I'm going to chuck this one out their just to see if I hook a good well-balanced response.
I've always liked the idea of contact printing - done properly of course on an Azo-like paper, etc., etc. That, and the fact that silver, or whatever, prints still have commercial value over inkjet prints in the gallery. Unfortunately, the sizes I would like to use, essentially Ultra LF, aren't particularly practicable for the images I envisage, i.e., landscapes.
One way around this is to enlarge your 4x5 or 5x7 negative and print it out on film via inkjet (a digital negative) and then using that as your contact negative. Now, I gather these only produce an image that is around 100 lp/inch (or maybe more with ever-improving printer technology?) so nothing like what the original negative can produce. The final print, of course, will only be as good as the negative used and I know they will be inherently poorer than a contact print made from the original negative, but by how much? I'm not keen on following this course but have no firm reasons.
I have no experience of digital negatives so I would like to know if these are worth the effort, and to what extent they differ in their characteristics (if any). Do they still retain that depth, tonal range, etc., so often seen with contacts?