How good are contact prints in reality?

[duff photographer]

Howdo all,

This may sound like a controversial question but it's not meant to be.

As the title says, how good are contact prints in reality?

The reason I ask is that I have thought about getting into ULF photography (or maybe sticking with the range 5x7 to 8x10) and doing contact printing - I lke the concept of a super sharp image showing a great range in tonality printed on silver (or platinum, etc.) where the image leaps out at you. However I've had a look at some contact prints, both 4x5 and 8x10 taken with good lenses, e.g., Goerz Red Dot Apo Artars, and have been distinctly underwhelmed with them.

I understand that images printed using the contact printing technique are supposed to ooze with detail (film and photographic paper allowing). I haven't seen this in any of the contacts I've seen. Even with the naked eye they do not appear sharp. Under the loupe there is no detail at all. Indeed, I've seen good (non-LF) inkjet prints show more detail (resolution rather than contrast) and even better tonality although under the loupe you see the pixelations (which I can never get used to hence my liking for silver prints).

Admittedly, none of the contact prints were taken with modern lenses but I can't imagine that the older 'good' lenses are that poor in resolving power even those which are a little compromised due to the larger image circle needed to cover 8x10. Is it that ALL the contact prints I have seen in person are just bad because the person making them had poor technique (some well known names here), a result of poor equipment (not likely), or, dare I say, contact prints aren't all they're cracked up to be?

I like silver prints - there's more substance to them and they're more marketable than an inkjet print (which can nonetheless be excellent in quality) so I'm hoping I am missing something.

:)

Cheers,
Duff

[Bob Salomon]

You are missing not having seen properly made contact prints made on a real contact printing box with full control of each individual light in the box and with a properly exposed negative taken with a good lens at optimal aperture and within the resolution range the lens was designed for. And, with a properly focused camera with all movements under control.

[goamules]

A contact print is 200% better than a computer screen view, and 132% better than an enlarged print. As far as how much better than an inkjet computer print, I don't know. I'm sure there are ton's of sites that go into this.

I'm not sure what you were looking at, but none of my direct positives (large wetplate) or contact prints are "...do not appear sharp...lacking in detail..."

[Sal Santamaura]

A contact print is no sharper than the negative it's made from and the paper it's printed on.

The larger the format, and the more a scene deviates from being in one plane, the more difficult it is to keep an entire negative in focus without resorting to very small taking lens apertures. ULF exacerbates these challenges to an extreme. Thus, diffraction-inducing camera lens openings are quite common, and no chemical direct printing method will undo the resultant blur. Unsharp masks might help, but I've not heard of their use being common in ULF contact printing. Some papers/processes are incapable of rendering the detail present in even an optimally sharp negative.

Inkjet prints are usually made after sharpening is applied to a file in post processing. They are typically from sub-ULF originals shot with shorter focal length lenses, so larger apertures cause less diffraction loss. Sharpness of those prints is artificial and, in my experience, breaks down on close inspection.

Lately I've been shooting a bit at the Grand Canyon using my Phillips Compact II. The subject matter, as I frame it, is mostly at infinity. Contacts of the resulting negatives, made on Ilford Multigrade Warmtone RC, are as sharp as any I've ever seen on any material. Dick Phillips and I have exchanged prints recently. Since relocating to Texas, he no longer has a darkroom, and does new work mainly with small format digital cameras. Upon seeing one of my Grand Canyon prints, Dick noted that he considered 8x10 contacts to be photography's zenith, and said that, despite his current lack of facilities, he held onto one of his 8x10 cameras and some Tri-X still lives in his freezer. I hope he finds a way to use them.

[Pere Casals]

This may sound like a controversial question but it's not meant to be.




This is not controversial at all, it can be measured on your own.

If you contact print an USAF 1951 target on RC Ilford paper and you inspect the result with a powerfull magnifier you'll see that paper resolves some 50 lp/mm. Perhaps Fiber Based paper, being superior on other concepts, can resolve less...


If you have a sharp negative, from a technically perfect shot, probably contact print will put on paper all sharpness that an ULF lens can deliver. In practice a ULF lens providing a large image circle won't deliver these 50 lp/mm performance that a common paper is capable.

What I'm saying is that if you contact print what can limit sharpness is lens performance, shake, suboptimal aperture, or even film.

But... can anybody see 50lp/mm with naked eye? the answer is nobody can, until I know, even in the case he has a 140 sight score. One can see some 6lp/mm, normally.

It is very difficult that an LF enlarger can degradate from native 50lp/mm quality of a perfect shot and an paper can have ...to something under 7lp/mm that a "good" human eye can notice, with 1:1 enlargement.

So... why contact printing? First is that microcontrast is displayed with all its magnificiency, and then you can take a magnifier and to explore the paper to see an incredible detail. By naked eye not everybody will know if it is contact printed or enlarged 1:1, not me at least, and to me it will be difficult saying it with a magnifier if it is not a very, very sharp shot. If you project the USAF 1951 target with an enlarger and see it with a grain magnifier pehaps you can measure some 20 lp/mm in the target projection.


What is true is that a contact print is perfection, if you just want to print to the same negative size. And this can be checked even with a 20x magnifier.


About market value... some Adam's Monrise prints can be worth $700000, same with ink is $7.

Sebastiao Salgado since 2007 shot Genesis with a Canon DSLR, but later FF digital files were printed in film (I think TMax) to obtain enlargements, this was because desired analog consistency with shots made with MF Tri-X until 2007, and because market demanded silver darkroom prints from Salgado, not ink-jets.

[Drew Wiley]

Nice to know Dick P. is still at it. I own the ninth camera he made, and it will easily outlast me. But in terms of quality, or even that whole contact vs enlargement
debate, it's like asking if pizzas are really good or not. Depends who made them, what ingredients. Some are wonderful, some are awful. I don't contact print very
often, but when I do, I use the same papers as for enlargement, esp if they tone in a manner I like. MGWT FB is a favorite paper for 8x10 contacts.

[duff photographer]

Thanks everyone - that's reassuring to know it's the system and operator at fault in these poor contact prints.


Inkjet prints are usually made after sharpening is applied to a file in post processing. They are typically from sub-ULF originals shot with shorter focal length lenses, so larger apertures cause less diffraction loss. Sharpness of those prints is artificial and, in my experience, breaks down on close inspection.
.

Absolutely agree with this hence my preference for silver.

...and I tend to agree with Dick Phillips comment that 8x10 is the best compromise between negative size, lens performance and usability - the reason why I think I'll try contact printing at that and related sizes (e.g., 6x10).

There is a reasonable amount of information on the interweb about contact printing but can anyone direct me to a book or a site that really gets to grip with the subtleties of the art?

Many thanks,
Duff.

[Mark Sampson]

take a look at michaelandpaula.com. They are apostles of contact printing (and the contact-printing paper, Lodima, that they sell.) Both of them are very fine photographers, and viewing their prints will be the best modern explanation of 'why' people print by contact. No reso charts necessary!

[Fr. Mark]

Not having a working LF enlarger nor quite ready to jump into scanning, I contact print everything. usually as cyanotypes on typing paper or if I want a really nice print, not just a working proof, on de-chalked Arches Hot Press (an hour in 5% HCl takes the chalk/calcium carbonate out that will destroy cyanotypes over time). On my best negatives there's a lot more information on 5x7 than shows up on a cyanotype. I suspect this would be true of Platinum prints. In both cases there is not emulsion, the metal salt solutions penetrate the fibers of the paper surface and on exposure to UV light turn into very small insoluble prussian blue or platinum metal pieces. Thus, the ultimate resolution is limited by the texture of the paper and the fiber sizes and ability to trap insoluble particles. Normally, this doesn't bother me and the non-photographers all gush about my best work, but eventually I'm going to move to some sort of scanning so I can extract the detail and enlarge it and otherwise tinker more with the images w/o locking myself in a darkroom (I have kids I should see...). One of the reasons I'm afraid of ULF is that when done right there's still more information on the negative than you can see as a contact print and I'd want to enlarge and tinker with 14x17's. Run away run away... FWIW I'm using a Sinar P and sinar shutter and DB mounted lenses of at least 1970's vintage possibly more recent. All are coated Rodenstock or Schneider glass. I can resolve the moire patterns and general weave of overlapping sheer window treatment fabric on the negative at 5x7 I think I used a rodenstock 150 from across the room for that. but it doesn't come out well as a cyanotype. I've not tried, but I think I could resolve it fine on glossy RCMGIV w/o much trouble.

[Drew Wiley]

There are pros and cons. I like to enlarge because it brings out a lot of detail and visual information that just wouldn't show up in a contact print. And as far as tonality is concerned, there are advanced controls like masking that can bring out a lot of texture or microtonality to seriously compete with contact prints. You can have your cake and eat it too, esp since you can either contact and enlarge most 8x10 negs if desired. But it's not surprising how people prefer contact printing for the sake of special chlorobromide papers or alt media like Pt/Pd and carbon printing. It's all good, just different. But calling one path inherently better than another is nonsense. Depends more on the person than the materials. There are masters of both.

[Pere Casals]

Not having a working LF enlarger

Hello Mark,

If you have a view camera you have an enlarger.

Even Graflex made the Graflarger back to convert a Graflex press camera into an enlarger.


http://www.ebay.es/itm/GRAFLEX-GRAFLARGER-BACK-45-/222200233085?hash=item33bc2a7c7d:g:220AAOSweXhXl-Tt


But it can be done with any format. I use an old MF projector to throw light at the back of a 8x10 CAMBO, I custom built a negative holder for it. With the projector it performs like a condenser type enlarger, speakng about contrast control.
A process lens would perform better in theory, but the Sironar N works perfect.

Very straight, put paper on the wall and the camera in the tripod. Ansel Adams' enlarger was mostly that.


Scanning it's also straight... A cheap Epson V850 is perfect for BW and LF. I use Ilford Lab Direct to print on silver. Feel free to contact me if you are interested in the tips to make the print match from what you see in the monitor, using soft proofing, and comparating previous calibration prints, anyway it's explained in the ilford lab direct web site.


Best Regards.

[Mark Sawyer]

Throwing in my two cents worth...

If all you're looking for is resolution, both a good enlargement or a good contact print will go beyond what your eye can resolve.

But if you care about tonality, a good contact print is richer and more subtle than a good enlarged print.

Finally, for images made with soft focus lenses, the soft effect degrades noticeably when enlarged. The effect of soft lenses shines best in contact printing...

[Pere Casals]

Finally, for images made with soft focus lenses, the soft effect degrades noticeably when enlarged. The effect of soft lenses shines best in contact printing...

Interesting to know it...

[Mark Sawyer]

I understand that images printed using the contact printing technique are supposed to ooze with detail (film and photographic paper allowing). I haven't seen this in any of the contacts I've seen. Even with the naked eye they do not appear sharp. Under the loupe there is no detail at all. Indeed, I've seen good (non-LF) inkjet prints show more detail (resolution rather than contrast) and even better tonality although under the loupe you see the pixelations (which I can never get used to hence my liking for silver prints).

Admittedly, none of the contact prints were taken with modern lenses but I can't imagine that the older 'good' lenses are that poor in resolving power...

A properly made contact print will have all the detail of the negative, at least past the point the eye can resolve. But if you don't have good contact between the negative and the paper, it will lose significant detail.

Regarding the old lenses, there are a few turkeys among the old and the new, but old lenses are as sharp as the new for contact printing. If you ever see an original Carlton Watkins or William Henry Jackson original ULF albumen contact print, you'll see. Even the earliest Daguerreotypes have more detail than the eye can resolve. Improvements haven't been so much in improving resolution, but in eliminating aberrations, adding contrast/reducing flare (through coatings), and adding modern shutters.

[Bob Salomon]

A properly made contact print will have all the detail of the negative, at least past the point the eye can resolve. But if you don't have good contact between the negative and the paper, it will lose significant detail.

Regarding the old lenses, there are a few turkeys among the old and the new, but old lenses are as sharp as the new for contact printing. If you ever see an original Carlton Watkins or William Henry Jackson original ULF albumen contact print, you'll see. Even the earliest Daguerreotypes have more detail than the eye can resolve. Improvements haven't been so much in improving resolution, but in eliminating aberrations, adding contrast/reducing flare (through coatings), and adding modern shutters.

Not quite, Mark,
There are also improvements in distortion and fall off. Old lens may have been good but if maximum resolution, evenness of coverage, lack of distortion, best contrast, etc. the modern lens will perform much better. But it all depends on what you want and what you are satisfied with.

[Drew Wiley]

I would say that Mark's stereotypes about the two forms or printing are valid on a "good enough for government work" basis. But there are plenty of workarounds for advanced printers that confute most of those stereotypes. For one thing, it's pretty difficult to do fancy dodging and burning on a little contact print. You could register some kind of fancy mask that does that for you. But if you go to that kind of effort, you could just as well engineer this to accentuate the qualities of an enlargement. And that way you can bring out micro-details not typically visible in a smaller contact print. Tonal quality can also be forwarded all kinds of ways, and give even the best contact prints a run for their money. Again, it's the skill of the printmaker himself, and not just the character of the
medium which counts. But a silver print is never going to be precisely a platinum print, or visa versa, or an albumen print. Chocolate ice cream isn't supposed to taste like strawberry. Nice to have choices.

[Jim Noel]

A contact print made from a properly focused, exposed and properly processed negative, then properly exposed and processed on a paper designed for the process, such as Azo, Pt/Pd, or other alternative processes on hot pressed papers is a thing of absolute beauty. If any part of the process isn't up to standard, including attempting to make a contact print on enlarging paper, some part of the beauty is lost.
The most common mistake I see is using an enlarging paper which by it's nature has a shorter scale than a contact paper.

[Drew Wiley]

Numerous people have enlarged right onto contact papers. I've done it with Azo. Enlargers have even made with high-UV output for direct carbon or platinum enlarging. Maybe not the safest devices around; but this has been done much longer than most people realize. Fresson is a proprietary method using an antique carbon-arc enlarger. And like I said, the "scale" issue itself can easily be tweaked by anyone versed in advanced masking techniques. Conversely, I've seen proprietary platinum techniques offering more of a silver look, with a high D-Max and cold image tone. Now there are all kinds of hybrid options. But I would certainly agree with you, Jim, that a competently made Pt/pd etc print can have its own special kind of beauty, and really don't care about any of this
being "quantified" with a densitometer. But I also like the kind of richness and toning options that certain silver gelatin silver prints allow. I collect old albumen
prints, which have their own kind of understated richness. It's all good.

[Vaughn]

Drew made a point that I found interesting...printing larger for micro-detail.

If one decides to produce contact prints, then the image itself will be strongly driven by the size of the final print (and I suppose also by the expected viewing distance). A 40"x60" print viewed at 20 feet probably has no more micro-detail than an 8x10 contact print held in one's hands.

A recent show I had of platinum prints from contacted 6cmx6cm (120 film) images brought this to my attention. Images that would have looked great at just 8"x8" did not 'work' as contact prints -- just too busy at that size and composition fell apart. And the reverse is also can happen -- good looking small images that fall apart enlarged to bed-sheet size.

So my point? If one decides to contact print, then one will be led towards subjects and composition that work best at that size...hopefully without needing fancy masking.

[Drew Wiley]

Lots of now famous contact prints by legendary photograpers like Edward Weston or Wynn Bullock would simply fall apart at larger scale. Discrete areas of pure
black would become annoying patches of it, and many things would simply be annoyingly out of focus. And a surplus of tonality is meaningless if it's too fine for
the eye to see or the paper surface to even record. Same goes for detail. People might enjoy my big 30X40 prints for years as general compositions or color studies from a distance, but then one day walk up and discover yet another hidden detail. I had a friend who had a big print of a meadow of monkeyflower in the high country in his reception room for years, and valued it for the color and general subject; but then one day he noticed a mosquito perfectly in focus on one of
those flowers way out in the middle of that meadow. That's what large format film and serious enlargement can do. But "what if's" can be fun. And that's why I might take the same b&w negative successfully used for a 20X24 print, for example, and contact print it too. That why you too, Vaughn, break the "rules" and
make lovely carbon contacts from tiny 2-1/4 negatives. But masking is something I've always enjoyed.

[Sal Santamaura]

...If any part of the process isn't up to standard, including attempting to make a contact print on enlarging paper, some part of the beauty is lost...On this I disagree. I have 6,000 sheets of 8x10 Azo on hand, so my opinion isn't a result of not knowing the medium.

I find prints made on Ilford Multigrade Warmtone RC to be every bit as beautiful, if not more so, than those printed on Azo. Yet another situation that proves beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :)


...A recent show I had of platinum prints from contacted 6cmx6cm (120 film) images brought this to my attention. Images that would have looked great at just 8"x8" did not 'work' as contact prints -- just too busy at that size and composition fell apart...What paper was the platinum coated on? Smoothness/texture? Might they have 'worked' better on a sharp silver paper rather than platinum?

[Drew Wiley]

Sal, Azo was capable of bluish split toning. Olivia Parker did some exquisite large contact prints of open antique books etc which capitalized on this effect. But for
my own subjects, I have found this bluish tendency objectionable, but do love MGWT toning options. That's the main reason it's my favorite paper for contact work
as well as for certain enlargements. I know the product, and its highly versatile. It's the correct tool for me. The sum of those advantages, in my hands at least, add up to more than any specialty paper could, without discounting the advantages those special products provide to others.

[Mark Sawyer]

...Improvements haven't been so much in improving resolution, but in eliminating aberrations, adding contrast/reducing flare (through coatings), and adding modern shutters.


Not quite, Mark,
There are also improvements in distortion and fall off. Old lens may have been good but if maximum resolution, evenness of coverage, lack of distortion, best contrast, etc. the modern lens will perform much better. But it all depends on what you want and what you are satisfied with.

Distortion (barrel or pin cushion) is an aberration, which I mentioned, as I also mentioned contrast, (mind you, someone who knows what they're doing can boost contrast in processing more than enough to make overall contrast a non-issue, although the shadows will be muddied). I'm not sure what you mean by "evenness of coverage". Are you implying old lenses have dark or light areas within the image field?

As far as maximum resolution goes, after using both old and new lenses over many years, I'll stand by my statement. A decent old lens will give you more resolution than your eyes can discern in a contact print.

[Vaughn]

...
What paper was the platinum coated on? Smoothness/texture? Might they have 'worked' better on a sharp silver paper rather than platinum?

Excellent point, Sal. I was using some old Cranes Cover for the 2 1/4 platinums, and one side of the paper is slightly smoother than the other (and not easy to determine until the paper has been wet then dried. I needed to use a looking glass and side lighting to see the difference. But the slight difference made a noticable difference in image quality (enough that I reprinted the ones I accidentally printed on the 'wrong' side). Most (non-photography) folks may not even notice the difference in an 8x10 print.

My small carbon prints are totally different beasties than the platinums...tho most of the compositional considerations I give to the small PT prints are still needed for the carbon prints. But all the detail is there with incredible sharpness -- and with a raised relief to toss in another factor (sort of like silver gelatin on steroids.)

For the show of the 2 1/4 sq platinums, I supplied several looking glasses if someone wanted a closer look at the detail.

[N Dhananjay]

Plenty of food for thought here. Let me add a couple of additional things that may be relevant.

Contact printing restricts your choice of final size. That may sound like a downside to our 'choice is good' trained ears, but it liberated my own work. Since I was no longer thinking about what size the image would be when printed, which detail needed to be opened up etc. - 'seeing' became very, very direct. If it worked on the the ground glass, it was worth doing, otherwise, I moved on.

I also became more productive because I was no longer spending huge amounts of time chasing stuff in the darkroom - the more 'choice' in my enlarging days made me less productive. When enlarging, I would endlessly play the 'will cropping make this better?' and later I would play the 'will a different size make this better?' and other kinds of games. All of which kept me from being out making more work. Shifting to contact printing, things became much more direct for me - a failure when printing just served to inform me that my 'seeing' should have been better or taught me something I needed to learn, and I moved on.

Finally, all this helped to refine my own visual concerns to myself. A commitment to contact printing is unforgiving - if it doesn't work, you are forced to acknowledge that your 'seeing' failed you - you cannot hide behind an 'I'll make lemonade out of this later' attitude. The 'constraints' actually served to free me from myself - I know that sounds like a cheap Zen saying, a 'Yoda said that but he forgot his backward talking thing' kind of thing - but having experienced it, it was pretty powerful.

Cheers, DJ

[Fr. Mark]

DJ that's a very interesting point of view: fewer options gives better better work and higher productivity. I'm seriously considering getting a macro lens for a dslr to "scan" so I can do various tweaks incl. enlarge. Having 5 lenses and two formats for the Sinar is a different game than a fixed focal length camera...will have to ponder it more.

Having put a very modern SA 72mm on a 5x7 @f22 today and developed the film (Ektascan in PyrocatHD) I can say there's way way more detail on the film and glossy contact print than I can see w/o a loupe. I might like to buy that lens but I had to give it back...need $ for other things.

[John Olsen]

Way back at the start of this interesting discussion there was the complaint of a disappointing resolution of detail. Perhaps the core problem is mostly lack of adequate contact in the contact process. I don't have a vacuum system, but did find a nice improvement in my contacts by getting a heavier contact glass and weighing it down on the edges.

[Pere Casals]

Drew made a point that I found interesting...printing larger for micro-detail.

If one decides to produce contact prints, then the image itself will be strongly driven by the size of the final print (and I suppose also by the expected viewing distance). A 40"x60" print viewed at 20 feet probably has no more micro-detail than an 8x10 contact print held in one's hands.

A recent show I had of platinum prints from contacted 6cmx6cm (120 film) images brought this to my attention. Images that would have looked great at just 8"x8" did not 'work' as contact prints -- just too busy at that size and composition fell apart. And the reverse is also can happen -- good looking small images that fall apart enlarged to bed-sheet size.




Also everything it depends indivudual sight score. A man with 80 score won't notice as much detail than one with 130 score, by far.

This is the main factor that promotes controversy about that, of course.


The limit is organic.

In the case that a photograph display takes all of our field of vision we can see 8 perceptual Mpix if we don't move eyes, if seen without moving head but we move our eyes and we explore the field of view with our Fovea we can notice some 60 perceptual Mpix. This talking about people with 100 sight score.


Note that a 4x5 negative, if perfectly sharp, may contain 200 perceptual MPix, and a 8x10 may contain 800.

From some 50cm wide it does not mater if it is a larger print, as we have to look it fom a far position, in the case we are going to see all the photograph.


My opinion, (please reply if incorrect) is that a 50cm enlarged print will show more detail to the viewer than a 8x10 contact print. And if we enlarge to say 1m and we move back to se it we'll see the same detail than with a 50cm print.


Of couse a 1m large print seen at reading distance is another thing, then we'll need an eleagement from a 4x5 to display all the eye can see. For a 2m print seen at reading distance we need a 8x10 negative to display all that eye can see.



A 8x10 contact print is the perfection for a 8x10 print-size, we cannot see all detail by eye, and we can see more and more detail with a 8x magnifier, microcontrast will be the best possible... this is a high-end imaging device: gorgeus, gorgeus, gorgeus.


So at the end, if we are to print at 1:1 enlargement, the contact print is better because microcontrast and it has better detail if seen with a 4x or stronger maginifier. If we want a larger size it will show more detail to the viewer. (if negative is sharp)


So a 6x6cm Medium format sharp shot (example CZ 80mm 2.8 at F/8 on TMax 100) have detail to the extent our eyes can see. A 4x5" sharp negative has much more detail than a guy with 130 sight score can see, even with some not ideal shooting conditions.

And 8x10" is a gorgeus overkill. With a very sharp 8x10 negative (Sironar-S, f/11, TMax 100) we can enlarge 2m and see it at reading distance, with more detail than our eyes can see.


I feel privileged because I've 120 to 130 sight score (if wearing my glasses), so I can read small individual letters at 1.2m distance when the average can read it from just 1m. People with 140 can read same letters from 1.4m distance, and poeple with 80 score need to be at 0.8 the identify same size letters.





So my point? If one decides to contact print, then one will be led towards subjects and composition that work best at that size...hopefully without needing fancy masking.

I completely agree, contact print is well rewarding, but one has to keep in mind the format itsef. It is a good training, photographers can crop to any aspect ratio, cinematographers can't and every escene has that constraint, so format usage is also there.

[Jim Jones]

Way back at the start of this interesting discussion there was the complaint of a disappointing resolution of detail. Perhaps the core problem is mostly lack of adequate contact in the contact process. I don't have a vacuum system, but did find a nice improvement in my contacts by getting a heavier contact glass and weighing it down on the edges.

Two other factors that limit detail in contact printing are the material used to back up the photo paper and the size and distance of the light source. The backing material must be both firm and soft enough to insure good film to paper contact throughout the image. The felt used in some old contact printing frames was too thin (and often white!) to insure good print quality. A diffuse or large close light source demands more intimate contact between film and paper than a small distant light source. This was painfully true when duplicating 32x40" negatives onto slow diazo film with a large 10KW light source less than 3' above the vacuum table. Draw-down time was several minutes. A similar table could adequately draw down those negatives onto much faster litho film in seconds when using a tiny light source in the ceiling.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm certain that thousands of versions of this debate have transpired in one form or another over the years, and equally led to nowhere. Some of this would probably make any print shop veteran howl with laughter, concerning things they were expected to do well every single day, with appropriate gear of course.

[Bob Salomon]

Distortion (barrel or pin cushion) is an aberration, which I mentioned, as I also mentioned contrast, (mind you, someone who knows what they're doing can boost contrast in processing more than enough to make overall contrast a non-issue, although the shadows will be muddied). I'm not sure what you mean by "evenness of coverage". Are you implying old lenses have dark or light areas within the image field?

As far as maximum resolution goes, after using both old and new lenses over many years, I'll stand by my statement. A decent old lens will give you more resolution than your eyes can discern in a contact print.

Old lenses have more fall off across the field. Yes you can over develop to increase contrast, but the longer the film or paper is wet the more the grain structure swells. Modern lenses simply outperform old lenses. Do a head to head comparison yourself. Make it really tricky like front lighting coming directly into the lens. Or a scene where the sun creates veiling over the subject with that old lens. Pick a subject that has fine detail running out to the edges and corners.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[D. Bryant]

+1 on that!

[Ken Lee]

... I'm hoping I am missing something.

It's never just the final print, it's the entire process: getting to the subject, making the photograph, processing the image, printing, matting, framing, hanging, lighting, and exposing the photograph to the environment.

You may want a razor-sharp 16x20 contact print of an ice-cream cone on the top of a mountain, but due to optics and other conditions, most of the image may be out of focus and the strong lighting required may melt the subject. Besides, the equipment may be too heavy to carry to the location.

You may prefer the appearance of silver gelatin prints, but when you discover that their permanence is limited (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_permanence) compared to other methods, will you still prefer them ?

So to re-state the question: how good is the whole process ? Or better still, which process works best for you, for a given application ?

[IanG]

Old lenses have more fall off across the field. Yes you can over develop to increase contrast, but the longer the film or paper is wet the more the grain structure swells. Modern lenses simply outperform old lenses. Do a head to head comparison yourself. Make it really tricky like front lighting coming directly into the lens. Or a scene where the sun creates veiling over the subject with that old lens. Pick a subject that has fine detail running out to the edges and corners.

That's down to design even modern Schneider lenses have that if you chose a Xenar, my 150mm has a SN from the early part of this current century it's no better/worse than a pre WWI Tessar in terms of sharpness, you need f22 for best definition.

I've done a head to head test with a 1950's 150mm f4.5 CZJ "T" Tessar and modern MC Canon xooms and the Tessar carries on perfectly while the modern lenses are un-useable, I'd add the modern Xenar is similar but is neutral for coloor use, the Tessar's early coating gives a cold bluish cast. More recently it's surprised me how remarkably flare free a 1913 CP Goerx (Berlin) Dagor is.


Yes you can over develop to increase contrast, but the longer the film or paper is wet the more the grain structure swells. Modern lenses simply outperform old lenses.

What has the time a film or print is wet got to do with anything ? My background is as a photo/emulsion chemist and I've never once heard that, unless there's significant temperature shifts :D

Ian

[Vaughn]

I agree with Ken. To the point where being there is as important as the print of the image of the place where I am at.

[Fr. Mark]

+1 for the importance of film/printing paper contact. I used to use fairly thick plate glass, a piece of plywood with 2 layers of felt and plastic jaw spring clamps. Easy, inexpensive. Then I built a a split back contact printing frame for 8x10s. This has two sets of springs that engage slots to force contact between the negative and printing paper. I also have a curbside salvaged glass/wood cabinet door made into a contact printer for under the enlarger. The weight of the glass door is barely adequate. I really should put some sort of cam-lock on it.

As a young kid I printed through the paper of paper negatives---that results in dramatic loss of sharpness. I found the negatives and prints a year or two ago and finally printed them correctly and liked the results much better.

[Pere Casals]

More recently it's surprised me how remarkably flare free a 1913 CP Goerx (Berlin) Dagor is.


The Dagor has 4 glass-air surfaces, a plasmat basic design has 8, derivate designs can have more than 10. Coatings allowed designers to use more glass groups to enhance performace, so a given lens size will cover more and more perfectly.


Of course Dagor of the 1913 vintage can deliver impressive results.

[MODERATOR'S NOTE: gratuitous eBay link removed. Please review the eBay links clarification sticky in the News section.]

In general... LF photography is an overkill in image quality, all we know that... so even a 1913 lens has impressive results in a lot of situations.

If we have sun inside our framing a modern Sironar-S will reduce stray light, will deliver much better microcontrast, allow wider movements and have perfect sharpness in the corners because lower chromatic aberration there.

If there is no powerful bright points and we are not to enlarge beyond 20" the 1013 Dagor will do a perfect job, IMHO.

Also old lenses have an special atraction, and mood... who can resist taking fun with an Universal Heliar 36? :)

[jnantz]

Howdo all,

This may sound like a controversial question but it's not meant to be.

As the title says, how good are contact prints in reality?

The reason I ask is that I have thought about getting into ULF photography (or maybe sticking with the range 5x7 to 8x10) and doing contact printing - I lke the concept of a super sharp image showing a great range in tonality printed on silver (or platinum, etc.) where the image leaps out at you. However I've had a look at some contact prints, both 4x5 and 8x10 taken with good lenses, e.g., Goerz Red Dot Apo Artars, and have been distinctly underwhelmed with them.

I understand that images printed using the contact printing technique are supposed to ooze with detail (film and photographic paper allowing). I haven't seen this in any of the contacts I've seen. Even with the naked eye they do not appear sharp. Under the loupe there is no detail at all. Indeed, I've seen good (non-LF) inkjet prints show more detail (resolution rather than contrast) and even better tonality although under the loupe you see the pixelations (which I can never get used to hence my liking for silver prints).

Admittedly, none of the contact prints were taken with modern lenses but I can't imagine that the older 'good' lenses are that poor in resolving power even those which are a little compromised due to the larger image circle needed to cover 8x10. Is it that ALL the contact prints I have seen in person are just bad because the person making them had poor technique (some well known names here), a result of poor equipment (not likely), or, dare I say, contact prints aren't all they're cracked up to be?

I like silver prints - there's more substance to them and they're more marketable than an inkjet print (which can nonetheless be excellent in quality) so I'm hoping I am missing something.

:)

Cheers,
Duff

hi duff

they can be nice, really nice. it all depends on who made them
and a bucketfull of other things that some people touched upon in this thread.

enlargements can be nice too, really nice, and just like contact prints
it depends on the experience ( or inexperience ) of the person making them.

with photography there is no right or wrong, and a lot of things might
be worse or better depending on the skllset of the person doing it.

[bob carnie]

To the OP's question How good are contact prints in reality?

IMO they are fantastic and the very next wave of printmaking for all process.

I love the look of well executed prints done in this manner, you only have to look at Micheal and Paula prints, or Monty McCutchen's prints to see the beauty of large negative
and direct contact.
Has anyone seen Sandy Kings carbon transfer prints in person?, well once you have they will blow you away, Sandy is using medium format and digitally enlarging for contact process and the proof is in the pudding so to speak.

I have spent my whole career to date enlarging , or scanning and digitally printing, but in the last two years have spent an enormous amount of time making enlarged neg's in silver and inkjet Pictorico for various contact process.

I am betting the farm, or better yet , moving my whole production of high quality printmaking and photo services to contact process via enlarged negatives. ( I will still do enlarger prints on silver for clients that appreciate this art form)
The ability to create prints with simple setups, the ability to create custom profiles to aim one into one or two test to final printing and the customized, flexibility or using historically proven processes with state of the art capture devices is a game changer. Just imagine that any process whether its silver, pt pd, gum, lith, solarization, cyanotype....... at your finger tips with a timer vacum frame and simple bulb.

So yes the farm is on the line, I am walking down this path and I think its the most exciting way of making prints for seasoned veterans and new comers to our common passion which is Photography.

[Pere Casals]

Add like to add the personal results I found by comparing 8x10 contact prints with 1:1 enlargements.


Conditions: I used a CAMBO as a enlarger, the negative was in the back and the lens was a Sironar-N 300mm.


I found that:

Sharpness: Difference only noticed with a magnifier, I used a 8x one. (I've a normal to good sight score, 120)

Microcontrast: slightly better with contact print vs "condenser type" enlarger, this throwing light to the negative with a slide projector.

I've also simulated a difusser type enlarger with a GG before negative, then the microcontrast was a bit worse.

IMHO the real difference of a contact print is mainly microntrast, specially if we compare with difusser type enlarger prints, that difference is much less in the case of condenser type enlarger.

So with certain scenes it can make a slight difference if we just want same print size as the negative, if we plan to enlarge, of course an enlarged print will display much more detail richness to the viewer.

These is what I personally concluded.

Also I like the purity and straight process to make a contact print, it can be done from 8x10" in a bathroom. A 8x10" enlarger do not fit in every bathroom :)

[bob carnie]

How does a Cambo film camera with a 300 mm lens turn into a Condenser Type of enlarger- are you kidding here?

[Pere Casals]

How does a Cambo film camera with a 300 mm lens turn into a Condenser Type of enlarger- are you kidding here?

Hello Bob,

No kidding at all:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/27823423611/in/dateposted-public/

In this picture a LOMO 600 is in place, but it needs monocrhome green light (I guess) to perform without chromatic aberration so I used the Sironar to use filters for the variable contrast paper.


Mr Ansel Adams "told me" how to do it :)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fredjohnson/2465540103

Of couse I placed paper on the wall... like Mr Adams...


The "condenser type" was implemented by using as slide projector to throw light across the negative it's a good idea !!


Regards.


PD: During lots of decades photographers were using the view camera as his enlarger. This is very well known...

I'm to prepare a youtube video next month with the tips, I found it can be useful for people that cannot own an 8x10" enlarger.

I had some falloff, I plan to solve if with a plastic fresnel to drive most of light from the negative to the lens pupil.

[bob carnie]

I have no doubt about a few things.

One of those things is that I am pretty sure you are a bit out there with your photography, and your flicker link pretty much tells me all I need to know about your working methods.

[Pere Casals]

I have no doubt about a few things.

One of those things is that I am pretty sure you are a bit out there with your photography, and your flicker link pretty much tells me all I need to know about your working methods.


Bob, I'm learning and experimenting, I'm taking a lot of fun, and I'm very happy. I'm not a professional, and don't sell my work. Just I enjoy making photographs and viewing other's work.

My tools are not the best by far, but this has little importance to me, when I've a material limitation I try to remember that Michelangelo made the Pietà with a bare hammer...

Anyway, congratulations for having better tools and working methods, I seen your work and it is great.


If you want to discuss the objective quality parameters from a contact print, I'm open, please quote any of the statements (Resolution, Microcontrast) I made before if you don't agree.

[Ken Lee]

The reason I ask is that I have thought about getting into ULF photography (or maybe sticking with the range 5x7 to 8x10) and doing contact printing

The OP is asking about the quality of contact prints made directly from in-camera negatives.

[Pere Casals]

The OP is asking about the quality of contact prints made directly from in-camera negatives.

I have a very precise answer to that:

The image quality will be some 50 Lp/mm with Ilford MG RC paper, in USAF 1951 terms, if that Image Quality is also present in the negative. (A human wiever don't notice quality beyond 7 Lp/mm, in high contrast conditions) To compare, a print 1:1 from an enlarger may render 20Lp/mm, also in USAF 1951 terms.

Probably the negative won't reach that level, for the moment a common ULF lens with such image circle won't perform 50Lp/mm in practice, later consider corners, focus, small aperture, shake, wind...

Also film can be a limitation, in practice for a +50Lp/mm sharp ULF film you have to go Ilford, say Delta 100:

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20163291435591962.pdf

Fiber Based paper will deliver a bit lower resolution, but it won't be noticed at all without a magnifier.

About microcontrast, it will be slightly higher than with a condenser enlarger, and a bit more difference with difusser enlarger, I can't say how much numerically. Has anybody numbers for that?

[bob carnie]

Pere

One of my mentors told me very early not to argue with others on the internet, as a small business owner I have found his advice to be of great value since joining this site over 12 years.

good luck with your journeys in photography, right now I do not have interest in discussing the objective quality parameters from a contact print with you.

thank you for thinking my work is great, I would suggest a good place to learn and experiment here is by posting images of your work and there are many here who will help you with constructive critiques .

Bob

Bob, I'm learning and experimenting, I'm taking a lot of fun, and I'm very happy. I'm not a professional, and don't sell my work. Just I enjoy making photographs and viewing other's work.

My tools are not the best by far, but this has little importance to me, when I've a material limitation I try to remember that Michelangelo made the Pietà with a bare hammer...

Anyway, congratulations for having better tools and working methods, I seen your work and it is great.


If you want to discuss the objective quality parameters from a contact print, I'm open, please quote any of the statements (Resolution, Microcontrast) I made before if you don't agree.

[Sal Santamaura]

...A human wiever don't notice quality beyond 7 Lp/mm, in high contrast conditions...Whether 7 or 5 or 10, I've always felt those low numbers to be rather misleading. My experience correlates very well with 30 lp/mm when discussing the ultimate sharpness one can see in contact prints on the most capable silver gelatin papers. I'm not alone in that position. Read pages 1 through 4 here:


http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf

[Pere Casals]

Pere

I would suggest a good place to learn and experiment here is by posting images of your work and there are many here who will help you with constructive critiques .

Bob

Thanks, I'll do it.

For the moment I've only two 8x10 negatives, both are well exposed and developed IMHO, I'm working with both in the darkroom, contact printing, to obtain a good result. For the moment with RC paper to learn.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/24852468435/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/23276488430/in/dateposted-public/

I have to make better size reductions, I've jpg artifacts, then I'll post both here to get advice.

[Pere Casals]

Whether 7 or 5 or 10, I've always felt those low numbers to be rather misleading. My experience correlates very well with 30 lp/mm when discussing the ultimate sharpness one can see in contact prints on the most capable silver gelatin papers. I'm not alone in that position. Read pages 1 through 4 here:


http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf

First, This depends on the sight score every person have, and if one has a bit near-sightedness then one can see the print closer.

Thanks for the link. I've saved it and I'll read more in the future.



Yes, in your link I found that:

"In other words, the resolution
difference between 10 lp/mm of sharp edges and
fuzzy ones is way down around 30 lp/mm. When
we notice a difference between those blurry and
sharp 10 lp/mm lines, we are responding to detail
at 30 lp/mm, even though we can’t directly see it."


But this numbers have little meaning, first because there are almost no photographic subject that have 1:1000 or even 1:100 microcontrast that can take advantage of 10 or 30 Lp/mm. A strong illuminated area can be at 8 stops of a shadow, but in each area "internal" contrast will be much lower, This then goes compressed to a negative in terms of density.

Also a print paper can render less than 1:100 reflective density contrast, this with total white strips/dots at the side at the side of total black strips/dots, this is a near imposible situation with photographic subjects, in practice. For this reason the 7 Lp/mm is assumed as the practical limit. If you have "tonality" in your print... beyond 7Lp/mm one has to be an eagle...

This is what I understand, I may be mistaken, please reply me if what I say is not correct, this is that in practice a print has not the 1:1000 microcontrast, but perhaps 1:20, that will not allow to feel 30Lp/mm but only 7Lp/mm.

[Bill Burk]

I think I've said this a few times so stop me if I'm repeating myself...

I've always preferred the 11x14 print size with dirty borders from filed carriers and somewhere around a quarter to a half inch of white paper surrounding the image.

When I realized I couldn't in my lifetime approach the quality and body of work of Ansel Adams, I started looking for a more realistic role model.

One I found, George Fiske, worked in the 1880's and made a catalog of shots around Yosemite. I picked up a couple of his contact prints on albumen paper mounted on cheap cardboard. They're a little yellowed and possibly faded, but otherwise held up reasonably well for their age.

Under 30x microscope, the pebbles of the Merced river show clearly defined edges on one of Fiske's prints. There are occasional sparkles which may be coating defects or actual image detail, I don't know but they add to the impression of sharpness.

I don't know why everyone asserts you can't see detail with the human eye. We can see stars. When you compare vision with hearing, even though the ear can only hear 14,000hz it is apparent to me that when a recording is limited to that frequency, I can tell. (I listen to 78's on a turntable and can tell the difference between a recording of playback versus live playback... the difference is apparent to me even if you say people can't hear the difference, somehow I can feel the difference).

There is a difference between Fiske's contact prints and my enlargements from 4x5 under the microscope. I've accepted my limitations regarding this quality difference. Even though I settle for enlargements, I assert contact prints are better. You can sense the difference even if you can't prove it.

[Jim Jones]

I agree with Bill that we can sense more than we can apparently hear, see, or feel. The difference may be too slight to matter in everyday life, but can become significant in the pursuit of perfection.

[jnantz]

If you want to discuss the objective quality parameters from a contact print, I'm open, please quote any of the statements (Resolution, Microcontrast) I made before if you don't agree.

the answer like everything else, is subjective.
to some people lines per mm resolution or micro contrast are the reasons they use a LF camera
to others they are things that don't care about..

[Bob Salomon]

the answer like everything else, is subjective.
to some people lines per mm resolution or micro contrast are the reasons they use a LF camera
to others they are things that don't care about..

Just as a point of interest. When you look at say a Rodenstock MTF chart they are not talking about lines per mm. They are talking about line pairs per mm.

See here: http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/products/professional-lenses-digital/hr-digaron-s

[jnantz]

Just as a point of interest. When you look at say a Rodenstock MTF chart they are not talking about lines per mm. They are talking about line pairs per mm.

See here: http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/products/professional-lenses-digital/hr-digaron-s

thanks bob,
im glad you are correcting me, that shows how little resolution charts &c are in my mind
i didn't even know they were pairs or single lines :)
john

[Jim Fitzgerald]

If you are into the science of contact prints vs. enlargements I guess one can debate this issue forever. We have to decide what is best for us. I'm an artist who decided to contact print 8x10, 8x20, 11x14 and 14x17. I took it a step further and dedicated myself to printing carbon transfer. I love the prints I make and that is what matters. It is a feeling for me and I hope it is so for everyone. A good print is a good print regardless how you get there.... For me. I happen to love contact prints and feel that I have some nice ones.

[IanG]

If you are into the science of contact prints vs. enlargements I guess one can debate this issue forever. We have to decide what is best for us. I'm an artist who decided to contact print 8x10, 8x20, 11x14 and 14x17. I took it a step further and dedicated myself to printing carbon transfer. I love the prints I make and that is what matters. It is a feeling for me and I hope it is so for everyone. A good print is a good print regardless how you get there.... For me. I happen to love contact prints and feel that I have some nice ones.


Most of us can appreciate that. It's a good summary.

For myself I went to 10x8 intendinding just to contact print but the dilemnma is the prints would be xhibited along side large prints mde from 5x4 negatives. I was prepared for that but when I looked at my fisrt 10x8 images I knew I had to enlarge them and bought a De Vere 5108 within a few days (still plentiful and cheap 12 years ago second hand).

A lot of it's about how we work, and also the projects we work on, I could see using contact prints for entirely separate new projecs, I've learnt Platinum and Albumen printing and sometime soon will start projects working differently.

Ian

[ic-racer]

As good as the photographer...always have been and always will be.

[Pere Casals]

As good as the photographer...always have been and always will be.

This is the best answer. At the end the Pietà was made with a bare hammer.

Sculptor was good.

The result was that good... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet%C3%A0_(Michelangelo)

The tool was simple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer :)

[Pere Casals]

the answer like everything else, is subjective.
to some people lines per mm resolution or micro contrast are the reasons they use a LF camera
to others they are things that don't care about..

Of course photography has both sides, technical and artistic, and the artistic side is the important one. LF overkills about image quality, so sometimes discussion is sterile.

But anyway we can ask about the image quality concern to know...

I think that the difference between a contact print and a 1:1 enlargement is an interesting topic.

In my opinion difference is more related to microcontrast than to optical resolution because quality microcontrast enhances perceived sharpness. This is just an undocumented opinion, I'd like to know it for sure.

[Mark Sawyer]

This is the best answer. At the end the Pietà was made with a bare hammer.

Sculptor was good...

Not a bare hammer; multiple hammers of different weights, plus a set of various chisels (flat, rounded, toothed, etc.), rasps, points, etc., and that's leaving out tools for the the rough and final polishes...

[Bill_1856]

Thanks everyone - that's reassuring to know it's the system and operator at fault in these poor contact prints.


St. Ansel has studied it, and has told us that an enlargement can have more and better detail than a contact print.

[Pere Casals]

Not a bare hammer; multiple hammers of different weights, plus a set of various chisels (flat, rounded, toothed, etc.), rasps, points, etc., and that's leaving out tools for the the rough and final polishes...


Yes sure he had a collection of fine hammers, but for sure that if he had a single hammer and a rasp same result would be there.

Normally sculptors have 3 hammers of aprox 1lb, 1.5lbs and 2.5lbs. But with the 1.5lbs one you can do all, I guess :).

[Vaughn]

Thanks everyone - that's reassuring to know it's the system and operator at fault in these poor contact prints.


St. Ansel has studied it, and has told us that an enlargement can have more and better detail than a contact print.

A well-know photographer friend (and teacher) of mine asked AA for some advice -- Should he go up to 11x14 or stay with 5x7 and enlarge to 11x14? AA's answer was to stick with 5x7, but the primary reason was that longer lenses required for the 11x14 would create DoF issues for my friend that out-weighed the enlargement factor. In this case, the advise was golden. YMMD.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] St. Ansel has studied it, and has told us that an enlargement can have more and better detail than a contact print.

To appreciate detail it has to be large enough to see. Unless the subject is highly susceptible to acutance (human perception of sharpness), and printed to be seen at a reasonable nominal viewing distance, it may as well not be there. So sure, many enlargements done properly can have, or seem to have more detail.

[Mark Sawyer]

St. Ansel has studied it, and has told us that an enlargement can have more and better detail than a contact print.

I have my doubts. Do you have source for this?

As John Schaeffer wrote in The Ansel Adams Guide (Book 2, page 114, although here about making copy negatives), "Contact printing can produce a more faithful copy of an original because projecting an image through a lens inevitably degrades image quality."

[Mark Sawyer]

Yes sure he had a collection of fine hammers, but for sure that if he had a single hammer and a rasp same result would be there.

Normally sculptors have 3 hammers of aprox 1lb, 1.5lbs and 2.5lbs. But with the 1.5lbs one you can do all, I guess :).

A hammer without a chisel is as useless to a sculptor as a camera without a lens would be to a photographer. The point of all this being, fine craftsmen appreciate fine tools and use them to the fullest potential.

Sorry, I'm in an argumentative mood this morning! :)

[Pere Casals]

A hammer without a chisel is as useless to a sculptor as a camera without a lens would be to a photographer. The point of all this being, fine craftsmen appreciate fine tools and use them to the fullest potential.

Sorry, I'm in an argumentative mood this morning! :)

Well here is night, I'm near Barcelona. English is my third language, first is Catalan, second is Spanish, I've learnt a new word: "chisel" :) thanx

[Bob Salomon]

Well here is night, I'm near Barcelona. English is my third language, first is Catalan, second is Spanish, I've learnt a new word: "chisel" :) thanx

Great! But, in English, chisel has additional meanings.

If someone tries to sell you something for much more then it is worth then ne is chiseling you. On the other hand if someone wants to buy something for less then you want then he is trying to chisel you.

[Pere Casals]

Great! But, in English, chisel has additional meanings.

If someone tries to sell you something for much more then it is worth then ne is chiseling you. On the other hand if someone wants to buy something for less then you want then he is trying to chisel you.

Thanks Bob !

It's always great to learn something from you, this time is not about glass :) but I'll also remember it !!! chiseling vs to chisel I've just been chiseled with some CDU-II at ebay, so now I can put it in context !

Regards

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks Bob !

It's always great to learn something from you, this time is not about glass :) but I'll also remember it !!! chiseling vs to chisel I've just been chiseled with some CDU-II at ebay, so now I can put it in context !

Regards

Thanks, just don't get know as a chiseler. Unless you work with a hammer and chisel.

[Alan Gales]

Thanks, just don't get know as a chiseler. Unless you work with a hammer and chisel.

Or you are a lawyer or used car salesman. Then you are considered successful! :)

[Bob Salomon]

Or you are a lawyer or used car salesman. Then you are considered successful! :)

Or a banker or broker, the list is endless!

[Jim Jones]

A well-know photographer friend (and teacher) of mine asked AA for some advice -- Should he go up to 11x14 or stay with 5x7 and enlarge to 11x14? AA's answer was to stick with 5x7, but the primary reason was that longer lenses required for the 11x14 would create DoF issues for my friend that out-weighed the enlargement factor. In this case, the advise was golden. YMMD.

When photographs from contact prints and different formats are compared at identical image size, the DOF is identical as long as the entrance pupils are identical. It's all a matter of external geometry.

[Vaughn]

Geometry aside, in the real world, focal length makes a difference in DoF.

Somehow I managed to get the quote-system of the forum in a bit of a mess!

MODERATOR'S NOTE: No problem! I think I have it all cleaned up now - let me know if I've missed anything. -Oren

[Fr. Mark]

The DoF argument seems like a strong argument for smaller films and enlarging. The detail on my films I can't see in a contact print bugs me too. That won't change even at 14x17, but building that camera etc will be costly (time, money). Maybe I really do need to figure out how to use a dslr and a macro lens to enlarge/scan.

[Vaughn]

The question is; does one need tons of detail? As I said earlier, one can create an image that best suits the print size. If one is not getting the detail in the contact print that one needs to carry the image, that is not the fault of the contact print, but the fault of the photographer.

[freecitizen]

Originally posted by Bob Carnie ..........

IMO they are fantastic and the very next wave of printmaking for all process.

I love the look of well executed prints done in this manner, you only have to look at Micheal and Paula prints, or Monty McCutchen's prints to see the beauty of large negative
and direct contact.
Has anyone seen Sandy Kings carbon transfer prints in person?, well once you have they will blow you away, Sandy is using medium format and digitally enlarging for contact process and the proof is in the pudding so to speak.

I have spent my whole career to date enlarging , or scanning and digitally printing, but in the last two years have spent an enormous amount of time making enlarged neg's in silver and inkjet Pictorico for various contact process.

I am betting the farm, or better yet , moving my whole production of high quality printmaking and photo services to contact process via enlarged negatives. ( I will still do enlarger prints on silver for clients that appreciate this art form)
The ability to create prints with simple setups, the ability to create custom profiles to aim one into one or two test to final printing and the customized, flexibility or using historically proven processes with state of the art capture devices is a game changer. Just imagine that any process whether its silver, pt pd, gum, lith, solarization, cyanotype....... at your finger tips with a timer vacum frame and simple bulb.

So yes the farm is on the line, I am walking down this path and I think its the most exciting way of making prints for seasoned veterans and new comers to our common passion which is Photography.

Bob

I am delighted to read this ..... I had come to the same conclusion and thought I was the only one.

I have a good vacuum easel I'm setting up. Currently trying to work out which printer/ink to go with. Stuck on the pizza wheel issue just now.

The new Silver chloride papers like Lupex make this a terrific option to explore .... and the idea of contact printing negs of digital IR shots and then lith development .... is the most exciting I have had in years ..

Many Thanks Bob, for letting me know I am not on my own in pursuing this method of working.

[bob carnie]

Not alone one bit- I believe the silver chloride papers like Lodima and Lupex will work fantastic, I received some from Micheal Smith, he was generous enough to send me
a box of paper to try out with my negs.
The door is open and all young workers who have never used film and quite frankly have no reason to date will be able to enjoy some of the world many here enjoy on a weekly basis.



Bob

I am delighted to read this ..... I had come to the same conclusion and thought I was the only one.

I have a good vacuum easel I'm setting up. Currently trying to work out which printer/ink to go with. Stuck on the pizza wheel issue just now.

The new Silver chloride papers like Lupex make this a terrific option to explore .... and the idea of contact printing negs of digital IR shots and then lith development .... is the most exciting I have had in years ..

Many Thanks Bob, for letting me know I am not on my own in pursuing this method of working.

[Sal Santamaura]

The question is; does one need tons of detail?...In my opinion, the question is does one want tons of detail.

Just as the matter of "art" is personal -- it's whatever someone thinks it it -- so is the question of how much detail is needed. That's an individual aesthetic question irrespective of print size.

Sometimes remembering that not everyone has our sexagenerian eyes is important. :D

[duff photographer]

Thanks everyone for your input and discussion - it has been informative.

I now know I'm on the right track - contact printing in the range of 5x7 to 8x10, and possibly looking at alternative printing such as carbon printing (which I had an interest in a while ago but now should revisit) but that's a digression.

Thanks all!

Duff

[Vaughn]

In my opinion, the question is does one want tons of detail...

I'll stick with "need" only because the my needs are driven by what I want the final print to look like, and the amount of detail is just one of the factors I need to determine to arrive at that final print. But I think we are on the same page.

Being very near-sighted, I can see detail in prints most cannot without aid. I can be seen in galleries with my nose 4 inches from the glass!

DP -- carbon printing is a blast, and a challenge.

[Alan Gales]

Being very near-sighted, I can see detail in prints most cannot without aid. I can be seen in galleries with my nose 4 inches from the glass!


"Sharp at normal viewing distances" is fine for billboards. I'm with you though, Vaughn. I put my nose up to the print!

[Drew Wiley]

Detail, lack of detail - both are tools you can employ to your own ends. Vermeer deliberately painted things with "flawed" edges analogous to how less than perfect human vision actually sees things. Of course, you need to put you nose right up to these little painting to appreciate this fact! So we could talk about nuance and microtonality in a photographic print, and not just quantity of detail, and arrive at the same conclusion .... namely, if it is there, people will inevitably or eventually
approach the print to enjoy that. If it ain't there, then you might as well sub out the work to the billboard company. I never did believe in that "normal viewing distance" nonsense.

[Nitesail]

Plenty of food for thought here. Let me add a couple of additional things that may be relevant.

Contact printing restricts your choice of final size. That may sound like a downside to our 'choice is good' trained ears, but it liberated my own work. Since I was no longer thinking about what size the image would be when printed, which detail needed to be opened up etc. - 'seeing' became very, very direct. If it worked on the the ground glass, it was worth doing, otherwise, I moved on.

I also became more productive because I was no longer spending huge amounts of time chasing stuff in the darkroom - the more 'choice' in my enlarging days made me less productive. When enlarging, I would endlessly play the 'will cropping make this better?' and later I would play the 'will a different size make this better?' and other kinds of games. All of which kept me from being out making more work. Shifting to contact printing, things became much more direct for me - a failure when printing just served to inform me that my 'seeing' should have been better or taught me something I needed to learn, and I moved on.

Finally, all this helped to refine my own visual concerns to myself. A commitment to contact printing is unforgiving - if it doesn't work, you are forced to acknowledge that your 'seeing' failed you - you cannot hide behind an 'I'll make lemonade out of this later' attitude. The 'constraints' actually served to free me from myself - I know that sounds like a cheap Zen saying, a 'Yoda said that but he forgot his backward talking thing' kind of thing - but having experienced it, it was pretty powerful.

Cheers, DJ

+1