What I like most is the weird sound, the noise and the water running in the background. Dave is actually John Cage as a printer. Besides that I finally get split grade printing, tests begin today in my old darkroom!
Hi Dave, I have just invested in an Durst M35 enlarger and set up my darkroom in readiness to start printing my negs. Thanks for this tutorial, making complete sense now, having watched it several times .
Dear Dave, Hope you are well. I just have a question. Comper to the drawer option, does the method to use the multigrade filter under the lens make less sharpness on the print? Thank you in advance for your answer. Regards, Tamas
@@DarkroomDave Dear Dave, Thank you for the answer. I would like to enlarge my 4x5 negatives, but I can not find a 4x5 enlarger on an affordable price, so I would like to try the Intrepid Enlarger Kit: intrepidcamera.co.uk/products/intrepid-enlarger-kit where I will be able to use the 8,9*8,9 cm filters was made to use in drawer, under the lens. You worked with Ilford and you may also know, if there is any difference between the quality of the filter product. Can you help me in this question as well please? So basically my question is, if I use the sheet filters 8,9*8,9 cm (was made to be used in the drawer) below the lens, won't I receive my prints in less quality than with the Ilford Multigrade Under The Lens Mounted Filter Kit? Thank you in advance for your help again. Regards, Tamas
Thanks a lot for the video, very helpful. You mentioned in this video it is very important to keep everything very clean. This is something I struggle with, and it shows in my prints. What are your technique's for keeping all the glass within the enlarger, along with the negative clean and dust free?
many thanks ,Dave, your videos really help..I have two questions. 1. Do you think the filters installed/ clipped UNDER the lens will as good overall results compared to the above installed filters? 2. When you do a split grade, what actually happens is: You do one grade 0 exposure ( half exposure time) and a second one on top of that with grade 5 ( half exposure time), ok. But what ACTUALLY happens ON PAPER is just ONE exposure, right? I mean it is basically a MIXTURE of grade 0 and 5 that does expose the paper, lets say overall grade 2,5? because the ( multigrade) paper just reacts to ANY exposure, right? thanks, Andy.
Hi Dave. First, thanks for these videos. I haven't done wet printing in years and my skills are a bit rusty so they are really helpful. I do have a question on split grade printing. In your example you have a 5 second exposure divided in half with 2.5 seconds at filter 0 and 2.5 seconds at filter 5. My Ilford filter set (above the lens) says that filter 5 should require double the base exposure time so my thought was I'd have to make the filter 5 exposure for the full 5 seconds. Could you speak to that if you have time? Thanks so much. Jeff
Hi Jeff, Just ignore all filter factors and it will work. Since we are using 2 exposures, one low contrast and one high contrast, you don't need to worry about any of that. Filter factors are only useful if you are using the old single exposure technique. Dave
Two seconds increments are very short and the room for error is small. I much prefer to stop my lens down futher and have a longer exposure this means small errors in timing are less critical
Ilford sells filters for darkroom printing using different techniques. Some people like to use fixed grades and some split grade - one kit does both. Dave
Loved the video! Please check your audio next time! I really love your teaching personality, but that static is robbing your explanation of the process!
Hi dave and thanks so much. You know - it was your great videos that made me start this wondefull disciplin og analog photography . 😊sorry to hear about your back . Hope you get better for more vid Because this is only going one Way and that is ☝️🙃
i am actually confused by this split-grade description. why are you dividing the exposure time into 2 equal parts for different grades? Ilford 00 filter has filter factor of 1 (same as 2,5 filter you made test strip with), while grade 5 has factor of 2. exposing on grade 5 for only 4 second means you are underexposing shadows by 1 stop!
In fact I believe this method which David calls the 'Ilford Way' makes little sense re. the equal division of the original test exposure. I can find no other advocate of this method. Two test strips are required for split-grade printing. The first (usually but not necessarily) using a G.0 filter *OVERLAID* with an incremental test using a G.5 filter (these again, subject to user preference). Absolutely no 'educated guess' work is necessary in the latter technique.
@@russellsprout2223 Hi...I'm new to printing film, so... I've tried this Ilford way using ilford film, chemicals, filters and paper. Splitting the selected grade 0 exposure time by grade 0, and 5 did not work. The overall print was much too light. Since then, I primarily use the method you refer to as the latter technique, which I think of as the more conventional method. After revisiting this video, I searched the web. I found the Ilford method also described here www.ilfordphoto.com/split-grade-printing/ In this example, the original test strip is at G 2.5, and not 0. The best step time (slightly darker than about right) is then divided by two, and each half of time is then subject to G 0, and G 5; equally. In a second video, Darkroom Dave comments (in the comment section in response to a viewers comment) that he starts with grade 2.5, and not grade 0. We may have been lead to believe, watching this 'first' video, that the starting grade for the first test strip is 0. I think he states that, but... Here's a link to the second video. ruclips.net/video/XYkCc_nrG2I/видео.html Note that Dave mentions that this method works most of the time without tweaking the filter grade, or time exposed to each filter, but occasionally adjustments have to be made to either, or both. Note that he also mentions selecting the step from the first test strip that is slightly darker than 'about right'. I would like for this method to work as it seems faster, and uses less paper. The challenge I have with the more conventional method is that if the steps in the first strip at G 0 are large in time, than at least a second strip has to be used to bridge the gap and find a better starting point. This then adds up in both time and paper/money. The concern I have is that If we deviate from the split grade by either increase or decreasing either G0, or G5 time from the equal split, are we not back to the conventional method? I think, in the end, that the two methods are essentially the same. thoughts?
@@richardlee8607 Hi Richard...I finally got a chance to try it tonight, and while it may not be perfect, the Ilford method does work. I started with G2.5 stepped it for 15 seconds in increments of three seconds. Then selected the best of the five steps, split the development time between G0, and G5 for 7.5 seconds each, and it worked. It may not be perfect, but for my objectives, it works. I think as I gain more experience I will want to burn and dodge areas. My problem with all of these methods is that a test strip can't cover all parts of the negative, and so no method is going to work for the whole image unless it is a perfect negative. And testing the whole image is too expensive I think it is a good compromise that offers reasonable protection of the highlights, and provides strong blacks. I'm new to all of this, so you have to consider my lack of experience as a factor in my satisfaction with the method. I'm not interested/capable of producing great art. I'm satisfied with a method that produces a reasonably good product without me having to spend hours upon hours in the dark room. If I have to do that, I'll lose interest. Best of luck for you as well, Richard
@@mosephina Hi, I'm pleased that the so-called 'Ilford Way' works for you, but I'm guessing your negative wasn't overly contrasty. Maybe a scene with average contrast allows for an average (or equal division) of the exposure..? If that *is* the case, then maybe a single exposure using a G 2.5 filter would have sufficed. Anyway, may I recommend watching yet another variation of the theme (see link below), where again, I have suggested in the comments section, to try 'my' method - if only to dispense with the final guesswork yet again. Atb. ruclips.net/video/KlVSdiEhafA/видео.html
Same here, Dave, your knowledge is so profound and you are a great teacher, really like it, but please don't ruin your great vids with that terrible sound :). All the best!
What I like most is the weird sound, the noise and the water running in the background. Dave is actually John Cage as a printer. Besides that I finally get split grade printing, tests begin today in my old darkroom!
Hope all going well with your printing. Dave Butcher
Hi Dave, I have just invested in an Durst M35 enlarger and set up my darkroom in readiness to start printing my negs. Thanks for this tutorial, making complete sense now, having watched it several times .
Fascinating, thank you. I just started doing darkroom printing again and this helps a lot
Thank you for taking your time to explain! Your video was very helpful!
Thank you very much, I appreciate all of your Videos. Very helpful
Thanks for letting me know they're of use. Dave
Brilliant video, you’ve answered all my questions.
Dear Dave,
Hope you are well.
I just have a question. Comper to the drawer option, does the method to use the multigrade filter under the lens make less sharpness on the print?
Thank you in advance for your answer.
Regards,
Tamas
As long as you keep the filters clean and scratch free there shouldn't be any problems with loss of sharpness. Dave
@@DarkroomDave Dear Dave,
Thank you for the answer.
I would like to enlarge my 4x5 negatives, but I can not find a 4x5 enlarger on an affordable price, so I would like to try the Intrepid Enlarger Kit: intrepidcamera.co.uk/products/intrepid-enlarger-kit
where I will be able to use the 8,9*8,9 cm filters was made to use in drawer, under the lens.
You worked with Ilford and you may also know, if there is any difference between the quality of the filter product. Can you help me in this question as well please?
So basically my question is, if I use the sheet filters 8,9*8,9 cm (was made to be used in the drawer) below the lens, won't I receive my prints in less quality than with the Ilford Multigrade Under The Lens Mounted Filter Kit?
Thank you in advance for your help again.
Regards,
Tamas
Thanks a lot for the video, very helpful. You mentioned in this video it is very important to keep everything very clean. This is something I struggle with, and it shows in my prints. What are your technique's for keeping all the glass within the enlarger, along with the negative clean and dust free?
many thanks ,Dave, your videos really help..I have two questions. 1. Do you think the filters installed/ clipped UNDER the lens will as good overall results compared to the above installed filters?
2. When you do a split grade, what actually happens is: You do one grade 0 exposure ( half exposure time) and a second one on top of that with grade 5 ( half exposure time), ok. But what ACTUALLY happens ON PAPER is just ONE exposure, right? I mean it is basically a MIXTURE of grade 0 and 5 that does expose the paper, lets say overall grade 2,5? because the ( multigrade) paper just reacts to ANY exposure, right? thanks, Andy.
Brilliant!! I'm now a fan!! :-)
Hi Dave. First, thanks for these videos. I haven't done wet printing in
years and my skills are a bit rusty so they are really helpful. I do
have a question on split grade printing. In your example you have a 5
second exposure divided in half with 2.5 seconds at filter 0 and 2.5
seconds at filter 5. My Ilford filter set (above the lens) says that filter 5 should
require double the base exposure time so my thought was I'd have to make the
filter 5 exposure for the full 5 seconds. Could you speak to that if you have time? Thanks so much.
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
Just ignore all filter factors and it will work. Since we are using 2 exposures, one low contrast and one high contrast, you don't need to worry about any of that. Filter factors are only useful if you are using the old single exposure technique. Dave
Thank you so much! It's very useful information
thanks for showing the ilford way. just a question: what is grade "north"? do you mean grade ZERO?
It's grade nought not north, which is same as zero. Dave
@@DarkroomDave thank you. This saturday it will be my darkroom session, i'll try it..
Two seconds increments are very short and the room for error is small. I much prefer to stop my lens down futher and have a longer exposure this means small errors in timing are less critical
So why does Ilford sell filter sets containing 12 filters if only using grade 00 and 5 gives such great results?
Ilford sells filters for darkroom printing using different techniques. Some people like to use fixed grades and some split grade - one kit does both. Dave
Hi Dave, great tutorial video..! I didn't quit understand by your terms of "knolt" what number of filter is it refer to? Thanks.
Sorry, I don't what 'knolt' refers to. It's not a term I am familiar with. Can you try again? Dave
@ Jack Vel Dave is saying "grade naught" which means grade 0 or zero.
Loved the video! Please check your audio next time! I really love your teaching personality, but that static is robbing your explanation of the process!
So to get more black is simpel - increase filter 5 time but to get more white ? What to do? Increase time on filter 1 or less time with filter 1?
If no white your print is overexposed so reduce the exposure time for low contrast exposure. Dave
Hi dave and thanks so much. You know - it was your great videos that made me start this wondefull disciplin og analog photography . 😊sorry to hear about your back . Hope you get better for more vid Because this is only going one Way and that is ☝️🙃
Thank you!
i am actually confused by this split-grade description. why are you dividing the exposure time into 2 equal parts for different grades? Ilford 00 filter has filter factor of 1 (same as 2,5 filter you made test strip with), while grade 5 has factor of 2. exposing on grade 5 for only 4 second means you are underexposing shadows by 1 stop!
It's just to give you a starting point without wasting time or paper. Ignore filter factors, they don't apply for split grade.
In fact I believe this method which David calls the 'Ilford Way' makes little sense re. the equal division of the original test exposure. I can find no other advocate of this method. Two test strips are required for split-grade printing. The first (usually but not necessarily) using a G.0 filter *OVERLAID* with an incremental test using a G.5 filter (these again, subject to user preference). Absolutely no 'educated guess' work is necessary in the latter technique.
@@russellsprout2223 Hi...I'm new to printing film, so...
I've tried this Ilford way using ilford film, chemicals, filters and paper. Splitting the selected grade 0 exposure time by grade 0, and 5 did not work. The overall print was much too light.
Since then, I primarily use the method you refer to as the latter technique, which I think of as the more conventional method.
After revisiting this video, I searched the web.
I found the Ilford method also described here
www.ilfordphoto.com/split-grade-printing/
In this example, the original test strip is at G 2.5, and not 0. The best step time (slightly darker than about right) is then divided by two, and each half of time is then subject to G 0, and G 5; equally.
In a second video, Darkroom Dave comments (in the comment section in response to a viewers comment) that he starts with grade 2.5, and not grade 0. We may have been lead to believe, watching this 'first' video, that the starting grade for the first test strip is 0. I think he states that, but...
Here's a link to the second video.
ruclips.net/video/XYkCc_nrG2I/видео.html
Note that Dave mentions that this method works most of the time without tweaking the filter grade, or time exposed to each filter, but occasionally adjustments have to be made to either, or both. Note that he also mentions selecting the step from the first test strip that is slightly darker than 'about right'.
I would like for this method to work as it seems faster, and uses less paper. The challenge I have with the more conventional method is that if the steps in the first strip at G 0 are large in time, than at least a second strip has to be used to bridge the gap and find a better starting point. This then adds up in both time and paper/money.
The concern I have is that If we deviate from the split grade by either increase or decreasing either G0, or G5 time from the equal split, are we not back to the conventional method?
I think, in the end, that the two methods are essentially the same.
thoughts?
@@richardlee8607 Hi Richard...I finally got a chance to try it tonight, and while it may not be perfect, the Ilford method does work.
I started with G2.5 stepped it for 15 seconds in increments of three seconds. Then selected the best of the five steps, split the development time between G0, and G5 for 7.5 seconds each, and it worked.
It may not be perfect, but for my objectives, it works.
I think as I gain more experience I will want to burn and dodge areas.
My problem with all of these methods is that a test strip can't cover all parts of the negative, and so no method is going to work for the whole image unless it is a perfect negative. And testing the whole image is too expensive
I think it is a good compromise that offers reasonable protection of the highlights, and provides strong blacks.
I'm new to all of this, so you have to consider my lack of experience as a factor in my satisfaction with the method.
I'm not interested/capable of producing great art. I'm satisfied with a method that produces a reasonably good product without me having to spend hours upon hours in the dark room. If I have to do that, I'll lose interest.
Best of luck for you as well, Richard
@@mosephina Hi, I'm pleased that the so-called 'Ilford Way' works for you, but I'm guessing your negative wasn't overly contrasty. Maybe a scene with average contrast allows for an average (or equal division) of the exposure..? If that *is* the case, then maybe a single exposure using a G 2.5 filter would have sufficed.
Anyway, may I recommend watching yet another variation of the theme (see link below), where again, I have suggested in the comments section, to try 'my' method - if only to dispense with the final guesswork yet again. Atb.
ruclips.net/video/KlVSdiEhafA/видео.html
Same here, Dave, your knowledge is so profound and you are a great teacher, really like it, but please don't ruin your great vids with that terrible sound :). All the best!
Thanks for the videos i'm sure your skills are very high but i can't watch it, the audio is sadly so bad...
Couldn’t watch the video because of the multiple audio issues. Bummer.
I have to try this i was in a darkroom all day today I'm so bad at dodging and burning.
It just takes practice, lots of practice, as well as lots of paper!
o que seria esse produto multigrade ilford 7
..does Dave answer anymore?
Sorry, yes but not very often. I'm having problems with my bad back and it's distracted me from darkroom stuff. Dave
@@DarkroomDave I read on your website you are no longer offering the courses due to your health, where else could I look for courses?
HELLO SIR, CAN I BUY A NEW DURST ENLARGER? IF YES KINDLY SHARE THE LINK OR CONTACT DETAILS.
That audio issue in the middle is annoying to say the least :(
Sorry, I do my best but I'm a photographer and printer not a video maker and have never had the problem before. I will try and sort for next video.
The video was very informative regardless, thanks and keep doing what you're doing!
I guess it could’ve been a great vid, but that noise was way too annoying to watch till the end