Howdo all,
This may sound like a controversial question but it's not meant to be.
As the title says, how good are contact prints in reality?
The reason I ask is that I have thought about getting into ULF photography (or maybe sticking with the range 5x7 to 8x10) and doing contact printing - I lke the concept of a super sharp image showing a great range in tonality printed on silver (or platinum, etc.) where the image leaps out at you. However I've had a look at some contact prints, both 4x5 and 8x10 taken with good lenses, e.g., Goerz Red Dot Apo Artars, and have been distinctly underwhelmed with them.
I understand that images printed using the contact printing technique are supposed to ooze with detail (film and photographic paper allowing). I haven't seen this in any of the contacts I've seen. Even with the naked eye they do not appear sharp. Under the loupe there is no detail at all. Indeed, I've seen good (non-LF) inkjet prints show more detail (resolution rather than contrast) and even better tonality although under the loupe you see the pixelations (which I can never get used to hence my liking for silver prints).
Admittedly, none of the contact prints were taken with modern lenses but I can't imagine that the older 'good' lenses are that poor in resolving power even those which are a little compromised due to the larger image circle needed to cover 8x10. Is it that ALL the contact prints I have seen in person are just bad because the person making them had poor technique (some well known names here), a result of poor equipment (not likely), or, dare I say, contact prints aren't all they're cracked up to be?
I like silver prints - there's more substance to them and they're more marketable than an inkjet print (which can nonetheless be excellent in quality) so I'm hoping I am missing something.
Cheers,
Duff
Bookmarks