Show your Digital and Traditional "Contact" Photo thread

[David A. Goldfarb]

Hello, I've been reading this site for few years and same question comes pretty often, but no formal comparison. Here's link with samples:

http://www.victoriasphoto.com/Notes/Detail/

Victoria Perelet
http://victoriasphoto.com

Good work. That's actually one of the more meaningful comparisons I've seen of this sort on the web.

[audioexcels]

Good work. That's actually one of the more meaningful comparisons I've seen of this sort on the web.

I was just going to say...this is really something for debate that many could question such as why was this paper used, what this printer, it wasn't adjusted for this, that, etc. etc.

It is indeed up there at the tops with all the context I have seen with comparisons in any subject on the web.

Thanks a lot Victoria!

[audioexcels]

Hello, I've been reading this site for few years and same question comes pretty often, but no formal comparison. Here's link with samples:

http://www.victoriasphoto.com/Notes/Detail/

Victoria Perelet
http://victoriasphoto.com

Thanks for the link, and your portfolio is extremely impressing to say the very least.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Example:

Choose the size of film that was used, be it 4X5-20X24.

Take a 4X5 negative as an example and:

Post your photo of the 4X5 Contact printed the traditional way

Vs.

The same image scanned and then printed onto whatever paper at the same 4X5 contact size.

Post photos of your traditional contact print vs. your scanned and then printed to a contact size print.

I had no idea that this was what you meant by "Digital Contact Photo." It would be clearer to call them "digital 1:1 reproductions from scans" or something. A "contact" print implies contact. If I saw the phrase "digital contact print," I would assume that meant a hybrid print using a traditional photographic process (e.g., gelatin silver, pt/pd, cyanotype, carbon, etc.) from a digital negative printed on a clear substrate (e.g., inkjet on OHP film, gelatin silver film using a film recorder or LightJet, etc.).

I don't know what "majority" can't tell these things apart. Prints in hand, they're pretty easy to distinguish, in my experience.

[audioexcels]

I had no idea that this was what you meant by "Digital Contact Photo." It would be clearer to call them "digital 1:1 reproductions from scans" or something. A "contact" print implies contact. If I saw the phrase "digital contact print," I would assume that meant a hybrid print using a traditional photographic process (e.g., gelatin silver, pt/pd, cyanotype, carbon, etc.) from a digital negative printed on a clear substrate (e.g., inkjet on OHP film, gelatin silver film using a film recorder or LightJet, etc.).

I don't know what "majority" can't tell these things apart. Prints in hand, they're pretty easy to distinguish, in my experience.

There's a relatively long thread with the majority stating a digital 1:1 print with the new papers available looks indistinguishable from a contact. Many say that a 4X5enlarged to an 8X10 size (via digital 1:1) and printed on whatever paper does the magic will look just like an 8X10 contact print.

[John O'Connell]

Troll.

[Marko]

How do you make a contact print from pixels on a screen? I can make one from a negative but can't make one from pixels. Just can't be done.

To paraphrase some old blonde jokes, you can always hold a piece of photographic paper to your screen while displaying your image on it.

And of course, use the foot pedal that came with your computer to control the exposure.