Looking for example of quality between contact print vs enlargement

[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.in...ght=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.