Upsizing to big prints

[JBrunner]

I have several well exposed color transparencies in 4x5 and 6x17 that I need to print big, as in 30x40 and 29x90.

What is the current best method for scanning? How much better are drum scans these days, than say the current breed of much improved flatbed, like the 4990?

What is the best method for interpolating up to the big file? Or is that best left to the lab? I'm looking for a workflow that will give the best results under scrutiny, not just normal viewing distance.

Thanks,

J

 

[donbga]

Jason,

Assuming that you will be outputing @ 300 dpi, a 4x5 needs to scanned at about 2400 dpi and the the 6x17 needs to be scanned @ about 4000 dpi. No interpolation will be required.

To determine the above figures I simply opened a new image in PS at the desired sizes and then resized to the original film dimensions with resampling unchecked. This is what my inkjet ateliers have told me to do to determine the scanning metrics for enlargements of a particular size.

A drum scan will be needed to get the best results especially for dynamic range. The 4990 can't compete with a good drum scan.

Of course you could try scanning on the 4990 and have a small 8x10 section printed as a test, it maybe good enough for your needs.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

 

[jd callow]

I would think you'd need a dedicated film scanner. The flextight (or better) for the 4x5 and I don't know of anything other than a drum scanner or a Creo now kodak flatbed (the EverSmart Supreme is the one I'm familiar with, but is now out of production) that will scan the 6x17. The flextights I've used will scan 5x7 reflective but wont do larger than 4x5 or 6x12 transmissive. Most flatbeds (in my opinion) are not good for production enlargements.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Drum scans are much better than anything you will get from a flatbed scanner. They will resolve more resolution and see farther into the shadows. I have compared my drum scanner to my Epson 4870 and it appears that the Epson resolves slightly less than 1800dpi. This won't be enough for your needs.

As mentioned above you will not need to interpolate if you scan at the correct resolution. That will depend on your output method. For an Epson printer I would go with 360dpi as my target. So scan the 4x5s at 300dpi and the 6x17 at 5000dpi, if the scanner will do this.

 

[Bob Carnie]

JBrunner

I would google reproimages, for the money they produce the best scans for fine printing applications. I believe they use a Tango Drum scanner and their prices are quite reasonable.

 

[Baxter Bradford]

At the viewing distances for these prints, I don't think that you need to achieve 300ppi.

Faced with the prospect of rescanning most of my pictures to achieve this figure, I tried a print at 240ppi and there was no discernable difference. I have rescanned some pictures to achieve the magic 300 which is bandied about, but only the most anoraky 'print sniffer' with a loupe will probably notice any difference. My Flextight's max res is 2040 for 4x5 and this gives an 63x80cm print at 300 and 78x100 at 240ppi without any resampling.

I have recently used Genuine Fractals to up-res another photographer's 7MB digital image to print a 57x76cm picture at 300ppi. The result is a far cry from my own pictures, but again acceptable at the intended viewing distance.

Ag magazine recently ran a review on how to up-res and verdict was that CS2's bicubic smoother does as good a job as alternatives. Other people disagree and Genuine Fractals along with Fred Miranda's plug-in are favoured.

The Dmax (as Larry said, to see into shadows) and optical sharpness of the scanner are more important than the highest pixel-packing figure.

HTH

 

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW

I have rescanned some pictures to achieve the magic 300 which is bandied about, but only the most anoraky 'print sniffer' with a loupe will probably notice any difference.

Which is exactly what most large format photographers did before digital. That is a large part of why we shot LF and these high standards are not lessened by the switch to digital printing.

 

[Ted Harris]

You need to go with a high end flatbed (Creo, Screen, Fuji) or a drum scan. Resolution isn't the issue here, the quality of the resoution and the shadow detail (DMax) is. The high end scanners have far superior optics, better focusing mechanisms and much higher DMax than any of the prosumer scanners or the Imacons.

Some blatant self promotion .... I am doing a small amount of scanning for others these days using a Screen Cezanne and can handle both of yours. Contact me directly for more info.

 

[JBrunner]

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions, I'd not thought that the trannies could be scanned to size without uprezing. I'm vey happy about that. I am currently having the same chrome scanned by an Imacon and a drum scanner locally to see if the Imacon will meet my needs or if the drumscan is worth the extra expense.

 

[Robert Hall]

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions, I'd not thought that the trannies could be scanned to size without uprezing. I'm vey happy about that. I am currently having the same chrome scanned by an Imacon and a drum scanner locally to see if the Imacon will meet my needs or if the drumscan is worth the extra expense.

If you want, bring one by and I will scan it on my new epson at 6800 if you would like a comparison.

Robert

Robert Hall
www.RobertHall.com

 

[Nicole]

I know I'm resurrecting an old thread but this is timely...
JBrunner how did you go with the Imacon Scanner? How does it compare with other scanners you've tried?