Looking for example of quality between contact print vs enlargement

**marshallarts** · 28-Sep-2014, 07:50

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** · 28-Sep-2014, 16:13

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** · 28-Sep-2014, 16:23

pointless if you view the prints on your monitor.

**marshallarts** · 28-Sep-2014, 18:04

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.

**DannL** · 28-Sep-2014, 21:52

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

**vinny** · 28-Sep-2014, 18:26

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** · 28-Sep-2014, 19:38

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.

**Jim Noel** · 29-Sep-2014, 08:43

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

**Tin Can** · 28-Sep-2014, 22:32

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...