Why do the contact prints look so good?

[MaryAnne]

In looking at contact prints from some very good photographers who use 8x10 and 11x14 cameras I see their photos look so good. Much better than those with 35mm film and enlarged. I thought it would be the other way around with 35mm having the sharpest lenses and the newest film technologies.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

ah but you have to enlarge the negative. When you enlarge you magnify not only the grain but the spaces between the grain, these spaces have no image and thus are called fog (non image forming exposure). when you contact print you minimize this effect and you get the wondeful texture and "feel" of what you are seeing. It is the reason why so many photographers still carry many punds of equipment just to take one or two photogrpahs. In addition when you contact print you minimize the lens failures and so many other factors that become more apparent when you enlarge a negative.

[Doug Paramore]

MaryAnne: There is a lot more to picture quality than sharpness and film technology. With LF, there is simply more room on the negative to register detail and tone. There is a smoothness with a LF contact that cannot be obtained from enlarging small negatives. Even a piece of junk lens on an 8x10 can give you remarkable contact prints. The modern 35mm cameras and lenses are certainly state of the art, but cannot make up for the small negative. 35mm has its place in photography, but ultimate print quality is not it.

Regards,

[J. P. Mose]

MaryAnne,

The new film technologies, as you describe, also apply to large format as well. Regarding lenses being better for 35mm; if one was to compress the image circle from a lens designed for a 4 X 5 format (for example) down to a 35mm format, I think you would find resolution per MM is as good as a 35mm lens....maybe better. As the others have stated, sharpness isn't everything....lack of grain and outstanding tonal quality also make large format better than smaller formats. I am always amazed at 19th century photos, many which are contact prints. The quality of some of the civil war photos makes my jaw drop!

J. P. Mose

[Andy Eads]

MaryAnne, When an negative is enlarged, it passes through yet one more optical system, the enlarger lens. All lenses have some degree of internal flare and abberations. The net effect is that the tone reproduction of the negative is compromised to some degree. A good enlarging system (light source, lens, safelight, light baffling, etc.) minimize these effects but will not eliminate them. A contact print, however, eliminates these optical effects. Borrowing from terminology that radio and TV people use, the signal to noise ratio in large format is much better than smaller formats. If you put a 35mm camera along side a 8x10 with lenses that cover the same field of view, the 8x10 will record the image on a detector that has nearly 50 times the area. That translates into 1/50th the grain and 50 times the information capacity. The signal (picture) to noise (grain, dust, etc.) ratio is 50 times better. It's like the difference between AM radio and FM: clarity frequency response and dynamic range. Even if the lens on the 8x10 were only half as sharp as the 35mm, you still have an enormous difference between the images. When you get the exposure and development of the negative just right, there is nothing that compares with the beauty of a good contact print.

[RICHRRD ILOMAKI]

Mary Anne:

I am surprised no one has mentioned the Callier effect. It is a continuing source of argument among photogs.

Ansel Adams used a flat light source as do many other LF types, including Kodak.

Theory has it that light close to a source such as a condenser lens or a dichroic head loses definition when passing thru the relatively densly packed silver grains in highlights. This loses the subtlety and creaminess (i.e. smooth transition from light to dark in continous tone subjects) that comes from a contct print made with light that has travelled a foot or so from the source before passing thru the silver. Cold light heads- Zone VI from Calumet, Aristo among others reduce this effect even in 35mm.

Some users of condenser enlargers claim it is all hogwash but I have seen in many times, thus explaining my move to 4x5 then 8x10 with contact prints. I also have a full battery of 35 & MF toys but large negs can NOT be beaten.

New inkjet technology with dedicted software and five shades of grey plus black ink comes close.

Adams "The Print" delves into this fully, as does Fred Picker's "Zone VI Workshop".

Cheers

[Wilhelm]

You are comparing apples with oranges. There are many superb 35mm enlargements which can't be visually distinguished from 8x10 contact prints.

[Turner Reich]

MaryAnne, one rule which you might think about is the 2x rule. A 4x5 enlarged to a max of 2x is 8x10. 5x7 at 2x a little less than 11x14 max size. What if your 35mm was enlarged to 2x? A very small print right? But the quality, what is the quality like? Try and see what the max size you can enlarge a 35mm to and still have the quality you desire. I did once and for me it was about 4.5x. It's a small print but for the quality I wanted that's what it was.

Solution; larger negative format. A 645 makes a very very nice 5x7, then it goes up in size. When you get to the 5x7 format you will have the option to contact print or enlarge. The same is true with all sizes from there up. A 4x5 is about the absolute smallest print that is useful except in an album.
If you like the quality then look for a larger format or make smaller prints.

[GPS]

A wonderful question, in fact you're absolutely right - isn't it marvelous, almost incredible, that such a simple thing as a format size is even more important for the picture quality than "the sharpest lenses and the newest film technologies"?
And by the way, nice to see you around, Jorge.

[Michael Alpert]

Although what you are stating about contact prints is quite accurate (contact prints do look sharper than many 35mm enlargements), all that clarity comes at the price of comfort and spontaneity. There are large-format photographers who frequently produce photographs that have the fluidity (if that's the right word) of images from smaller formats, but it is a push to get there.

[naturephoto1]

Ah, guys, nice to open an old thread, but I do not think that Mary Anne is going to read this response. She hasn't been on the site since January 28, 2002. :eek: ;)

Rich

[tim atherton]

And by the way, nice to see you around, Jorge.

thankfully that's only his ghost from 2002. This place is now more civilized by an order of magnitude

[GPS]

Ah, guys, nice to open an old thread, but I do not think that Mary Anne is going to read this response. She hasn't been on the site since January 28, 2002. :eek: ;)

Rich

Right again, Nphoto! Although I noticed that too, before my answer I had a phone call and forgot that altogether... What a wonderful medium the digital is...

[Colin Robertson]

Actualy, Tim, I think that if Jorge is really banned from this site then we are all the poorer for it. No, I have never fallen out with him (or anyone else here) and so have never experienced Jorge's now famous ill-temper. BUT, he is, no matter what you think of his manner, a real advocate for photography- not just as a 'passtime' but as Art, as a thing to love, as a LIFE. It just oozes out of the man. He lives for photography. Do we really want to lose that kind of passion and depth of experience? Okay, do I like seeing him scrap with Steve Simmons, or Frank?
Hell no, I HATE it, but I think we need to cut some slack for a man who mostly gets himself in trouble for wanting us all do better, to try harder, to think more. Do we just want 'easy'?? Look at his photographs, then try to tell me we're better without him.

P.S.- Sorry Frank- I love you too! I know you and Jorge sometimes get to ripping pieces off each other, but the pair of you make some of the most interesting posts here. Hang loose, big guy.

[tim atherton]

Actualy, Tim, I think that if Jorge is really banned from this site then we are all the poorer for it. No, I have never fallen out with him (or anyone else here) and so have never experienced Jorge's now famous ill-temper. BUT, he is, no matter what you think of his manner, a real advocate for photography- not just as a 'passtime' but as Art, as a thing to love, as a LIFE. It just oozes out of the man. .

nope - just mean spirited and vicious and we are better off with things as they are now. There are ways to disagree, and even get hot under the collar while still remaining somewhat civil - but we are talking about something of an entirely different order

[william linne]

I used to really champion contact prints above all. Then I gained access to an 8x10 enlarger and started enlarging to 16x20. I really feel that the tonality "opens up" if you enlarge it a little. 16x20 is what? a 2x enlargement? You can really get the feeling of being able to step into a print at that size from a 8x10 negative. Or maybe I am just full of shit. It really could go either way.

W.

[naturephoto1]

I used to really champion contact prints above all. Then I gained access to an 8x10 enlarger and started enlarging to 16x20. I really feel that the tonality "opens up" if you enlarge it a little. 16x20 is what? a 2x enlargement? You can really get the feeling of being able to step into a print at that size from a 8x10 negative. Or maybe I am just full of shit. It really could go either way.

W.

Hi William

Not really. When you start printing to 24" X 30" you begin to feel you are there; and at about 30" X 37 1/2" or 30" X 40" you begin to feel that you are stepping into the image.

Rich

[Jay DeFehr]

Jorge is banned? I think some people are just too thin-skinned. Jorge and I don't always agree, we sometimes have heated debates, and I agree that Jorge can be ill tempered, but I value his point of view, and appreciate his contributions here. I hope the powers that be will reconsider, and that Jorge will not be too proud to return.

Jay

Jay

[Colin Robertson]

Hi Tim. I am truly sorry to see that your relationship with Jorge has been so painful. With 7 billion people in the world we LF togs really are a very small band indeed. It is a pity when there is ill-feeling or bitterness here.
I respect your opinion on this, but, equally, I do think we have lost something. Maybe it's just my age, but I feel very sad now when I see such things. I've never met you, or Jorge, but when we fail to find common ground it makes me wonder how those with bigger issues to worry about can make their peace.
Good light and good shooting to you, Tim, and if I have to be the only one on the forum who misses Jorge then so be it.
I'll raise a glass to you know, Jorge. Miss ya fella.

[Aaron van de Sande]

I hope its temporary

[tim atherton]

Jorge is banned? I think some people are just too thin-skinned. Jorge and I don't always agree, we sometimes have heated debates, and I agree that Jorge can be ill tempered, but I value his point of view, and appreciate his contributions here. I hope the powers that be will reconsider, and that Jorge will not be too proud to return.

Jay

Jay

He comes on under another log on every couple of days demanding an apology...

I've seen him on here viciously verbally attack the children and families of posters just because they happened to disagree with him. That kind of behaviour is beyond the pale.

I know of several here over the years who were long time valuable members who simply left because of it. As a group we've lost much more than we never gained by being so tolerant of such boorish behaviour

[Colin Robertson]

24x30??
30x40???
Are these digital prints, or wet? I only print silver and I'm hankering to go big. BUT- how do you wash really big prints? Okay, I know RC is easy, but I'd love to make some HUGE long lasting FB silver prints. Who's been there?

[naturephoto1]

Hi Colin,

Robert Teague (roteague) and I and several others have digital output of our 4 X 5 Velvia and Provia Transparencies printed by way of Chromira Digital Printers (images scanned by a Heidelberg Tango). If I need to print larger than a 30" X 37 1/2" print I output through a LightJet Printer. I have been digitally printing my Transparencies for 12 years so far with Bill Nordstrom (Laser Light Photographics) as my printer for all of that time. Bill was the founder of EverColor Fine Art.

About 5?? years ago I ran around at Photo Plus in New York City with some of the prints (16" X 20"??). Ron Wisner was so amazed (he thought the images looked like they were taken with an 8 X 10) that he left his booth and went over to talk with Bill.

Rich

[Colin Robertson]

Richard, many thanks for such a swift respon newse. Right now, I'm on a kind of cusp. For a long time I've been a B&W darkroom printer. Now, though, I feel I just have to do something new, or different, to give me a point of focus, or direction. Challenge is good. Maybe shooting colour, or allowing somebody else to print it, is right . . .

[naturephoto1]

Hi Colin,

Part of what is so remarkable about the fine grain transparencies is the fine grain and how sharp they really are. It allows 4 X 5 to be digitally printed quite large with great detail rivalling 8 X 10 printed by hand. It affords those that are landscape photographers the opportunity to carry a lighter load further into the field when working with our high quality optics.

Rich

[Colin Robertson]

Good Morning Richard. Sorry to be slow to respond, but I was looking at your site. I'm not by nature a colour photographer, but I can appreciate when it's done well. 'Old faithful and star trails' is very lovely. I understand the notion of 'going further with less gear'. Yesterday afternoon I climbed a hill in a gale and rain with my 5x4 kit- shot two good frames!

[Mike Castles]

Actualy, Tim, I think that if Jorge is really banned from this site then we are all the poorer for it. No, I have never fallen out with him (or anyone else here) and so have never experienced Jorge's now famous ill-temper. BUT, he is, no matter what you think of his manner, a real advocate for photography- not just as a 'passtime' but as Art, as a thing to love, as a LIFE. It just oozes out of the man. He lives for photography. Do we really want to lose that kind of passion and depth of experience? Okay, do I like seeing him scrap with Steve Simmons, or Frank?
Hell no, I HATE it, but I think we need to cut some slack for a man who mostly gets himself in trouble for wanting us all do better, to try harder, to think more. Do we just want 'easy'?? Look at his photographs, then try to tell me we're better without him.

P.S.- Sorry Frank- I love you too! I know you and Jorge sometimes get to ripping pieces off each other, but the pair of you make some of the most interesting posts here. Hang loose, big guy.

Well said Colin, we are richer for his input and poorer now that he is banned...but bet he would not change a thing. Talent and passion, and as you said a real advocate for photography.

[Vaughn]

...all that clarity comes at the price of comfort and spontaneity.

I would say that speed of use does not equal spontaniety. Granted, moving subjects and light can be difficult to capture with LF, but that is not a lack of spontaneity, but a result in the speed of operation of 35mm equipment compared to LF.

For me (your milage might differ) the spontaneity comes with the reconition and decision to photograph a particular subject or light. From then on, it is a matter of caputuing it on film -- perhaps quickly with roll film, or a bit longer on sheet film.

Lately I have enjoyed capturing light as it sweeps across in front of me during 10 to 30 minute exposures under the Redwoods. I am capturing light over time, and since we can only live and experience the "Now", my negatives represent something we can not directly experience. This can, of course, be done with 35mm, but one can not say that 35mm does it in a more spontaneitous manner than LF.

Other than than, it is a very rare sharp enlargement to 8x10 from a 35mm negative that can come even close to a 8x10 contact print...simply due to the larger amount of imformation on the 8x10 negative.

Vaughn

sorry for any bad spelling!

[Alan Davenport]

You are comparing apples with oranges. There are many superb 35mm enlargements which can't be visually distinguished from 8x10 contact prints.

Huh. I reckon it's a good day, because I learned something.

[Michael Alpert]

Vaughn,

My definition of spontaneity includes relative freedom from external contraint. I was not thinking of speed per se. Of course, technically speaking, no photograph is actually spontaneous since it is generated by subject matter in conjunction with the temperament of the photographer. In other words, a photograph is not self-generated in the way a non-representational painting, for example, is thought to be. Photography's connection with the external world is one of its basic joys--and one of its basic limitations. In any case, there is a good reason that Robert Frank did not use large-format equipment when making the phototgraphs for The Americans. Still, I understand your point--though I do not quite understand your reason for using thirty-minute exposures when working out-of-doors?

[Vaughn]

Michael.

Excellent points and I agree that no act of photographing is truely spontaneous. That is why I suggested that the spontaneous element in photography is the moment when one decides to take a photograph. Even the fastest camera (auto-everything) still requires an extra moment for framing/composing. So fast-working cameras allows one to have more moments of spontaneity, the camera use itself is not spontaneous...and LF cameras do allow for spontaneity, just not as quickly. Cameras are tools. Robert Frank used the tool that best fit his needs...though I have seen Richard Miserac use an 8x10 faster than a lot of people use their 35mms!

Excuse me for being less than clear about the 30 minute exposures. Under the redwoods (that is, when it's not it usual fog or rain!) only a limited amount of light can find its way down -- and as the sun moves, these spots of light move...and over 30 minutes the distance they move is considerable (relative to the angle of view of the lens). So I am capturing light as it is painted across the landscape.

Vaughn

[paulr]

I've never seen a traditional enlargement look quite like a contact print (though 8x10s from a 4x5 neg can come close). Part of it is the tactile edginess and smoothness of tones; part of it is some other quality that I can't quite put my finger on ... but I've recognized it even in mediocre reproductions of the contact prints in books. I could be imagining this, but it jumps out at me sometimes.

I have found that digital prints can rival or even excede contact prints in terms of sharpness and realism of textures. Some of my 4x5 inkjet prints look more like contact prints than the actual contact print from the same negative. I've made digital enlargements up to about 2.5X that have that hyper-real, contact print sense of texture. They have to be made really well, from sharp negatives, to look like this. It's also easy to make horrible looking digital prints if you don't have a good sharpening workflow and some patience.