Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
I think there is something about a contact print from whatever negative size that shows pure integrity of reversal. This is enhanced by the fact that there is direct physical contact between the neg and light sensitive material for positive conversion. Itís almost like a painting that remains the same regardless of whether it is in negative or positive.
I find this interesting, but I'm not sure I understand it. I make a lot of paper negatives, and sometimes I like the negative more than my contact print or "inverted scan". This happens especially when there are reflections in water or when there are lots of details in the highlights. Having those details on the dark background in the negative somehow emphasizes them and draws attention to form that is lost after reversing. ( I've speculated that this is similar to how some photographs look better on a white background or a dark one. ) I don't think my non-photographer friends tend to view them like I do though

But I get the sense you are talking about some kind of artistic or even physical purity. I've noticed people working with calotypes like to post the negatives, and have heard that they display the negatives. So that production of the original in-camera calotype is the goal. I've had thoughts along these lines with my big paper negative pinhole photos... there's something neat about the idea that the light went directly onto this paper and made this image. But I can't really say why that's different from a polaroid....

Quote Originally Posted by Old Fart View Post
ALFRED STIEGLITZ, Equivalent (Series), 1925-1931
I love that series. And I like what Minor White wrote about it.