How good are contact prints in reality?

[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 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

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