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

[audioexcels]

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

Wow...talk about reverse psychology here. Some feel the aesthetics is the "quality" of the in camera negative while others such as you, Sandy, are saying an in camera negative does not always have this "magical quality" to it.


Of course you mentioned different artists, and obviously each individual will present their work and it's either going to be something appealing or not appealing to the viewer. One can essentially walk out of an exhibit that featured the very best LF photographers (known ones) and not like a single print they saw.


But we aren't talking about other people's work. The question is with respect to your own personal experience in today's time with your own personal work. Lets take your work, especially in the recent year.

Contact print an this negative you love at its native size.
Scan it and then print at its native sive.

Which one do you end up preferring and why?

[audioexcels]

No single size is necessarily a jewel, but rather the perfect size for a given subject and treatment might merit being called a jewel. Something about the term jewel infers that a huge print might have a hard time being a jewel.

C

Big print, little print (call them all jewels)...a Whole plate is often called a jewel, and so has a 4X5 shot. But comparing a WP shot to a 4X5 one is like comparing a 20X24 shot to an 8X10 shot.

[sanking]

Contact print an this negative you love at its native size.
Scan it and then print at its native sive.

Which one do you end up preferring and why?

I do not prefer either. There are advantages on the print to working both ways. And I like working both ways. I scan and make digital negatives from in-camera negatives in a variety of sizes, from 6X4.5cm up to 12X20". And I make prints directly from in-camera negatives in a variety of sizes, from 5X7" up to 20X24".

There are certainly differences, if you want to quantify them, in terms of detail, tonal values, resolution, etc. but for me these differences are much less important than the creative action of making the print.

On the other hand, I do have a preference for small prints. My concept of "jewel" print would include a fairly small print, 4X5" or 5X7" f(maybe as large as 8X10) made either directly from an in-camera negative, or from a digital negative produced from a scan of some other size negative, or from a digital camera. A "jewel" print for me is one that you hold in your hand, and appreciate the print for some extraordinary quality based either on image content, appearance of detail, or tactile qualities. If all come together, the print is a "jewel". Whether the original was digital or film, or whatever size, is not relevant to me.

Sandy Kiing

[David Karp]

It is like everything else. The jewel is in the eye of the beholder.

To me the idea of a photo being jewel-like is scale. If it is small enough to hold and comfortably experience the photo without having to stretch it away from you to arm's length, or move it around to look at parts of the photo. For me, anything up to 8x10 would be jewel-like.

Whether you like the way the jewel you are holding looks, well that is another matter. There are nice jewels, and there are jewels not worth the time spent looking at them.

[audioexcels]

I do not prefer either. There are advantages on the print to working both ways. And I like working both ways. I scan and make digital negatives from in-camera negatives in a variety of sizes, from 6X4.5cm up to 12X20". And I make prints directly from in-camera negatives in a variety of sizes, from 5X7" up to 20X24".

There are certainly differences, if you want to quantify them, in terms of detail, tonal values, resolution, etc. but for me these differences are much less important than the creative action of making the print.

On the other hand, I do have a preference for small prints. My concept of "jewel" print would include a fairly small print, 4X5" or 5X7" f(maybe as large as 8X10) made either directly from an in-camera negative, or from a digital negative produced from a scan of some other size negative, or from a digital camera. A "jewel" print for me is one that you hold in your hand, and appreciate the print for some extraordinary quality based either on image content, appearance of detail, or tactile qualities. If all come together, the print is a "jewel". Whether the original was digital or film, or whatever size, is not relevant to me.

Sandy Kiing

So if 20X24" is all you print to, why not cut the 4X5 sheet to 5X7 equivalent and enlarge it? Makes no sense carrying 5X7 holders when you can either scan/crop the 4x5 or just make a custom back w/s&s holders for the cut down size of 4X5 that is the equivalent of 5X7. I don't see any point in shooting 5X7 and 1/2 the weight shooting a cropped film based 4X5 back. You can have a vastly superior Chamonix that weighs the same as the Nag 5X7 or a 1/2 the weight Nag 4X5...let alone, quickloads and 4X5 holders so you can drop that weight down as well. Not seeing the point of 5X7 especially when you can sell it for a nice price and get a used Nag for 1/3rd the price of what you get for the 5X7 Nag, or a brand new Chamonix.

[sanking]

So if 20X24" is all you print to, why not cut the 4X5 sheet to 5X7 equivalent and enlarge it? Makes no sense carrying 5X7 holders when you can either scan/crop the 4x5 or just make a custom back w/s&s holders for the cut down size of 4X5 that is the equivalent of 5X7. I don't see any point in shooting 5X7 and 1/2 the weight shooting a cropped film based 4X5 back. You can have a vastly superior Chamonix that weighs the same as the Nag 5X7 or a 1/2 the weight Nag 4X5...let alone, quickloads and 4X5 holders so you can drop that weight down as well. Not seeing the point of 5X7 especially when you can sell it for a nice price and get a used Nag for 1/3rd the price of what you get for the 5X7 Nag, or a brand new Chamonix.

Huuum. I can see that you did not follow my advice and read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. If you had I think you would follow your own path with confidence and not question the path of others.


Sandy

[audioexcels]

Huuum. I can see that you did not follow my advice and read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

Sandy

The advice part...refresh my memory. If it has anything to do with the feeling of using a 5X7 camera, the only point that can be made is its size. You prefer the larger back of a camera over using a Cambo reflex hood that flips the image 360 and shows the GG way better than you will ever see the 5X7 GG.

If contact print is not a point anymore, why shoot anything but 4X5 in the LF world?


The book part...I need to get to that one!

[sanking]

The advice part...refresh my memory. If it has anything to do with the feeling of using a 5X7 camera, the only point that can be made is its size. You prefer the larger back of a camera over using a Cambo reflex hood that flips the image 360 and shows the GG way better than you will ever see the 5X7 GG.

If contact print is not a point anymore, why shoot anything but 4X5 in the LF world?


The book part...I need to get to that one!

Hi,

This quote is not by me as you appear to suggest: "You prefer the larger back of a camera over using a Cambo reflex hood that flips the image 360 and shows the GG way better than you will ever see the 5X7 GG. "

I never wrote anything like this. In fact, I don't even know what a Cambo reflex hood looks like. Never had one in my hand, don't remember seeing on on the web, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Also, you really need to read Marcus Aurelius. It is about first principles. I learned a lot from the reading.

Sandy King

[audioexcels]

I definitely want to read the book. I don't like reading, but I would enjoy a book like this.

I know you never mentioned the reflex hood, but what it does is it attaches to the back of the GG and flips the image right side up. It also magnifies the view. It's basically the same thing as a Rollei 6000 series or Hassy Reflex viewfinder. They are fantastic IMHO. It's not a bad thing, nor a difficult thing to see the world upside down and left=right, but it's very helpful to view the world right side up and have the GG magnified, the dark cloth entirely eliminated, etc.

For 5X7, it would be neat to have a very compact one designed as the one for 4X5 is bulky...light, but bulky. It's the con against using it.

Problem I have with all of this format business is that if we're not contact printing anymore or can make equally/better than contact prints, then why spend $$$$ on larger formats requiring expensive glass to fit the format when you can have a cheapo 5X7/4X5 camera and wait for the IQ2/3 or Cezanne Elite that I have seen sell by a private party in new condition with original crate/boxing, all software, and full warranty for $3000 maximum?

It makes "zero" logical sense to have a massive camera that cannot transport itself around, costs as much or more than a high end scanner, not including the spendy glass you need for it, all to achieve no different results unless you want poster sized prints which 8X10 and up can do, though 5X7 can still do a fine 40X60 which is rediculously large to have in any home but a mansion.

[cyrus]

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.