# Myth of split-grade printing



## Ornello (Jan 18, 2016)

I have read that some people split the exposure on VC paper using the hardest and softest filters, to achieve better print quality. As a matter of fact, the results are basically identical when a single intermediate filter is used:

photo technique magazine  » Does Printing With Both High-Contrast and Low-Contrast Filters Create a Richer Print?


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 18, 2016)

The real advantage of split-filter printing is when you burn and dodge between the two filters in which case the results are much better than single filter printing.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 18, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> The real advantage of split-filter printing is when you burn and dodge between the two filters in which case the results are much better than single filter printing.
> 
> Joe




...........................................................


----------



## Derrel (Jan 18, 2016)

Ysarex said:
			
		

> The real advantage of split-filter printing is when you burn and dodge between the two filters in which case the results are much better than single filter printing.
> 
> Joe



Subscribed. Awaiting lengthy, fiery rebuttal...


----------



## timor (Jan 18, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> The real advantage of split-filter printing is when you burn and dodge between the two filters in which case the results are much better than single filter printing.
> 
> Joe


Agree, but technically it is not split filter printing.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 18, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But that's not what most users claim. They claim that splitting the exposure itself improves the results.

Which reminds me of the time a pro told me he didn't use Polycontrast filters (as he was buying Polycontrast paper) because 'my negatives are so good I don't need to use filters'.

Cough....cough...


----------



## timor (Jan 18, 2016)

Well, most VC papers without filter print at normal contrast, so it is possible, plus there is still some flexibility with developer. All depends on what is one doing.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 18, 2016)

timor said:


> Well, most VC papers without filter print at normal contrast, so it is possible, plus there is still some flexibility with developer. All depends on what is one doing.




Polycontrast without any filter gave about grade 1 1/2. The point is that the 'pro' didn't understand how the filters worked.


----------



## timor (Jan 18, 2016)

I think he did very well understand it. And he new, how to make negative for normal contrast. Especially, if he was a photographer for long time, from before we had VC papers.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 18, 2016)

timor said:


> I think he did very well understand it. And he new, how to make negative for normal contrast. Especially, if he was a photographer for long time, from before we had VC papers.




No, he didn't. I was there, and you were not. I used to work in photo retailing. Kodak recommended that a filter always be used because the paper was a little softer than #2 without a filter (#2 filter was to be used as a reference).

Later versions of Polycontrast paper had different characteristics, and version IV gave about a grade 2.5 unfiltered.


----------



## timor (Jan 18, 2016)

But I was there, when we even didn't hear about VC papers. We had to do with solid grades papers. Even then every brand had different idea, what normal contrast paper was. One of the good characteristics of photographer should be adaptiveness. Always.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 18, 2016)

timor said:


> But I was there, when we even didn't hear about VC papers. We had to do with solid grades papers. Even then every brand had different idea, what normal contrast paper was. One of the good characteristics of photographer should be adaptiveness. Always.




Well, Kodak was attempting to make the contrast of Polycontrast paper with a number #2 filter equal to that of Medalist or Kodabromide.


----------

