How good are contact prints in reality?

[Sal Santamaura]

...If any part of the process isn't up to standard, including attempting to make a contact print on enlarging paper, some part of the beauty is lost...

On this I disagree. I have 6,000 sheets of 8x10 Azo on hand, so my opinion isn't a result of not knowing the medium.

I find prints made on Ilford Multigrade Warmtone RC to be every bit as beautiful, if not more so, than those printed on Azo. Yet another situation that proves beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

...A recent show I had of platinum prints from contacted 6cmx6cm (120 film) images brought this to my attention. Images that would have looked great at just 8"x8" did not 'work' as contact prints -- just too busy at that size and composition fell apart...

What paper was the platinum coated on? Smoothness/texture? Might they have 'worked' better on a sharp silver paper rather than platinum?

[Drew Wiley]

Sal, Azo was capable of bluish split toning. Olivia Parker did some exquisite large contact prints of open antique books etc which capitalized on this effect. But for
my own subjects, I have found this bluish tendency objectionable, but do love MGWT toning options. That's the main reason it's my favorite paper for contact work
as well as for certain enlargements. I know the product, and its highly versatile. It's the correct tool for me. The sum of those advantages, in my hands at least, add up to more than any specialty paper could, without discounting the advantages those special products provide to others.

[Mark Sawyer]

...Improvements haven't been so much in improving resolution, but in eliminating aberrations, adding contrast/reducing flare (through coatings), and adding modern shutters.

Not quite, Mark,
There are also improvements in distortion and fall off. Old lens may have been good but if maximum resolution, evenness of coverage, lack of distortion, best contrast, etc. the modern lens will perform much better. But it all depends on what you want and what you are satisfied with.

Distortion (barrel or pin cushion) is an aberration, which I mentioned, as I also mentioned contrast, (mind you, someone who knows what they're doing can boost contrast in processing more than enough to make overall contrast a non-issue, although the shadows will be muddied). I'm not sure what you mean by "evenness of coverage". Are you implying old lenses have dark or light areas within the image field?

As far as maximum resolution goes, after using both old and new lenses over many years, I'll stand by my statement. A decent old lens will give you more resolution than your eyes can discern in a contact print.

[Vaughn]

...
What paper was the platinum coated on? Smoothness/texture? Might they have 'worked' better on a sharp silver paper rather than platinum?

Excellent point, Sal. I was using some old Cranes Cover for the 2 1/4 platinums, and one side of the paper is slightly smoother than the other (and not easy to determine until the paper has been wet then dried. I needed to use a looking glass and side lighting to see the difference. But the slight difference made a noticable difference in image quality (enough that I reprinted the ones I accidentally printed on the 'wrong' side). Most (non-photography) folks may not even notice the difference in an 8x10 print.

My small carbon prints are totally different beasties than the platinums...tho most of the compositional considerations I give to the small PT prints are still needed for the carbon prints. But all the detail is there with incredible sharpness -- and with a raised relief to toss in another factor (sort of like silver gelatin on steroids.)

For the show of the 2 1/4 sq platinums, I supplied several looking glasses if someone wanted a closer look at the detail.

[N Dhananjay]

Plenty of food for thought here. Let me add a couple of additional things that may be relevant.

Contact printing restricts your choice of final size. That may sound like a downside to our 'choice is good' trained ears, but it liberated my own work. Since I was no longer thinking about what size the image would be when printed, which detail needed to be opened up etc. - 'seeing' became very, very direct. If it worked on the the ground glass, it was worth doing, otherwise, I moved on.

I also became more productive because I was no longer spending huge amounts of time chasing stuff in the darkroom - the more 'choice' in my enlarging days made me less productive. When enlarging, I would endlessly play the 'will cropping make this better?' and later I would play the 'will a different size make this better?' and other kinds of games. All of which kept me from being out making more work. Shifting to contact printing, things became much more direct for me - a failure when printing just served to inform me that my 'seeing' should have been better or taught me something I needed to learn, and I moved on.

Finally, all this helped to refine my own visual concerns to myself. A commitment to contact printing is unforgiving - if it doesn't work, you are forced to acknowledge that your 'seeing' failed you - you cannot hide behind an 'I'll make lemonade out of this later' attitude. The 'constraints' actually served to free me from myself - I know that sounds like a cheap Zen saying, a 'Yoda said that but he forgot his backward talking thing' kind of thing - but having experienced it, it was pretty powerful.

Cheers, DJ

[Fr. Mark]

DJ that's a very interesting point of view: fewer options gives better better work and higher productivity. I'm seriously considering getting a macro lens for a dslr to "scan" so I can do various tweaks incl. enlarge. Having 5 lenses and two formats for the Sinar is a different game than a fixed focal length camera...will have to ponder it more.

Having put a very modern SA 72mm on a 5x7 @f22 today and developed the film (Ektascan in PyrocatHD) I can say there's way way more detail on the film and glossy contact print than I can see w/o a loupe. I might like to buy that lens but I had to give it back...need $ for other things.

[John Olsen]

Way back at the start of this interesting discussion there was the complaint of a disappointing resolution of detail. Perhaps the core problem is mostly lack of adequate contact in the contact process. I don't have a vacuum system, but did find a nice improvement in my contacts by getting a heavier contact glass and weighing it down on the edges.

[Pere Casals]

Drew made a point that I found interesting...printing larger for micro-detail.

If one decides to produce contact prints, then the image itself will be strongly driven by the size of the final print (and I suppose also by the expected viewing distance). A 40"x60" print viewed at 20 feet probably has no more micro-detail than an 8x10 contact print held in one's hands.

A recent show I had of platinum prints from contacted 6cmx6cm (120 film) images brought this to my attention. Images that would have looked great at just 8"x8" did not 'work' as contact prints -- just too busy at that size and composition fell apart. And the reverse is also can happen -- good looking small images that fall apart enlarged to bed-sheet size.

Also everything it depends indivudual sight score. A man with 80 score won't notice as much detail than one with 130 score, by far.

This is the main factor that promotes controversy about that, of course.


The limit is organic.

In the case that a photograph display takes all of our field of vision we can see 8 perceptual Mpix if we don't move eyes, if seen without moving head but we move our eyes and we explore the field of view with our Fovea we can notice some 60 perceptual Mpix. This talking about people with 100 sight score.


Note that a 4x5 negative, if perfectly sharp, may contain 200 perceptual MPix, and a 8x10 may contain 800.

From some 50cm wide it does not mater if it is a larger print, as we have to look it fom a far position, in the case we are going to see all the photograph.


My opinion, (please reply if incorrect) is that a 50cm enlarged print will show more detail to the viewer than a 8x10 contact print. And if we enlarge to say 1m and we move back to se it we'll see the same detail than with a 50cm print.


Of couse a 1m large print seen at reading distance is another thing, then we'll need an eleagement from a 4x5 to display all the eye can see. For a 2m print seen at reading distance we need a 8x10 negative to display all that eye can see.



A 8x10 contact print is the perfection for a 8x10 print-size, we cannot see all detail by eye, and we can see more and more detail with a 8x magnifier, microcontrast will be the best possible... this is a high-end imaging device: gorgeus, gorgeus, gorgeus.


So at the end, if we are to print at 1:1 enlargement, the contact print is better because microcontrast and it has better detail if seen with a 4x or stronger maginifier. If we want a larger size it will show more detail to the viewer. (if negative is sharp)


So a 6x6cm Medium format sharp shot (example CZ 80mm 2.8 at F/8 on TMax 100) have detail to the extent our eyes can see. A 4x5" sharp negative has much more detail than a guy with 130 sight score can see, even with some not ideal shooting conditions.

And 8x10" is a gorgeus overkill. With a very sharp 8x10 negative (Sironar-S, f/11, TMax 100) we can enlarge 2m and see it at reading distance, with more detail than our eyes can see.


I feel privileged because I've 120 to 130 sight score (if wearing my glasses), so I can read small individual letters at 1.2m distance when the average can read it from just 1m. People with 140 can read same letters from 1.4m distance, and poeple with 80 score need to be at 0.8 the identify same size letters.

So my point? If one decides to contact print, then one will be led towards subjects and composition that work best at that size...hopefully without needing fancy masking.

I completely agree, contact print is well rewarding, but one has to keep in mind the format itsef. It is a good training, photographers can crop to any aspect ratio, cinematographers can't and every escene has that constraint, so format usage is also there.

[Jim Jones]

Way back at the start of this interesting discussion there was the complaint of a disappointing resolution of detail. Perhaps the core problem is mostly lack of adequate contact in the contact process. I don't have a vacuum system, but did find a nice improvement in my contacts by getting a heavier contact glass and weighing it down on the edges.

Two other factors that limit detail in contact printing are the material used to back up the photo paper and the size and distance of the light source. The backing material must be both firm and soft enough to insure good film to paper contact throughout the image. The felt used in some old contact printing frames was too thin (and often white!) to insure good print quality. A diffuse or large close light source demands more intimate contact between film and paper than a small distant light source. This was painfully true when duplicating 32x40" negatives onto slow diazo film with a large 10KW light source less than 3' above the vacuum table. Draw-down time was several minutes. A similar table could adequately draw down those negatives onto much faster litho film in seconds when using a tiny light source in the ceiling.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm certain that thousands of versions of this debate have transpired in one form or another over the years, and equally led to nowhere. Some of this would probably make any print shop veteran howl with laughter, concerning things they were expected to do well every single day, with appropriate gear of course.