Split grade printing with High contrast negatives.

Very high contrast grade 0

A recently developed set of negatives have shown themselves to be very contrasty even by my standards. During the summer I was on an early morning shoot, when I came across these scenes. They were not the easiest pictures to meter, there was a six stop difference between the light areas and the shadows in some cases. Two things drew me to them: the  way the shadows of the leaves danced on the walls in the gentle breeze and the other was a brief thought that they would be a challenge to split grade print.  

Soft grade 0

It has been suggested that split grade printing works better when the contrast stakes are raised. In these cases they maybe unprintable. The pictures were made using 120 format FP4+ developed in ID11 for 14 mins I know this is longer than what is recommended but I have found I have a tendency to under expose when using medium format cameras.

I used Ilford multigrade developer and RC paper. I tend to use RC papers in the initial stages or until I'm happy that the picture warrants printing on FB paper.

With grade 5 added

I started the grade zero test print for the Gate but it became clear while I was doing the timed segments that I may not need a grade five test because  the contrast was very high even for zero. I chose sixteen seconds for the gate picture to illustrate the degree of contrast this negative has. The window shutter picture also proved to be overly contrasty as well. I was quite happy with the results until I did a second print with the grade five added which now makes the first print look soft. It just goes to show how things change when you start to explore the subject at different settings. None of the prints have been manipulated by dodging or burning in which could class them as the perfect prints?

Ye old R3

Out of date R3

Over recent times I have had the tidying up bug  including a good rummage round in my film cupboard where I discovered four rolls of film. Nothing remarkable in that, I hear you say! However what I came across were two rolls of Rollie retro 100 and two rolls of R3, tucked away in a corner! I know! very out of date unless your name is Mitch in which case they are reaching maturity. It is strange how things come together. I recently posted a very grainy picture of a surfer dramatically falling off his board to illustrate how grainy things can get if you do not process your negs correctly. The film used to take the picture is the late lamented Rollie R3. If I had used the film with a fine grain developer the 1600 ISO negatives would have been a lot smoother.

R3 used at 400 ISO

When available it was advertised as a variable ISO film ranging from 50 to 3200 The idea of a ultra fast film is what encouraged me to purchase some. It took a little while for me to find a suitable subject to test it out on. By chance I was walking along the coastal footpath into Croyde Bay with an empty camera.  So I loaded the R3 set 1600 ISO and spent an hour or so taking pictures of surfers as the sun went down.

R3 used at 400 ISO

I cannot believe that it was 2009 that I last used the R3 and then at 400 ISO, having learnt my lesson previously, I used a fine grain developer. You could not of hoped for a finer set of negatives, they were that smooth it looked as though they had been sprayed on to the film back.

I don't use fast films a lot as I like bright sunny days with lots of contrast. It just so happens I was recently given the imaging warehouses catalogue and while thumbing through it I noticed they stocked Rollie 400s, which got me thinking  how would it compare to the old R3? There is only one way to find out!