Looking for example of quality between contact print vs enlargement

[marshallarts]

I was thinking this richness can be picked up by a scanner. You are saying it can't?

I understand if I resized a contact print and an enlargement the same on my monitor they will look the same, but my thought was if contact prints achieve a quality not possible with enlargements then that would come through in the scanning.

Going to go to B&H and see what the investment is for printing at home.

[kintatsu]

In the 4th printing of Ansel Adams' The Print from 1968, on page 33 there is a side by side. Both prints made from the same negative, 1 at 1:1 enlargement and the other contact printed. Even in the book, at about 6cmx7cm print size, there is a difference. It's hard to describe, though.

It may be best to try it for yourself to get a feel for what you like. I enjoy contact printing my 4x5 negatives, although I would enlarge them if I could. I'm limited to contact printing right now. I'm always wowed, though, by how clear and sharp the prints come out. Enlarging adds another step where you have to focus, which may be tough depending on your vision.

[jbenedict]

Going to go to B&H and see what the investment is for printing at home.

Contact printing:
1. Bulb safelight.
2. Contact printer. (piece of glass or something more formal)
3. Used enlarger and lens.
4. Method of timing -used timer or metronome and switch.
5. Trays.
6. Chemicals and paper.

Setups like this come up on Craigslist all the time. (except fresh paper and chemicals) under $100 or many times free. People are trying to get rid of this stuff these days.

Things don't have to cost a lot. You just have to get over needing things that are new.

[Jim Noel]

I use an enlarger for my light source when I contact print 8x10. With faster modern materials, the control and repeatability of a timer and lens diaphragm is necessary. Dodging and burning is no more difficult than with an enlarged print. Generally, I decide what will be dodged and burnt before I start the process rather than when the light is on. If I need more time to work, I can stop down the lens and have more time.

One of the points of shooting 8x10 is the 8x10 contact print. Holding one mounted on a board and at a proper distance from your face, there is nothing like it.
If you introduce the possible reduction of quality by making a 1:1 print with an enlarger, you may as well save money and shoot 4x5.

I agree.
Every time light passes through glass it is altered and the resulting image loses detail and picks up edges which are diffused to some degree. There is nothing that will compare with a contact print. If scanned there is even more loss of sharpness which some seem to believe they can make up with sharpening. Not true.

[David A. Goldfarb]

There's nothing like a big contact print from an in-camera negative, in my opinion. It's also about a process of working, where what you see on the groundglass is the same size as it is in the print. The format is about the size of any kind of printed document I might hold in my hand. I can see the effect of camera movements on the groundglass without a loupe (though I'll use a loupe anyway to make them more precise) as they'll appear on the print. I can use classic lenses as originally intended and see at the moment of composition what the sharp areas will look like and what the out-of-focus area will look like on the print. When I'm working with 8x10" or larger and contact printing, this feels to me like photography in its purest form. Not that should matter to anyone else, but it works for me.

I've tried comparing 4x5" 1:1 enlargements to contact prints, and I can see the difference in the prints, but I'm not sure that even if one could see a difference in a scan that it would be the same difference one could see in the prints. The scanning and screen viewing process just adds too many variables, and the screen is not a reflective medium.

[Vaughn]

I was thinking this richness can be picked up by a scanner. You are saying it can't?

I understand if I resized a contact print and an enlargement the same on my monitor they will look the same, but my thought was if contact prints achieve a quality not possible with enlargements then that would come through in the scanning.

Going to go to B&H and see what the investment is for printing at home.

Bigger negative = more information...no matter how one prints it. Enlarging a negative (by printing or scanning) does not increase the amount of information...just spreads it out more.

[Mark Sawyer]

Running the information though additional systems, be they digital scanners and monitors or analog enlargers, degrades the image. I'm not saying you can't make beautiful prints with an enlarger. I've seen the results many times. But there's something special about a well-made contact print. There's a reason Edward Weston never enlarged. The contact printing process renders a finer print.

[Maris Rusis]

It's possible to tonally match an 8x10 projection photograph and an 8x10 contact photograph with some care and calibration. But differences can be found by very careful looking. In the projection photograph fine black lines against a light background are rendered wider than they are in the negative. And fine white lines against a dark background are rendered thinner. The reason is micro-flare from the enlarging lens; a factor absent in a direct contact.

[ic-racer]

Obviously a contact print should look better.

Not in my hands.

I can show some scans of contact prints. I don't do them anymore because:
1) 8x10 1/2 inch glass won't hold Ilford double weight paper flat
2) Every imperfection in glass is seen in the print
3) Dodging and burning are more difficult
4) Every speck of dust on the paper, negative bottom, negative top, glass bottom and glass top will be in the print (if using collimated light source).

[ic-racer]

I have a reduction cone for 'enlarging' lens extension on 5x7 Elwoods.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ght=reductions