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

[audioexcels]

Title says it all...

Whenever the format threads start up, the term "jewel" comes up. Now with most of the LF world digitally scanning their work, and ULF shooters obviously contact printing their work, is there a "jewel" still left by doing a contact print with these natively smaller 5X7-10X12 formats? I know there's a ton of subjectivity involved here regarding the contact print vs. the digitally scanned based print. And if we want to get into ratios, one can easily use a slightly smaller ratio than 4X5 to get the desired ratio, scan it, and have very large prints. Does the person using the 5X7-10X12 camera feel the contact print is still "something to behold", a "jewel", or are the shooters of these formats (can be wide ratio such as 4X10/5X12) doing most of their work to be digitally scanned via drum/flatbed, and then digitally printed via inkjet?

Does the jewel of the contact still live on or has digital taken its toll on it?

[BradS]

...has digital scanning taken over?

It is of course, as you observe, a very subjective question. Personally, I have to say, absolutely not. Scanning and the digital work flow doesn't even come close to a contact print - at any size. I only scan stuff to put it up on line someplace and am always apologizing for the crummy scan.

I can contact print a 5x7 negative with relatively little effort or expense and the results cannot be touched by any digital process. The digital print may look nice...maybe even acceptable but it lacks soul. It is sterile and without any human attraction.

[Richard M. Coda]

Contact prints rule! And as far as "jewels" go... please don't forget 4x5"... they are really special. My preference is 8x10 contacts, BUT, I just enlarged some (old and new) 8x10s the other day and have the "big" bug (for a little while, anyways). I will soon have an 11x14 back for my Arca and can't wait to see those!

IMHO Digital serves two purposes (for me, YMMV)... saving a good image from poor processing (in my earlier days) or defects, and for going larger than I can print traditionally.

[Brian Ellis]

It is of course, as you observe, a very subjective question. Personally, I have to say, absolutely not. Scanning and the digital work flow doesn't even come close to a contact print - at any size. I only scan stuff to put it up on line someplace and am always apologizing for the crummy scan.

I can contact print a 5x7 negative with relatively little effort or expense and the results cannot be touched by any digital process. The digital print may look nice...maybe even acceptable but it lacks soul. It is sterile and without any human attraction.

Ever considered the possibility that it's your crummy scans that are the problem and not the digital process itself?

[John Bowen]

I don't know about elsewhere, but for my $$ a contact print is hard to beat. I have seen some absolutely wonderful 5x7 contact prints. I own a film scanner, but the truth be told, I have never hooked it up to a computer.

For me, an Azo contact print is still the cat's meow. YMMV

[David A. Goldfarb]

Hard to beat a contact print from an original camera negative, in my opinion. They can even work at 6x6 cm, when they are presented right.

At some point you really just need to get out to some galleries and museums (not books, not the internet) and look at excellent prints made by various means and see what appeals to you, experiment with different methods, and make the process you choose your own.

[sanking]

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

[Dave Aharonian]

I echo Sandy's comments. I recently started Platinum printing and I've been experimenting with prints of various sizes. Most of my negs are 5x7 and the contact prints I've made do look very nice indeed. I have also wanted larger print sizes so I'm now making digital negatives and printing anywhere up to almost 16x20. Technically, its not a straight contact print, but I find the digital neg gives me the ability to burn and dodge which now gives me a more expressive print than a pure, straight contact print. My 2 cents worth!

[CG]

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

[Kirk Gittings]

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

Very well said.

[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!:D

[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!:D


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.

[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=cyrus;327902]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!