Looking for example of quality between contact print vs enlargement

[marshallarts]

Obviously a contact print should look better. Except I've never printed before so I've never seen it first hand. Does anyone have scans or a contact print vs an enlargement? I would love to size them the same on my computer and see what the differences are.

[Neal Chaves]

I make 8X10 prints from 8X10 negatives (1:1) in the enlarger with a 240mm lens. There is only a subtle difference in the appearance of the enlargements and contact prints from the same negatives. I made many contact prints in the past on both AZO and Ilford VCFB. You could never see the difference in a scan of any of these prints viewed full size on a computer monitor.

I no longer make contact prints from 8X10 negatives because it requires too much handling of the negative and it is hard to control dust and Newton rings and to dodge and burn. Once the negative is in the enlarger, I can make as many prints as I want, manipulate them easily and change print size at any time or even crop. The only reason I would consider making an 8X10 or smaller contact print today is if I wanted the look of an AZO-type paper. Most of the time from 8X10 negatives I start with an 11X14 enlargement.

[vinny]

pointless if you view the prints on your monitor.

[marshallarts]

Good to know... I've never made enlargements prints (aside from photography class in the mid-90's). I've been digital for a long time. The idea of super-sharp contact prints have had me intrigued for years. If you're saying that doesn't exist then maybe it's not worth exploring.

Some may say it is worth it, but then you say you can't see it on a monitor. I tell you really great sharp contact prints I've seen look incredible even scanned. If that was simply the lighting then I understand. But if you really can't see a difference on a monitor, I don't believe you can truly see it in real life.

[vinny]

If real life was 72dpi, then you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. My 8x10 contact prints blow everything else out of the water.

[jbenedict]

I use an enlarger for my light source when I contact print 8x10. With faster modern materials, the control and repeatability of a timer and lens diaphragm is necessary. Dodging and burning is no more difficult than with an enlarged print. Generally, I decide what will be dodged and burnt before I start the process rather than when the light is on. If I need more time to work, I can stop down the lens and have more time.

One of the points of shooting 8x10 is the 8x10 contact print. Holding one mounted on a board and at a proper distance from your face, there is nothing like it.
If you introduce the possible reduction of quality by making a 1:1 print with an enlarger, you may as well save money and shoot 4x5.

[DannL]

Good to know... I've never made enlargements prints (aside from photography class in the mid-90's). I've been digital for a long time. The idea of super-sharp contact prints have had me intrigued for years. If you're saying that doesn't exist then maybe it's not worth exploring.

Some may say it is worth it, but then you say you can't see it on a monitor. I tell you really great sharp contact prints I've seen look incredible even scanned. If that was simply the lighting then I understand. But if you really can't see a difference on a monitor, I don't believe you can truly see it in real life.

I think what has been said is that everything you view on a computer monitor is the same resolution. The 32" monitor I am using now can display about 50 dots per inch of display. It doesn't matter if a 4x6 image scanned in at 4000 dpi is displayed, or an 8x10 image scanned in at 4000 dpi is display. If the "whole picture" fills my monitor, both would still be displayed 50 dpi. There would be differences because of film, lens chactaristics such as contrast, color rendition, perspective, lens distortion, etc. Now, if you displayed a one inch segment of the images and compared them side-by-side expanded on a monitor, you are bound to see a differences because of resolution. But that's not how most of us view pictures. The only way I could evaluate two prints properly, and draw a conclusion as to which I prefer, would be by looking at the actual prints themselves. If that make any sense.

[Tin Can]

I have a reduction cone for 'enlarging' lens extension on 5x7 Elwoods. It allows making a print smaller than the negative, by extending the bellows draw. Reverse macro?

However I beleive print resolution is limited since photographic printing paper only resolves xx line pair.

I have not tried it, maybe I will. More fun experimentally discovering empirical results.

I wonder which paper resolves best...

[N Dhananjay]

A very long time ago (and maybe things have changed), I made 1:1 enlargements and contact prints from my 4x5s. I could not get them to look alike. I saw enough of a difference that I have since only made contact prints. Dodging and burning is no more difficult. There is obviously an initial period of adjusting to a slightly different workflow and work methods but you adjust in a fairly straightforward manner. As far as quality goes, I think up to about a 2-3X enlargement, you can get good enlargements (I do not think they look exactly like a contact print, but they can be very good prints in their own right). Beyond that, unless you are a very careful worker, quality can start to suffer. You can generally pick out the contact print from the enlargement at about 3X - I can usually pick an 11x14 enlargement from a contact print at considerably better than chance levels. There is a quality to contact prints - some subjects show it better than others. I think it s a unique smooth but sharp look - a preservation of local contrast. When you enlarge, it is not resolution that is the issue. I think it is the fact that local contrast ends up increasing - a smooth grey tone seems to sort of break up a bit into a more textured, contrast-y look. It can even look sharper sometimes because of that. There is also the fact that contact prints tends to be longer scaled because light reflected from the paper hits silver which reflects it back onto the paper again, resulting in somewhat better highlight rendition. Finally, there is always flare in enlargers. Again, none of this is to say that one cannot make good enlargement prints - they are different from contact prints though. I cannot comment on the scanning end of things since I know nothing about that.

Having said all that, there is more to working with a contact print mentality than print quality. I think the greatest benefit (for me) is the very direct 'seeing' - what you see on the GG is in every respect what you will see on the print - there is no voice in my head trying to assess how the image will hold up when enlarged and what the micro-contrast will look like when enlarged etc etc. It strips away most of the babble and makes for a very heightened seeing. The kinds of photographs you make might change - they did for me.

Cheers, DJ

[Mark Sawyer]

It's not the resolution. There's a visibly richer tonal scale in original contact prints.

[marshallarts]

I was thinking this richness can be picked up by a scanner. You are saying it can't?

I understand if I resized a contact print and an enlargement the same on my monitor they will look the same, but my thought was if contact prints achieve a quality not possible with enlargements then that would come through in the scanning.

Going to go to B&H and see what the investment is for printing at home.

[kintatsu]

In the 4th printing of Ansel Adams' The Print from 1968, on page 33 there is a side by side. Both prints made from the same negative, 1 at 1:1 enlargement and the other contact printed. Even in the book, at about 6cmx7cm print size, there is a difference. It's hard to describe, though.

It may be best to try it for yourself to get a feel for what you like. I enjoy contact printing my 4x5 negatives, although I would enlarge them if I could. I'm limited to contact printing right now. I'm always wowed, though, by how clear and sharp the prints come out. Enlarging adds another step where you have to focus, which may be tough depending on your vision.

[jbenedict]

Going to go to B&H and see what the investment is for printing at home.

Contact printing:
1. Bulb safelight.
2. Contact printer. (piece of glass or something more formal)
3. Used enlarger and lens.
4. Method of timing -used timer or metronome and switch.
5. Trays.
6. Chemicals and paper.

Setups like this come up on Craigslist all the time. (except fresh paper and chemicals) under $100 or many times free. People are trying to get rid of this stuff these days.

Things don't have to cost a lot. You just have to get over needing things that are new.

[Jim Noel]

I use an enlarger for my light source when I contact print 8x10. With faster modern materials, the control and repeatability of a timer and lens diaphragm is necessary. Dodging and burning is no more difficult than with an enlarged print. Generally, I decide what will be dodged and burnt before I start the process rather than when the light is on. If I need more time to work, I can stop down the lens and have more time.

One of the points of shooting 8x10 is the 8x10 contact print. Holding one mounted on a board and at a proper distance from your face, there is nothing like it.
If you introduce the possible reduction of quality by making a 1:1 print with an enlarger, you may as well save money and shoot 4x5.

I agree.
Every time light passes through glass it is altered and the resulting image loses detail and picks up edges which are diffused to some degree. There is nothing that will compare with a contact print. If scanned there is even more loss of sharpness which some seem to believe they can make up with sharpening. Not true.

[David A. Goldfarb]

There's nothing like a big contact print from an in-camera negative, in my opinion. It's also about a process of working, where what you see on the groundglass is the same size as it is in the print. The format is about the size of any kind of printed document I might hold in my hand. I can see the effect of camera movements on the groundglass without a loupe (though I'll use a loupe anyway to make them more precise) as they'll appear on the print. I can use classic lenses as originally intended and see at the moment of composition what the sharp areas will look like and what the out-of-focus area will look like on the print. When I'm working with 8x10" or larger and contact printing, this feels to me like photography in its purest form. Not that should matter to anyone else, but it works for me.

I've tried comparing 4x5" 1:1 enlargements to contact prints, and I can see the difference in the prints, but I'm not sure that even if one could see a difference in a scan that it would be the same difference one could see in the prints. The scanning and screen viewing process just adds too many variables, and the screen is not a reflective medium.

[Vaughn]

I was thinking this richness can be picked up by a scanner. You are saying it can't?

I understand if I resized a contact print and an enlargement the same on my monitor they will look the same, but my thought was if contact prints achieve a quality not possible with enlargements then that would come through in the scanning.

Going to go to B&H and see what the investment is for printing at home.

Bigger negative = more information...no matter how one prints it. Enlarging a negative (by printing or scanning) does not increase the amount of information...just spreads it out more.

[Mark Sawyer]

Running the information though additional systems, be they digital scanners and monitors or analog enlargers, degrades the image. I'm not saying you can't make beautiful prints with an enlarger. I've seen the results many times. But there's something special about a well-made contact print. There's a reason Edward Weston never enlarged. The contact printing process renders a finer print.

[Maris Rusis]

It's possible to tonally match an 8x10 projection photograph and an 8x10 contact photograph with some care and calibration. But differences can be found by very careful looking. In the projection photograph fine black lines against a light background are rendered wider than they are in the negative. And fine white lines against a dark background are rendered thinner. The reason is micro-flare from the enlarging lens; a factor absent in a direct contact.

[ic-racer]

Obviously a contact print should look better.

Not in my hands. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?29267-Here-we-go-Century-8x10-Restoration&p=285139&viewfull=1#post285139)

I can show some scans of contact prints. I don't do them anymore because:
1) 8x10 1/2 inch glass won't hold Ilford double weight paper flat
2) Every imperfection in glass is seen in the print
3) Dodging and burning are more difficult
4) Every speck of dust on the paper, negative bottom, negative top, glass bottom and glass top will be in the print (if using collimated light source).

[ic-racer]

I have a reduction cone for 'enlarging' lens extension on 5x7 Elwoods.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?56757-Reductions-anyone&highlight=reductions

[paulr]

In my experience the optical system of an enlarger degrades the sharpness of the negative significantly. You lose more edge contrast than you do by other methods. You lose some with a scanner, too, but with digital processes you can not only restore that contrast, but bring it to a level and and edge radius that's ideal for a particular print size and viewing distance.

Edge contrast is lost in a contact print as well, but here, or in a 1:1 "enlargement" that contrast will be lost at such high spatial frequencies that it won't matter much. Every kind of print looks sharp with zero enlargement. If splitting hairs, I can get the most subjectively sharp and tactile results from a digital print, followed by a contact print, followed by an optical enlargement.

[Neal Chaves]

There are so many variables involved in such a comparison that I doubt anyone can answer the question objectively. We must be certain that the two prints, contact and enlargement are the best possible prints made with the best possible technique and the best possible equipment. Getting the optimum performance out of the enlarger requires precise allignment, vibration control, sealing of all light leaks, the proper lens of good quality at the optimum aperture, and perfect flatness of the paper in its easel.

There is a big difference in the apperance of prints made on chloride contact papers like AZO and on enlarging-speed papers. Some find this so desirable that they have constructed super-bright light sources in order to enlarge on contact papers.

[Tin Can]

I read your thread, did you stop there?


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?56757-Reductions-anyone&highlight=reductions

[DannL]

A question along these lines . . . What scanner and printer resolution is required to duplicate exactly a print that was created from an ISO 100 film for example, and then contacted printed under optimal conditions? What I am alluding to is duplicating every grain particle in the traditional print. Is there an affordable printer/scanner solution available? If not, how far are we from an affordable solution? I ask because I have yet to see a modern ink jet print that didn't look like mush under a low powered loupe. It seems that I have read on several occasions about some photographers who are pleased with their scanning/ink jet productions made from LF negatives.

I once fooled myself into buying Edward Weston print that was signed by Cole on the front and labeled on the back stating the print was approved by Cole Weston. Sadly I didn't have my reading glasses or a loupe with me at the time I purchased the print. Talking about feeling like you were taken for a ride, having subsequently examined the print with a loupe. It was a really convincing reproduction from about two feet away. But, you live and you learn. Everything that glitters is not gold. And sometimes it's just crap, and it looks good from a distance.

[tgtaylor]

What scanner and printer resolution is required to duplicate exactly a print that was created from an ISO 100 film for example

Given the current state of scanner and printer technology this is impossible. Why? Because the “pixels” on a scanner are lined-up in columns and rows – military style- and are all the same size whereas their silver counterparts are evenly but randomly distributed; evenly because the paper is evenly coated (i.e., sensitized) but random in that their final arrangement is determined solely by the light striking it. Also, unlike the static size of the digital pixel (I believe that modern printers are now being produced capable of producing as many as 3 different sized droplets) the silver particles that make up the silver print/negative are random in size which is again dependent upon the energy of the exposure. Finally, while there may be several million pixels in a digital device, there are literally billions and trillions of silver atoms on sensitized media.

To quote another: Digital and silver don't line-up.

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Apples are apples. Oranges are oranges. Pears are pears. Trying to quantify at which point one equals the other is, well, rather ridiculous, though nowadays you might
be able to genetically modify one with some of the genes of the other. Go to a good museum or print gallery where you can see representative sample of what a really good printer from each camp can do. But even that will not equate to what someone else might do using the same tools. And all that keeps changing - the films, papers, and gear itself. Learning to master a given medium is more important than exactly what medium it is. Pick your poison. Otherwise, much of this kind of hypothetical discussion revolves around an excessively liberal application of the BS Coefficient. I judge things with my eyes, not a calculator.

[paulr]

Given the current state of scanner and printer technology this is impossible. Why? Because the “pixels” on a scanner are lined-up in columns and rows – military style- and are all the same size whereas their silver counterparts are evenly but randomly distributed...

That's sounds convincing, but drum scanners and film scanners are able to resolve down to film structures that are much finer than the smallest image structures.

With prints, the only thing that matters is resolution relative to what the eye can see. It's been a complete non-issue now for over 15 years. Unless you look at prints through a loupe. Digital prints don't lend themselves to that kind of peeping, in general. Although my piezography prints are surprising in that regard ... you can't discern individual dots at any magnification.

[tgtaylor]

With prints, the only thing that matters is resolution relative to what the eye can see. It's been a complete non-issue now for over 15 years. Unless you look at prints through a loupe. Digital prints don't lend themselves to that kind of peeping, in general.

Yesterday I printed as a salt print a negative that I had shot a few days earlier. Upon close examination after the print had dried I noticed a small luminous point of light under the bridge that at first I had thought was the result of a bubble remaining on the surface of the negative or paper - both of which are very unlikely since I rotary processed the negative and the print is POP. Upon examining both the negative and the print with a 10x and then 20x field geology lupe it turned out to be a small stone that glistened in the sunlight that reflected off its wet surface.

Thomas

[David A. Goldfarb]

I also enjoy exploring contact prints with a loupe. It's like finding stories you didn't know were there.

[paulr]

I also enjoy exploring contact prints with a loupe. It's like finding stories you didn't know were there.

I enjoy it too. But I think of this a private pleasure; it's not what I make the prints for.

When I want to do that kind of voyeuristic detail peeping on digital images, I do it on screen. Looking at my files at 100% view is the equivalent of using a 50X loupe. Something I never had. I think think it's called a microscope.