At what size is the contact print a "jewel"? Or has digital scanning taken over?

[audioexcels]

The size of the negative has nothing to do with it. People like contact prints because it imparts the maximum amount of information from a negative to a positive -- whether it is a small negative or a big negative. You can contact print any size negative.

Very true regarding any size, but according Sandy and others, this maximum information or a certain "quality" of look is equally/better achievable by scanning the negative. In other words, Sandy feels that her very best negatives, at whatever size he chooses to shoot, have no difference whether they are contacts or inkjets from the digital scan.

I respect Sandy a lot and my responses to him should not be treated in any way as trying to prove, argue, or indefinitely/affirmatively state anything with relation to the point of the thread since he and others would have a lot more credentials having done both contacts and "professional" digital scans of the same negative. You can call me the Socrates in any type of response like the comments Sandy and I have made between each other. I hope Sandy understands this.

I would like this thread to get back on topic where you have helped to put it back on course regarding the "resolution" aspect of the contact print.


SO far, this is what I have collected as responses:

1) Contact print has something special to it whereas putting the negative through a digital stage takes away this something special.

2) Contact prints can look poor by comparison to a digitally scanned/printed photo based on the fact that we enjoy photos subjectively and when we see a photo, regardless of if it was contact printed or not, if it isn't interesting or appealing, it doesn't matter what process was used to make it, hence, the digital ones can be much better dependent on the photo itself.

3) Contact by the same photographer's very best work is no different than taking the negative, having it professionally scanned, and printed at the same size as the in camera/contact print.

Now, onto the discussion of "personal" opinion regarding the the contact print and the affect of the digital revolution taking its toll on it.

[cyrus]

Very true regarding any size, but according Sandy and others, this maximum information or a certain "quality" of look is equally/better achievable by scanning the negative. In other words, Sandy feels that her very best negatives, at whatever size he chooses to shoot, have no difference whether they are contacts or inkjets from the digital scan.
.

I think the idea is that a contact print is always "better" than a enlargement print (and by "better" I mean it imparts the most amount of information from the negative to the positive) - regardless of whether the contact print is made directly from the in-camera negative, or from a digitally scanned & blown-up copy of that negative. In either case, the contact print will impart more information than an enlargement. Using enlargers always results in very substantial loss of information.

So having established that a contact print is better than an enlargement, the next question is whether a contact print from an original film negative is "better" than a contact print made from a blown-up digital negative. The original film negative is always better for contact printing than a blown-up digital negative.

Why? I know that drum scanners can (if operated right) resolve the grain of the film, and so in effect they capture all the data from a negative perfectly. But who can afford a drum scanner? Certainly not me (my sailboat always needs $$$). And, even if you get a perfect scan of a negative, and you use photoshop to perfectly increase the size of the image, can you really get a perfect printout of the neg? I don't think the printer technology is capable of that yet.

So, in order of "better"-ness (as the word was previously defined):

1- Original Film negative, contact printed - but will be limited to original negative size.
2- Digital negative, contact printed (can be blown up, photoshopped *but only if the digital neg is scanned/printed right)
3- Original film negative, printed with an enlarger.
4- Contact print using an enlarged film negative made using traditional, nondigital wet techniques.

Naturally, none of this can make up for an aesthetically bad photograph.

[audioexcels]

[QUOTE=cyrus;327902]

Thanks Cyrus. Your response is very informative and though many may disagree or agree, it seems to be a qualified general consensus around here.

I'm very curious about the special "quality" of the negative from camera (contact) vs. the drum scanned and printed at the same size as the in camera contact. I know there is more control over the process, but as you said, printers are limited when doing a digital print.

When I first started this thread, I was considering many attributes that factor into things regarding the in camera contact vs. the digitally scanned and printed one, and though resolution is one thing, I'm again trying to grasp what it is about the qualitative/subjective appeal from the in camera negative vs. the digitally scanned negative.

Take 5X7, for example...a size that many love to shoot around here, but is also a size that isn't exactly so well at displaying all that resolution/information like a well done 20X24 in camera negative contact would do. But the 5X7 is still considered to be a "jewel" when printed from the camera/contact.

So redundancy sinks in and I ask, even at such small sizes as a 4X5, what is it about the in camera contact that gives an aesthetic special "quality" to it? Is there something that is more transparent/touchable/palpable about the in camera contact vs. the other methods of dealing with the negative?

Thanks for your response, and also Sandy's, and the rest of the group here. Hopefully more will come back from their nice or bad weekends and be able to contribute their own "feelings" about this subject.

Regards

[domenico Foschi]

although photography by its own nature is tied to resolution and sharpness and so on, in my own work I never worry about this issues.
It really comes to what kind of work you do and if for you are very important the aspects just mentioned.
Considering that I use lenses that are among the worst in optical clarity I am much more inclined to the aspects of tonality in a contact print
The contact print is for me a matter of feel.
The ratio of the two sides is a very important issue as well.
To me the 5x7 format is a great size for contact printing Figure studies because the ratio between the longer and shorter side is greater than 4x5 and 8x10 and it is better suited to the human figure.
Differences between a contact print and a digital scanned at the same size?
I am not sure, I have printed some 5x7s from 4x5 negatives scanned in an epson 3200 that did have the feel of a contact print.
At that size is hard to notice, especially with all the "smoothing" that can be done in PS.
I was going to write not to get stuck in the search for the detail, but I also know that it's all about exploring venues and reaching what we want by making mistakes and accepting the happy accidents, so I tell you, do your tests and experiments and you will find what you want.

[audioexcels]

Thank You. Camera project is going into progress. I'm thoroughly happy about this and the person doing this for me is an absolute gem/jewel if there ever was one.

Cheers all and I hope more will chime in on their own personal experiences.

One thing neat about in camera negatives is getting into alt processing the contact to use different chemicals to enhance and de-enhance the image. I know I am a long ways from this point, but I know it will be something to fiddle with in the future.

[cyrus]

[QUOTE=audioexcels;327933]

Take 5X7, for example...a size that many love to shoot around here, but is also a size that isn't exactly so well at displaying all that resolution/information like a well done 20X24 in camera negative contact would do. But the 5X7 is still considered to be a "jewel" when printed from the camera/contact.

Well, if you're comparing an in-camera film negative from 20x24 to the same contact print from a 5x7, the first obvious difference which explains by a 5x7 is preferred is COST and SIZE. Who the heck can lug around a 12x24 camera? But a 5x7 in camera negative has the same resolution as a 12x14 in camera negative.

However if you're comparing an in-camera negative with a digital negative of the same size then obviously the original negative is the "best quality" because it hasn't suffered any loss of data as a result of scanning/printing. And so it will have unique characteristics.

Anyway as Dominico points out, this is largely besides the point. Take a look at one of his prints. Note that "sharpness" or "resolution" are not really the point.

[clay harmon]

It all depends on what you're trying to do.

[David Luttmann]

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

Sandy,

While I completely agree with you that craft is everything, this type of answer has become the all to familiar cop out. Lets make an assumption that both cameras were side by side capturing everything equally…..now what would appear better, the scanned print or the contact print?

While I agree that all things can’t be equal because of the vastly different processes involved to arrive to the final prints, simply rehashing the art and craft comments don’t answer the question. And as an aside, in my opinion, the contact print wins….unless it needed huge corrections that are better suited to the digital domain, in which case I’ll take the scanned print for the craft over the quality.

Oh hell….now I’m stuck!