At what size is the contact print a "jewel"? Or has digital scanning taken over?
Title says it all...
Whenever the format threads start up, the term "jewel" comes up. Now with most of the LF world digitally scanning their work, and ULF shooters obviously contact printing their work, is there a "jewel" still left by doing a contact print with these natively smaller 5X7-10X12 formats? I know there's a ton of subjectivity involved here regarding the contact print vs. the digitally scanned based print. And if we want to get into ratios, one can easily use a slightly smaller ratio than 4X5 to get the desired ratio, scan it, and have very large prints. Does the person using the 5X7-10X12 camera feel the contact print is still "something to behold", a "jewel", or are the shooters of these formats (can be wide ratio such as 4X10/5X12) doing most of their work to be digitally scanned via drum/flatbed, and then digitally printed via inkjet?
Does the jewel of the contact still live on or has digital taken its toll on it?
Re: At what size is the contact print a "jewel"? Or has digital scanning taken over?
Quote:
...has digital scanning taken over?
It is of course, as you observe, a very subjective question. Personally, I have to say, absolutely not. Scanning and the digital work flow doesn't even come close to a contact print - at any size. I only scan stuff to put it up on line someplace and am always apologizing for the crummy scan.
I can contact print a 5x7 negative with relatively little effort or expense and the results cannot be touched by any digital process. The digital print may look nice...maybe even acceptable but it lacks soul. It is sterile and without any human attraction.
Re: At what size is the contact print a "jewel"? Or has digital scanning taken over?
Contact prints rule! And as far as "jewels" go... please don't forget 4x5"... they are really special. My preference is 8x10 contacts, BUT, I just enlarged some (old and new) 8x10s the other day and have the "big" bug (for a little while, anyways). I will soon have an 11x14 back for my Arca and can't wait to see those!
IMHO Digital serves two purposes (for me, YMMV)... saving a good image from poor processing (in my earlier days) or defects, and for going larger than I can print traditionally.
Re: At what size is the contact print a "jewel"? Or has digital scanning taken over?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BradS
It is of course, as you observe, a very subjective question. Personally, I have to say, absolutely not. Scanning and the digital work flow doesn't even come close to a contact print - at any size. I only scan stuff to put it up on line someplace and am always apologizing for the crummy scan.
I can contact print a 5x7 negative with relatively little effort or expense and the results cannot be touched by any digital process. The digital print may look nice...maybe even acceptable but it lacks soul. It is sterile and without any human attraction.
Ever considered the possibility that it's your crummy scans that are the problem and not the digital process itself?
Re: At what size is the contact print a "jewel"? Or has digital scanning taken over?
I don't know about elsewhere, but for my $$ a contact print is hard to beat. I have seen some absolutely wonderful 5x7 contact prints. I own a film scanner, but the truth be told, I have never hooked it up to a computer.
For me, an Azo contact print is still the cat's meow. YMMV
Re: At what size is the contact print a "jewel"? Or has digital scanning taken over?
Hard to beat a contact print from an original camera negative, in my opinion. They can even work at 6x6 cm, when they are presented right.
At some point you really just need to get out to some galleries and museums (not books, not the internet) and look at excellent prints made by various means and see what appeals to you, experiment with different methods, and make the process you choose your own.
Re: At what size is the contact print a "jewel"? Or has digital scanning taken over?
I have seen 14X17" contact prints from in-camera negatives that were technically perfect but for aesthetic reasons rank among the worst photographs I have ever seen.
Then, I have seen prints of about the same size made by digital means from scans of smaller format negatives that rank among the best photographs I have ever seen.
It ain't the equipment, but how you use it. The issue is not in-camera contact print versus digital print. It is about the artist, craft, vision and execution. This is my opinion.
Sandy
Re: At what size is the contact print a "jewel"? Or has digital scanning taken over?
I echo Sandy's comments. I recently started Platinum printing and I've been experimenting with prints of various sizes. Most of my negs are 5x7 and the contact prints I've made do look very nice indeed. I have also wanted larger print sizes so I'm now making digital negatives and printing anywhere up to almost 16x20. Technically, its not a straight contact print, but I find the digital neg gives me the ability to burn and dodge which now gives me a more expressive print than a pure, straight contact print. My 2 cents worth!
Re: At what size is the contact print a "jewel"? Or has digital scanning taken over?
No single size is necessarily a jewel, but rather the perfect size for a given subject and treatment might merit being called a jewel. Something about the term jewel infers that a huge print might have a hard time being a jewel.
C
Re: At what size is the contact print a "jewel"? Or has digital scanning taken over?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sanking
I have seen 14X17" contact prints from in-camera negatives that were technically perfect but for aesthetic reasons rank among the worst photographs I have ever seen.
Then, I have seen prints of about the same size made by digital means from scans of smaller format negatives that rank among the best photographs I have ever seen.
It ain't the equipment, but how you use it. The issue is not in-camera contact print versus digital print. It is about the artist, craft, vision and execution. This is my opinion.
Sandy
Very well said.
