.5 or 3 then use one filter.
If you are losing detail in shadow and highlights then try split filters...say a #1 and 4 at about the the correct time for the 2.5 filter...play around with the different times for the 1 & 4, splitting the time 50/50, 80/20, 20/80 and so on.
Until you have experience and a "feel", then test print often.

Also, Try using different filters (#1/2 or #5) to burn with...this has helped just as much as splitting the filters. A #5 filter takes a lot of time for results so don't be scared to burn for 20-30 seconds.

I'm still learning, so this is by no means a pro statement...but it has helped me to learn and get some really great results.

Cheers.
Jason

[drewbarb]

Try this- if you like the look of your prints made with a single grade, try reducing the contrast, and look at the highlights. Ignore the shadows- just make a really flat print. If your prints are good at grade 2, see how they look at grade 1- do the highlights show more detail? Greater range of delicacy? Only look at the highlights- Zones VI, VII, VIII, maybe IX. Are you getting more detail there? OK, good. Now try it at grade 0. Once you reach a low grade filtration that yeilds no more detail, you're done with the highlights- this is your filter and your exposure time. Now make a print that uses that time and filtration, and then do a grade 5 test strip over that, to find your shadow areas. Look for true blacks in your darkest areas. Now make a print with these two exposures, and see if it shows an increased range in tonality across the board vs. the print you did before at a single grade. It probably will. If not, there's no need to split filter. If you see an increase in your tonality, then use the technique.

[Finder]

This technique is basically used to bring the negative tonal range down to the paper. The cause is usually very dense highlights. For example, in a landscape, the land tones can print very well with a grade 3 filter, but the sun behind the clouds is still burnt out. The normal burn to try to bring out the sun/cloud detail is not possible because of the excessive contrast. So the sun/cloud burn is made with a number one filter which places the extreme tones of the highlights on the print.

So the 3 filter printed the normal tones of the landscape in the base exposure, the number 1 filter controlled the high-contrast tones in the highlights during the burn.

[Biggles]

Really interesting thread. Some great explanations of something I'd previously discarded because I didn't understand it.

Think I'm gonna print this thread and tape it to the darkroom wall.

[fidget]

Many thanks for your ideas and suggestions. I've had three darkroom sessions, trying to get a better print from some poor negatives (poor, because of over, under exposure or inappropriate development expanding the contrast).
It's been very useful and far easier than I expected. I've got much better prints from these examples, probably because I didn't spoil them through over enthusiastic burning in, most needed no burning in at all.
As you say, it doesn't suit all negatives, my "well balanced" negatives printed well on a single grade, BUT....I found myself fascinated by the ease with which I can set the highlights, then shadows and print.

Dave.....

[drewbarb]

As you say, it doesn't suit all negatives, my "well balanced" negatives printed well on a single grade, BUT....I found myself fascinated by the ease with which I can set the highlights, then shadows and print.

Dave.....

Dave- I'm glad you found this useful. It's a good technique- as you noticed, it will often reduce the amount of burning and dodging you need to do with tricky/contrasty negatives. But I will also say this- try it with one of your "well balanced" negatives, and see if it doesn't give you a greater range of tones into both highlights and shadows. I'm not saying you should use this technique for every print, but the better you get at it, the more you'll find it can improve the quality of many of your prints. Good luck!

drew...

[tetrisattack]

This is a great thread!

I'm dubious about the claim that split grade printing can yield prints otherwise impossible with a single filter. I think the origin of the claim is that you wind up with a fractional contrast that falls between the standard half-step contrast increment.

If you've ever printed b&w with a color head, you know you can dial in any arbitrary amount of blue and green light! One filter pack, one exposure.

That being said, I use split-grade techniques, though I never, ever do it with the 0 and 5 filters.

I print on a dichroic multigrade head now, made by Ilford, that only has half-grade precision, but I frequently find myself adjusting to the quarter-grade by splitting my exposure (12 seconds at grade 2.5) into two equal exposures, one half-grade apart (6 seconds at grade 2.5, 6 more seconds at grade 3, for a total of 12 @ 2.75).

The effect is the same as a split-grade print, which is to say, I obtain a fractional contrast grade, but my reasons for doing so are fundamentally different. I'm not trying to first find a grade for my shadows and then a second grade for my shadows, I'm simply noticing that the jump from 2.5 to 3 causes me to lose information, so I need something in between.


---


As a side note, I have this piece of advice to offer. Print with the lowest contrast you can get away with. Shoot and process your film to retain the maximum amount of detail from the shadows to the highlights. High contrast is for xerox machines, tonality is for the gallery wall. :)

[Bryce]

Conor-
Split grade printing in photoshop terms is like using the "curves" function to adjust contrast rather than using "contrast". My point is that you gain the ability to control contrast in the highlights separately from the contrast in the blacks.
That said, using the 2 filter method cannot make exactly the same print as say a grade 2 filter; the closest equivalent would yield similar highlights and shadows, but with midtones rendered more nearly like grade 0 than 2....
I guess one could add a third filter to control primarily the midtones, such as a grade 2, but now things are getting truly complicated. Has someone tried this? Was there a useful difference?
For the first couple of years I printed on a color head enlarger, and found it very convenient. I switched to a condenser enlarger for two reasons- I bought a 6x9 camera and couldn't live with a 6x7 enlarger any more, and I was after maximum sharpness. At least with smaller negatives, the condenser delivers noticeably sharper images, so I'm content with the current setup.
Have you continued to work with alt printing methods? I was impressed with the Van Dyke prints you brought to the local RFF meet awhile back!

[drewbarb]

This is a great thread!

I'm dubious about the claim that split grade printing can yield prints otherwise impossible with a single filter. I think the origin of the claim is that you wind up with a fractional contrast that falls between the standard half-step contrast increment.

This is a great thread- but as for your next point, I have to differ. It's not about trying to get "fractional contrast" between half steps, it's about expanding the print into the greatest tonal range the paper will allow, and you just can't get all the paper can yeild with just one contrast filter.

That being said, I use split-grade techniques, though I never, ever do it with the 0 and 5 filters.

Dude. You gotta try it before you know what I mean. I'm not saying it's a magic bullet, but it does work. Don't take my word, or Bryce's or anyone else's, just try it and then judge the method for yourself.

[nk.]

Drew: Can you give a little more info on your technique? I was taught something quite similar once and have attempted to use it a few times, but I find that I can something that looks better to my eye by adding a 2-3 filter into the mix of the 0 and 5. The way we were taught was to make a test strip print using only the 5 filter and select the exposure with the most pleasing black. Print another piece of paper using the time before the most pleasing black, stop down one stop, do a test print using the 00 filter on top of the black exposure. Select the exposure with the best tonality and go back and print using 5 first and then stopping down and using 00.

[pmu]

The way we were taught was to make a test strip print using only the 5 filter and select the exposure with the most pleasing black. Print another piece of paper using the time before the most pleasing black, stop down one stop, do a test print using the 00 filter on top of the black exposure. Select the exposure with the best tonality and go back and print using 5 first and then stopping down and using 00.



That is how I've done all my printing after I discovered that tehnique. If there is something lacking on the print I would try different papers and different developers instead...

EDIT: Oh not exactly... After grade 5 I haven't stopped down. Always the same f-number with both filters, 00 and 5.

In short; split grade printing is in my experience absolutely the best way to print if you wan't to change contrast in different areas on the image.

[drewbarb]

Drew: Can you give a little more info on your technique? I was taught something quite similar once and have attempted to use it a few times, but I find that I can something that looks better to my eye by adding a 2-3 filter into the mix of the 0 and 5. The way we were taught was to make a test strip print using only the 5 filter and select the exposure with the most pleasing black. Print another piece of paper using the time before the most pleasing black, stop down one stop, do a test print using the 00 filter on top of the black exposure. Select the exposure with the best tonality and go back and print using 5 first and then stopping down and using 00.


I looked through this thread, and the one about MC vs. Graded papers, because I thought I'd laid this out, but I can't find it, so I'll try to do it again briefly.

I know lots of folks start with the grade 5, and it is easier to judge where you get blacks, and then work for good highlight detail; but I prefer to build the tones up, rather than go to black and then work my way back. I start as you should always begin printing, by examining my negative carefully on a lightbox. I look to find the areas of greatest and least density, and try to judge the overall tonality available. Then I do my first test print- not a strip, but a whole frame print (maybe half frame, if you're really stingy with paper, but you need to see a lot of the print) at grade 0 or 00. I am only looking at highlights here- I want to see the finest most delicate highlight tones in the lightest areas. This establishes the soft contrast exposure. Now I make another full print at this exposure, and then make a grade 5 test over it. This time, I'm looking at my shadow areas, trying to find how much time I need to get true black in my darkest areas, but I'm also looking at how the rest of the print is affected by this exposure. The mid tones will get some detail from each exposure, but in my experience, they will come out right. You will have to adjust certain areas (burning and maybe dodging) at each exposure, but I find it's much easier to do this in split filter printing than in single contrast printing.

The thing to remember is that the highlights and the shadows are now separate exposures, and will not affect each other except in the middle tones. I find it a more precise way to expand the tonal range to it's fullest potential to build up slowly to black. It does seem to take more practice to judge the highlights alone while the shadows all look far to light, but the final prints retain a delicacy and precision I haven't seen from any other printing method.

Hope this is helpful- feel free to PM me if you want more info.

drew...

[tblanston]

The last post here is the most informative, I think.

When split-filter printing, I start with with my 0 or 00 (actually I'm using a colour head, but whatever) and make tests for the highlight areas of importance, for me that's commonly skin tones. I make tests starting with a shorter exposure value, gradually increasing it until I find the exposure just before I start to lose my highlights.

Then I expose the next test with that low contrast exposure, then dial in my high contrast filtration and I work on top of the first exposure until I find the optimal high contrast exposure to reach the shadows that I want. Or, true black. So each test needs to be exposed twice, just like the final print will be. You need to build on top of your first result. Sorry that I'm so terrible at explaining this...

One other thing that I'm not sure has been discussed here really, is that one of the really powerful aspects of working with multiple contrast gradiations is that you can burn or dodge during either exposure, whichever is most appropriate to the result you're trying to achieve. Actually, sometimes you might want to make a 3rd exposure with yet a different filtration if you need to be really specific with the midtones that you're trying to achieve. And knowing which filter to do that sort of burning really only comes with time and experience. If you want to burn a blown out sky in you might not necessarily want to go right down to 00 because it could come out looking too 'soupy' so something closer to the middle might be more appropriate.. If you just need a solid black in one corner a higher contrast would be better.. or ditto if you're just trying to pull some extra "pop" out of a flat looking sidewalk... There's an endless list of examples.

You've just got to go ahead and take the patience to do it, if you want to find out. Although the struggle that I always have is.. would I rather spend extra hours in the darkroom or extra hours being out somewhere where I can shoot... yargh.


Edit: Btw, statements about being able to achieve an identical exposure (to a split filter contrast exposure) by fine tweaking a single exposure with a single filtration is bogus. The reason is because with split filters you can control properties of your exposure locally. Local to particular ranges of tonality that is... If, however your split-filter exposure is 2 exposures of the same value (in seconds.. ie. 15s at 0 and 15s at 5.0) then, yes, it is probably quite possible to achieve that with a single exposure with a single filtration. Otherwise, impossible.

[rxmd]

Edit: Btw, statements about being able to achieve an identical exposure (to a split filter contrast exposure) by fine tweaking a single exposure with a single filtration is bogus.

No, they're not, because...

The reason is because with split filters you can control properties of your exposure locally. Local to particular ranges of tonality that is...

...there is no such thing as "local tonality", unless you are referring to "local" as a spatial property.

The math is actually very easy. Variocontrast paper uses two emulsions, a "soft" one sensitive to green and a "hard" one sensitive to blue. The amount of light they're getting is proportional to the exposure time and inversely proportional to (well, dependent on) the amount of filtration. Two variables. When doing split-grade printing, you expose the two separately and leave the filtration variable fixed. When doing conventional printing using filters, you expose the two at the same time, leaving the time variable fixed.

So let's say you are making a splitgrade exposure where the "green" layer gets N units of green light and the "blue" layer gets M units of blue light. (We can assume that they get green and blue light, instead of yellowish and magentaish light, because of the way subtractive colour mixing works.) As we have seen, the difference between splitgrade and ordinary printing is that in splitgrade printing you control the amount of light via the exposure time and leave the filtration fixed, while in ordinary printing you use a fixed exposure time and control the respective amounts of light through filtration. So if you want to achieve the same results as in the M/N case above, all you need to do is to select a filter (or dial in a filter value) where the ratio of green to blue is N:M, resulting in different light intensities, and print the whole thing at once, using the same exposure time for the two emulsions. Because of the different filtration values, both emulsions get exactly the units of light (in terms of intensity x time) as in the splitgrade case. You have just made a conventional print with the same gradation.

Now in reality most of us use a colour head for splitgrade printing. The most extreme intensities of green and blue light, which we use for splitgrade printing, are those when the yellow and magenta dials are set to the max. These filter values control the most extreme gradations we can get at all, splitgrade or otherwise. Let's say that the maximum gradation reachable using splitgrade printing on your colour head is 5 or so. You reach this by dialing in the most extreme value of magenta, exposing for a given amount of time, and not giving it any yellow at all. Bingo, technically just didn't do a splitgrade print at all, but a single exposure for a gradation of 5. So if your colour head or filter set doesn't allow you to reach 00 or 5, you won't get them using splitgrade printing either. The most extreme values for high and low contrast attainable using splitgrade printing are exactly the same you get using single exposure prints, because the splitgrade prints you have to do to get this are single exposure prints using maximum filtration. This being so, all the intermediate N:M ratios on the gradation scale are reachable by selecting appropriate values of yellow and magenta. Therefore, every gradation that is reachable by splitgrade printing on a colour head can be achieved conventionally by dialling in appropriate filter values and exposing both emulsions at the same time. In other words, no, you don't get access to any extra tonal range of your paper (with filters or a colour head anyway, a blue LED head is a different story), and all the intermediate gradations and all the range of contrast between these extremes can be accomplished by conventional printing, too.

Splitgrade printing does have an advantage when you want to burn and dodge the two emulsions separately. This can't be achieved at all with conventional filtration (well it can, if you dodge with a filter instead of a black mask, or if you burn with a maximum filter setting, but that's a major hassle). However, few of us actually need to do this. On the other hand, the main disadvantage of splitgrade printing is that with many enlargers you run the risk of moving the enlarger head a little bit when changing filter values, resulting in an uneven and unsharp exposure.

If, however your split-filter exposure is 2 exposures of the same value (in seconds.. ie. 15s at 0 and 15s at 5.0) then, yes, it is probably quite possible to achieve that with a single exposure with a single filtration.
This is a very boring special case, because normally what you are describing is a gradation of 2 (more or less, depending on the paper), and in order to get this, you don't have to filter at all, just leave all the filters at zero.

EDIT: A very good introduction to splitgrade printing is http://www.darkroomagic.com/Book/BasicSplitGradePrinting.pdf (it's a book chapter). He, too, says on page 82 (p. 6 in the PDF) that "some quite distinguished photographers have made claims that the print quality obtainable with this system are [sic] unique and cannot be accomplished with any single exposure system. In retrospect, much of this is human nature and enthusiasm and otherwise due to the fact that the comparisons made between prints were not of the exact same effective contrast and exposure. So far, there has been no evidence that demonstrates a difference between a Split-Grade exposure and a single exposure print at the same ISO print contrast."

Philipp

[canonetc]

When I want better gray scale, shadow detail AND high contrast but low grain, then split-toning is the way to go (as long as I have a good negative). I sometimes use split-tone printing if my negatives suck for some reason.
Here's my method:

1) Make two (2) 4-second test strips on multigrade paper: a) Strip 1 using a +4.5 contrast filter, then b) Strip 2 using NO filter or a +1. Aperture for both strips at f/8, time 24-32 seconds for each strip.
2) Once you have one basic "good" times for your image using a +4.5 filter, and one basic "good" time using no filter, write these times down in a notebook.
2) Now make an 8x10 print of your image, lens aperture at f/8. Make the NO-filter time on this print approximately equal to 1/3 of your +4.5 filter time. For example, fifteen seconds using the +4.5 filter, then five seconds using no filter.
3) If the print is too dark, stop aperture down to f/11 or f/16 and repeat steps 1-2.
4) Keep adjusting the mutual split-tone times until you get the print tonality you desire. Your final print might require 16 seconds at +4.5 filter, then six seconds with no filter. Or, 12 seconds of no filter with 4 seconds of +4.5.
5) Burn or dodge where necessary.

Eventually you'll end up with a print with good grey scale and good contrast. But, like everything darkroom, there are no quick answers. You have to experiment and find out what method works best for you.

Cheers,

Chris
canonetc

[Simon Larbalestier]

I have found success and a lot of control by printing first with a grade 5 filter to set the level of black and then using a grade 00 filter to bring in the highlights and midtones. This works well on the more contrasty Leitz Focotmat enlargers i use - the filters are slid into a trade above the negative and condensor and below the light source. The negs are always processed in PMK Pyro where the highlight detail is retained. This method works well on slower papers like Ilford Warm Tone MC and Fomatone MC.

However i have not found that split grade printing works effectively when making lith prints - with stubborn negs or something where i want a very soft overall tone that will split well in selenium toner - i tend to favor paper flashing after the initial exposure.

Thinking about this a little more my method is fairly crude and simplified - if i had the money i would invest in something like the Heiland Split Grade printing system which is a light source that adapts to various enlarger types - (including the Focomat 1c and 2c series) and offers you specialized filters and a sophisticated timer system allowing for infinite variations of combinations and times. Expensive but very neat.

Split grade printing works for me when i have a lot of prints to make in a short space of time. If i have more time and am working on only a few negatives - i can usually get what i want with some thing like a grade 1.5 and punch the blacks with split toning in selenium.

[Bryce]

Chris-
The hard filter/ no filter technique is interesting, and one I haven't tinkered with enough yet. It should be similar to playing with "curves" in photoshop, and working with the shadow and midtone areas rather than the shadow and highlight areas like when you use only the hard and soft filters.
You're making me want to go play in the dark right now... maybe I will.

[titrisol]

I started with split grade printing by trial and error:
- I was printing several photos or a friend, and I guessed grade 3 would do but the first did look a tad thin, So tha one I had on the enalrger I added a few more secs of exposure with a #5 filter (for time). The result was some awesome blacks and I got hooked.
- When the internet came along I saw more details on it and they helped me refine my technique so basically it works out as follows:
- Make a test sheet/strip using filter 0 and see if the detail in the highlghts is enough (exposure 1)
- Expose a 2nd test strip with filter 0 per the exposure set above and then with filter 5 make the strips again over the 1st exposure. You will definitely see if there is an improvement here (shadows) and it will be easy to have exposure #2.

- However for any normal picture I see what contrast number I need using n Ilford EM10 and then calculate the split by simple rules
Grade time 0 time 5
1 1 0.5
2 1 1
3 1 2
4 1 3
5 0 4

At least in my filter set exposure with 5 should be 2x than that with 0

Give it a shot in hard to print negatives and you maybe amazed!

[canonetc]

Chris-
The hard filter/ no filter technique is interesting, and one I haven't tinkered with enough yet. It should be similar to playing with "curves" in photoshop, and working with the shadow and midtone areas rather than the shadow and highlight areas like when you use only the hard and soft filters.
You're making me want to go play in the dark right now... maybe I will.

Hey Bryce,

yeah, for some reason the idea of having to use a +0 or +1 filter just did not seem so necessary. I'm kinda lazy; guess I just didn't want to inset another filter into the enlarger. So, I played around with no filter and got good results.

On another note, one time I went to a big-time Los Angeles photographer group show, and one guy who did a series on cowboys told me, when we discussed split-tone printing, that I was "doing too much work!" He said I should just use 1 +3 on everything! Needless to say, I was no longer impressed by his "art"... :)

chris
canonetc