Scanning and printing large prints : to 45"

[Nicole]

I currently use the V700 for scanning, but purely to proof my (35mm & 120mm) negs. What is the largest successful print you have been able to produce from a V700 scan?

I print up to 45" on a regular basis and am at (another) cross road. In your experience, what can you recommend as the best scanner and the best printer for such prints.

Kind regards,
Nicole

 

[donbga]

I currently use the V700 for scanning, but purely to proof my (35mm & 120mm) negs. What is the largest successful print you have been able to produce from a V700 scan?

I print up to 45" on a regular basis and am at (another) cross road. In your experience, what can you recommend as the best scanner and the best printer for such prints.

Kind regards,
Nicole

Simply stated a drum scanner or a very high end flat bed scanner. The v700 is really only good for prints up to about 11x14 inches for MF negs. 35 mm negatives - forget about it.

Don Bryant

 

[Pinholemaster]

All depends on the look you are after.

35 mm to a 45" print is easy, but you'll see everything. A look most people don't want. It's up to you whether a scan from the V700 exceeds your tastes.

Regardless, a 45" print should be looked at from two meters away. The magnified grain of 35 mm would be spectacular. HA!

Give it a whorl and let us know what you think.

 

[lenny]

All depends on the look you are after.

Absolutely. Everyone's idea of quality is different and to some a very grainy image is just fine. For some it actually adds to the image.

Regardless, a 45" print should be looked at from two meters away.

Everyone who comes to my studio and sees prints this large walks up to it as close as they can focus - to look at the detail. I don't believe in the argument for "viewing distance." It doesn't seem to follow reality, or at least my own experience.

I'm with Don - the only thing I would use is a drum scan. Something with a lot of resolution.

Lenny

 

[donbga]

All depends on the look you are after.

35 mm to a 45" print is easy, but you'll see everything. A look most people don't want. It's up to you whether a scan from the V700 exceeds your tastes.

Regardless, a 45" print should be looked at from two meters away. The magnified grain of 35 mm would be spectacular. HA!

Give it a whorl and let us know what you think.

Walter,

A 45 inch print made from a v700 scan of a 35 mm neg. would look hideous. If one is going to spend that much money for a huge print start with a high end scan if a quality print is desired.


Don Bryant

 

[Greg_E]

If you own the printer, that 45 inch print would cost all of about $15 on really good paper.

But I would agree that a properly done drum scan would be a good way to go. A poor scan will really fall apart at the larger sizes. I would opt for a really good scan even if the resolution was lower than the best drum scanner. A good scan will hold up to considerableicrease in size if the printer is using a good RIP to push the size up.

 

[donbga]

A print 45 inches on the longest side will require at least an 8000 spi scan with interpolation in PS to the final size @ 300 dpi. Without interpolation the prrint resolution would fall to about 252 spi.

As for the printer, you will need something like an Epson 9880 or comparable plus a RIP.

Unless you are doing a ton of this size work I would farm it all out.

Don Bryant

 

[clay]

I agree with Don and Lenny. Get a drum scan at the highest resolution they offer. You want a scan that can actually resolve the grain clumps. That will be the only way to get a nice huge print. If the grain is not imaged, the image will just get soft and mushy as it gets big. If you can resolve the grain clumps, then it will look pretty much like an traditional optical/chemical enlargement, and seem 'real'.

 

[keithwms]

I don't see how to take any 35mm print film to 45", whether by flatbed or by drum or by prayer. Medium format negs neither... unless we're talking very fine b&w stuff perhaps developed in pyro or whatever. Medium format slide, sure, go for it, but an epson flatbed probably isn't going to get you there.

I've done a handful of prints to sizes like that and they were all from 5x7" velvia. They were drummed for lightjet prints.

Interpolated mush annoys me greatly. I think an image has to have a reason to be enlarged, some compelling fine detail. I see 6mp stuff taken to 24" and it looks airbrushed to me. Everybody has different opinions of course.

 

[sanking]

I don't see how to take any 35mm print film to 45", whether by flatbed or by drum or by prayer. Medium format negs neither... unless we're talking very fine b&w stuff perhaps developed in pyro or whatever. Medium format slide, sure, go for it, but an epson flatbed probably isn't going to get you there.

I agree with you in principle. However, I have seen some results from a Leica MP with a modern 50mm Leitz lens that might well got to a 45" wide print and still have a lot of detail, if scanned at high enough spi. The negatives are on ADOX 25 film and probably resolve over 150 lines/mm. I calculate that even at 44" wide a print from these negatives would still carry the equivalent of 7 lines/mm of detail, which is beyond the threshold of human vision.

But, the only way to extract all of the information from this type of negative is with a drum scan, and not just any drum scan, but one that can resolve around 8000 lines/mm.

Sandy King

 

[keithwms]

Fair enough, I agree, and after writing that :rolleyes: I thought that somebody might mention a certain Leica or Zeiss lens and tech pan and then an Aztek scan

Nicole, I think at some point all of us have to get superduper scans from our most cherished negs or slides and decide for ourselves. We can all amicably speak of lp/mm and bits and bobs as these issues are quite neutral with respect to the individual art. But there is one thing that cannot readily be quantified and always causes swords to be drawn: how grain works with your composition. That is for you to assess.

 

[clay]

Sandy, is this example the one Don Hutton posted on the LF forum? If so, that was impressive, to be sure. I think Don's example illustrates a point you have made in the past that if you maximize every link of your imaging 'chain', some pretty incredible results can be had.

I agree with you in principle. However, I have seen some results from a Leica MP with a modern 50mm Leitz lens that might well got to a 45" wide print and still have a lot of detail, if scanned at high enough spi. The negatives are on ADOX 25 film and probably resolve over 150 lines/mm. I calculate that even at 44" wide a print from these negatives would still carry the equivalent of 7 lines/mm of detail, which is beyond the threshold of human vision.

But, the only way to extract all of the information from this type of negative is with a drum scan, and not just any drum scan, but one that can resolve around 8000 lines/mm.

Sandy King

 

[sanking]

Sandy, is this example the one Don Hutton posted on the LF forum? If so, that was impressive, to be sure. I think Don's example illustrates a point you have made in the past that if you maximize every link of your imaging 'chain', some pretty incredible results can be had.

Clay,

The example is by Don Hutton, but it is another one from some testing we did on Memorial Day in Atlanta. We had some interesting equipment, including Leica MP, Mamiya 7II, a 21 mp Canon 1ds Mark III, a 4X5 with high quality lens, a P45 MF digital back on Contax, and a P45+ MF digital back on Mamiya. It was kind of a comparison shoot-out that included a constructed scene with target at 20 feet, and a construction site with lots of detail and a wide range of tonal values.

We are going to write this up as an article and are still in the preliminary phase of looking at the results, but I can tell you that the results from the Leica with the 25 ASA ADOX were just amazing, and I don't use that word lightly. And his scanner is only capable of pulling about 100 lines/mm of the 150 or so in the negative.

Sandy

 

[clay]

Well, I might as well slip into full-on geek mode now.

Was he using the new summilux 50 ASPH? I have one, and it deserves its designation as possibly the sharpest 50mm production lens ever made. And what developer are you guys using with that film?

Clay,

We are going to write this up as an article and are still in the preliminary phase of looking at the results, but I can tell you that the results from the Leica with the 25 ASA ADOX were just amazing, and I don't use that word lightly. And his scanner is only capable of pulling about 100 lines/mm of the 150 or so in the negative.

Sandy

 

[sanking]

Well, I might as well slip into full-on geek mode now.

Was he using the new summilux 50 ASPH? I have one, and it deserves its designation as possibly the sharpest 50mm production lens ever made. And what developer are you guys using with that film?

Yep, I am pretty sure that was the lens. It was definitely a 50mm Summilux, and I am pretty sure it was the ASPH.

The film was Adox CMS, and Don develops it in the Adotech CMS developer.
Pretty expensive, but it definitely does a good job.


Sandy

 

[donbga]

Yep, I am pretty sure that was the lens. It was definitely a 50mm Summilux, and I am pretty sure it was the ASPH.

The film was Adox CMS, and Don develops it in the Adotech CMS developer.
Pretty expensive, but it definitely does a good job.


Sandy

I've seen prints and scans made with Don Hutton's Leica setup, shot with ADOX CMS and I can vouche for what Sandy said. It really is that good. It's really almost mind blowing.


Don Bryant