Has scanning replaced contact prints?

[Europan]

Why not expose print film in contact with negatives? Slides!

 

[miha]

Why not expose print film in contact with negatives? Slides!

Is it really that easy? The only print film I see available is Bergger, and it comes with a hefty price tag, about 158 EUR for 25 sheets of 8×10, which is still on the small side if you’re contact printing seven strips of 35mm. 11×14 is even dearer at around 264 EUR. Hardly a solution for most people, I’d say. Or am I missing something?

 

[P Sanders]

Wow, what a rabbit hole to go down. I contact print medium format and 4x5 and yes, costs are always increasing and resources becoming more limited.

Wishing to avoid the discussion of digital vs analog print quality, believe the contact sheet is not just a visualization tool but one confirming correct film exposure and development, which after an embarrassing 55 years of photography, is still in need of improvement.

Digital is certainly a keyboard away from accessing images and organizational folders, and scanners can pull more detail from a negative than the conventional printing method (I have not measured quantitatively however spent a lifetime in commercial offset printing and reproduction of images before and after color separation scanners). The retouching tools of digital imaging are outstanding compared to analog.

Final printing conventionally, either contacting 4x5 or enlarging medium format, the contact sheet may be helpful as where to start with crop, grade, dodge and burn. Using the screen as a reference (you’ve calibrated the monitor, RIP and digital print paper and balanced lighting) there are numerous tools available to adjust the image you originally previsualized.

The digital printer, printing ink cartridges, calibration scales and paper print tests aren’t fun or inexpensive. Perhaps it’s the old fashioned side of the photographic darkroom and alternate printing options sans computer participation (do read a book and newspaper on paper or digital pages) that I learned so many years ago that’s comforting.

Creating the final image has been my guide. And there’s always the option of making a digital negative and then contact printing at 100% size. Yikes, another rabbit hole.

 

[Pieter12]

Wow, what a rabbit hole to go down. I contact print medium format and 4x5 and yes, costs are always increasing and resources becoming more limited.

Wishing to avoid the discussion of digital vs analog print quality, believe the contact sheet is not just a visualization tool but one confirming correct film exposure and development, which after an embarrassing 55 years of photography, is still in need of improvement.

Digital is certainly a keyboard away from accessing images and organizational folders, and scanners can pull more detail from a negative than the conventional printing method (I have not measured quantitatively however spent a lifetime in commercial offset printing and reproduction of images before and after color separation scanners). The retouching tools of digital imaging are outstanding compared to analog.

Final printing conventionally, either contacting 4x5 or enlarging medium format, the contact sheet may be helpful as where to start with crop, grade, dodge and burn. Using the screen as a reference (you’ve calibrated the monitor, RIP and digital print paper and balanced lighting) there are numerous tools available to adjust the image you originally previsualized.

The digital printer, printing ink cartridges, calibration scales and paper print tests aren’t fun or inexpensive. Perhaps it’s the old fashioned side of the photographic darkroom and alternate printing options sans computer participation (do read a book and newspaper on paper or digital pages) that I learned so many years ago that’s comforting.

Creating the final image has been my guide. And there’s always the option of making a digital negative and then contact printing at 100% size. Yikes, another rabbit hole.

I use a cheap Brother inkjet printer to print my contact sheets on Costco photo paper (which I haven't seen lately, so it may be NLA). Pretty inexpensive way to go. I have found that adjustments made to digital files don't always translate to the darkroom, so I don't fiddle with the scans much, maybe just enough to show what's there is the exposure is off. It also seems to me that perusing physical contact sheets is more appealing, being able to take a grease pen to mark and crop (especially off-square!) what I want to print.