Print from a scan Vs Projection

[Ivo Stunga]

Just a few things I noticed yesterday, opening my first exhibition:
- A pic scanned with Plustek 7600i Ai maxes out at about 3600: A3 size photography (11.7 x 16.5" ~3600ppi) print looks identical to A2 (16.5 x 23.4" ~7200ppi) details-wise. Even when A2 was achieved from a "blown up" 3600 scan, comparing to my 7200 scan. Either lab did a decent+ upscaling job or I need more power from my scanner... or both.
- A2 print has nothing on 1,75m projection. Just nothing. Projection offers more details and is sharper at a given size - I knew this, but having said prints next to projection screen tells all the story. I need more power from my scanner if I want to print larger than A3, pushing A2.
- Editing on my OLED TV screen gives prints close to what I see whilst editing. Nice.

But should I invest in a better scanner when printing once in a blue moon? Are there dedicated true 7200ppi 135 machines out there?

 

[koraks]

Congrats on the exhibition.

Comparing print to projection (even digital screens) is tricky. You know that, but sounds to me you still fell for it. Tread carefully.

If high-resolution print is required and you're working from digital files, I'd just record in digital to begin with. It's far more convenient as well. Plenty of digital cameras will produce files that will make razor-sharp A2 (and larger) prints. Btw, keep in mind the effective resolution of digital print is mostly 300-360dpi. Throwing more pixels at it doesn't make for a better print. Media (paper) choice makes a MASSIVE difference, however. And of course exhibition lighting also plays a role.

If you want to do it the luddite way, then I'd suggest going all analog for your prints as well. That way, you won't have to worry about dpi's at all. If you work in color, this means you'll be limited in terms of flexibility (color, contrast & saturation adjustments), but fine prints can still be made directly from negatives using an enlarger - provided you shoot color negative. B&W of course is still attractive for its accessibility (although color really isn't that much harder to get started with) and in terms of resolution, has some advantages if you want to optimize the last drop out of things. And of course, if working analog and you need more detail in the print, just shoot a larger format.

All considered, going digital for such projects sounds more productive to me, but I guess maybe you just like that bit where you pop off the cap from a 35mm can to insert the roll into the camera. That sort of nostalgia can really get in the way of some good photography sometimes.

Finally, ask yourself how close to an A2 print people will generally get, and if they get mighty close, if it's still relevant what they're seeing. If it is, shoot a larger format.

It's easy to get carried away with this.

PS: don't get your panties twisted in a bunch over the suggestions above. Given that you're exhibiting now, I take it your interest in photography is genuine. Consider what that means for your workflow, and if you want to be bogged down by process decisions that lack a clear rationale. Think of the development of you, yourself, as a photographer.

 

[L Gebhardt]

There are certainly better scanners out there. The 8000ppi drum scanners should get almost all the detail off a normal photographic negative or positive and are likely the best quality option. Camera scanning with a good lens and a high resolution sensor can also deliver that level of detail but it takes a lot a fiddling to get a really dialed in system. I don’t know of any dedicated 135 scanner that comes close that is on the market today. An old Nikon or even Canon 4000ppi scanner is probably better than the Plustek.

Are you shooting transparencies? If so the shadow details should also be better resolved with a drum scanner and even the camera scanning method.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Congrats on the exhibition.

Thanks - I like this and will do more!

Comparing print to projection (even digital screens) is tricky. You know that, but sounds to me you still fell for it. Tread carefully.

All considered, going digital for such projects sounds more productive to me, but I guess maybe you just like that bit where you pop off the cap from a 35mm can to insert the roll into the camera. That sort of nostalgia can really get in the way of some good photography sometimes.

bogged down by process decisions that lack a clear rationale.

You grabbed some hard assumptions from thin air right her and fell in a dark pit whilst doing so. Let me clear some things out, in order:
1. I shoot slides, I do BW reversal. 135 slide is the source, I'm limited to this, it's set in stone - a conscious choice involving economics and equipment.
2. Sometimes I want to show my work not only projected, but on paper - once in a blue moon. Considering that 135 slide is my sole source, any notion of going digital or larger with film is moot and irrelevant, because that's not the way I enjoy my photography. I enjoy film, I enjoy projection as my main course, prints come second. Popping the can open does nothing to me, but smelling the film (especially E-6 and Aviphot films) - absolutely do tingle my pleasure centers. Experience is an experience. The more senses involved, the stronger the experience.

It's easy to get carried away with this.

Agreed, so let's not! When I say projection is better and that side-by-side comparison leaves no room for doubt, I mean it! To have the same slide projected 50x and to have A2 print from it next to the projection screen - no competition whatsoever. This is given the service I used and the paper they used - outside my control, but as a consumer ordering prints in a prosumer lab, and as a photogrpaher projecting my slides - no competition, I'll repeat. If you ever come to Latvia, we could discuss this and marvel the projection in person.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Are you shooting transparencies? If so the shadow details should also be better resolved with a drum scanner and even the camera scanning method.

I am, yes. I was thinking something along these lines

 

[koraks]

You grabbed some hard assumptions from thin air

Not really, but I guess I was being overly optimistic with regard to flexibility.

Yeah, look for a better scanner. Or just make a hard demand that all your work will be projected and just forget about print.

 

[grain elevator]

How about making optical prints, as suggested above? They are projections after all. You'd need an internegative of some sort, but I don't think that's a huge issue.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Not really, but I guess I was being overly optimistic with regard to flexibility.

Flexibility is not always needed - plethora of artists work within a format and limitations imposed upon themselves/said format. I like limitations, generates more satisfaction when great result is achieved. Especially now when people are forgetting what film projection looks like - a nice reminder to folks.

How about making optical prints, as suggested above? They are projections after all. You'd need an internegative of some sort, but I don't think that's a huge issue.

Haven't done this and have no access to enlarger, but it would be fun to explore this, will ask around.

 

[koraks]

plethora of artists work within a format and limitations imposed upon themselves/said format.

Yes, certainly. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. I don't know really; I'm not an artist. I just like to mess about with certain things and like other things a little less, so I avoid those.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Hell, I'm not even a photographer - just a hobbyist enjoying his craft.

 

[Don_ih]

Maybe make smaller prints until you can find a better scanner - up to 12" on the long side. Assuming you don't want prints from many of your slides, you may have the best luck using a digital camera and macro lens, take 4 or 6 photos of the slide (photograph sections of the slide) and stitch them together to get a pretty massive scan. That's what @Huss does and gets high quality large prints made (he mentioned it somewhere).