V700 for exhibition quality prints?

Firstly, a hello, first time posting.

After working on a series of photographs over the last few months I've started to consider scanning options. Having worked solely in the darkroom before now (black and white), the images I'm producing are colour neg and I've decided a hybrid workflow is the way to go. I've spent a good deal of time looking for some half-decent examples of 120 negatives scanned with the Epson V700. Flickr hasn't led me anywhere - almost every high res image I've found has been made wide open and handheld (does anyone ever stop down beyond f/2.8 there? ).

Basically, I'm after some reference images stopped all the way down with a tripod (I shoot landscapes) as to get a more accurate idea of the resolving power of this scanner. If anyone has any such examples, made on 120 colour neg, I'd be very grateful if you could share. This price range of scanners appears to be aimed at those whose images never leave the screen, and perhaps I'm a cheapskate, but making such an investment I'd like to know if small prints (which wouldn't look out of place in a gallery) are achievable? Has anyone exhibited prints made with the scanner?

Ultimately, I'd hope to print 8x8" and if the scanner can only manage this size very well, I'd be more than happy. Of course, I'm fully prepared to invest the time to master my technique (again!).


Thanks,
John

The V700 scanning MF for 8" X 8" prints is extremely modest requirements. An 8" X 8" print at 300dpi will only require 2400 X 2400 pixel scans which is well within the range of a V700.
Pixel output of V700 depending on settings:

• 2400dpi = 4983 X 6175 pixels
• 4800dpi = 9967 X 12351 pixels
• 6400dpi = 13,290 X 16,469 pixels

I don't know what types of images you are looking for so I randomly picked one. Below is a full res 6400dpi scan of Kodak E100G, MF 6X7 taken with my RZ67+110mm on a tripod. Note it is extremely compressed, past 100% viewing and you will see JPEG artifacting - squarish patterns. But at 13,290 X 16,469 pixels, I had to compromise somewhere to provide a manageable file size of a little over 5Megs.


Link to full res -> Kodak E100G MF

You can experiment to see what print sizes would look like to you.

I didn't print any of my scans yet, but i am gonna try some scans at some larger sizes such as 16x20 or square 20x20[or 16x16] and see how is the quality is, i know my V750 is not the best scanner but i heard it is the best flatbed scanner ut there, so i should consider its limitation and capability.

John Louis said:

Basically, I'm after some reference images stopped all the way down with a tripod (I shoot landscapes) as to get a more accurate idea of the resolving power of this scanner.

Click to expand...

Quality film scanners scan at 4000 pixels per inch of film (4000 ppi). There certainly is more detail on the film, but 4000 probably approaches what the film can give.

For medium format you would need a dedicated MF film scanner. Scanning at 4000 ppi or 3000 ppi will give you most of the details your film captures.

Scanning a MF film frame with a flatbed scanner at 300 ppi is useful for some "side" purposes such as showing your images on the internet, giving preview to a client, having a reference for cataloguing etc. If your main use of your colour MF photographs is to scan and to adopt a hybrid workflow, then I hereby solemnly declare that by using a flatbed scanner you are throwing out of the window most of the resolution (and probably of the tonal range) that your MF can offer.

TareqPhoto said:

. . . so i should consider its limitation and capability.

Click to expand...

The scanner is but one link in the whole chain that may or may not be the weak link when it comes to color, contrast and resolution.

1. Scene itself
2. Light
3. Film
4. Lens
5. Body
6. Technique
7. Developing
8. Scanner
9. Display size and calibration
10. Paper and print size

Les Sarile said:

I don't know what types of images you are looking for so I randomly picked one. Below is a full res 6400dpi scan of Kodak E100G, MF 6X7 taken with my RZ67+110mm on a tripod. Note it is extremely compressed, past 100% viewing and you will see JPEG artifacting - squarish patterns. But at 13,290 X 16,469 pixels, I had to compromise somewhere to provide a manageable file size of a little over 5Megs.

Link to full res -> Kodak E100G MF

You can experiment to see what print sizes would look like to you.

Click to expand...

Thanks Les. I got it down to 10x12" at 300dpi before it became printable in my eyes. Even at this size however, the overall quality reminds me of an early DSLR suffering from diffraction. It may have something to do with the tonalities being compressed too. In a way, I feel it would be defeating the purpose of shooting MF to some extent and perhaps dishing out a load of cash for a colour darkroom would be more worth my while.

Someone else mentioned scanning for website presentation, but isn't that lack of tonality and colour giving viewers a diminished experience of the materials and your work? The level of detail wouldn't be a concern at small web size of course, but the look of the larger negative with its smooth tones really seems to be lost with the above scan. Not to be disparaging of your work with the image, Les, but I wonder if you understand where I'm coming from? Almost like seeing the Mona Lisa through frosted glass!

I should say that with the Hasselblad examples I've seen on Flickr (although shot predominantly at f/2.8) the unique optical look of that camera seems to be retained, and I suppose this is what matters to a lot of people. With the more straightforward clarity of the Mamiya optics however (the strength of which I believe is the rendering power over any characteristic 'look') something appears to be lost.

John, As opposed to seeing the Mona Lisa through frosted glass, I believe you may be evaluating an example with no point of reference.

• Lack of tonality is certainly affected by 8bit JPEG compression.
• There is no display or paper - except possibly a backlit slide, that can even accommodate the dynamic range captured on film.

I also don't have a point of reference for what you are looking for either and I just randomly picked one that should well satisfy a measly 8" X 8" print and I don't even know what you're using to print or paper you are using. For that matter, I don't know what you are using to view and most certainly compressed color space of JPEGS on the web and calibration all come to influence what a casual observer may think is a simple exchange.

John Louis said:

Ultimately, I'd hope to print 8x8" and if the scanner can only manage this size very well, I'd be more than happy. Of course, I'm fully prepared to invest the time to master my technique (again!).

Click to expand...

John Louis said:

Thanks Les. I got it down to 10x12" at 300dpi before it became printable in my eyes. Even at this size however, the overall quality reminds me of an early DSLR suffering from diffraction.

Click to expand...

I'm glad that we at least met your ultimate goal, in this case better then 8" X 8".

Now with regards to diffraction and frosted glass etc, comes your part "to master my technique". This is where the post work comes in to suit your taste or your end goal.

Les Sarile said:

John, As opposed to seeing the Mona Lisa through frosted glass, I believe you may be evaluating an example with no point of reference.

• Lack of tonality is certainly affected by 8bit JPEG compression.
• There is no display or paper - except possibly a backlit slide, that can even accommodate the dynamic range captured on film.

I also don't have a point of reference for what you are looking for either and I just randomly picked one that should well satisfy a measly 8" X 8" print and I don't even know what you're using to print or paper you are using. For that matter, I don't know what you are using to view and most certainly compressed color space of JPEGS on the web and calibration all come to influence what a casual observer may think is a simple exchange.

Click to expand...

Thanks Les, hope I didn't offend you!
In terms of resolution, looking at your example, it seems the scanner can easily manage an 8" print from MF.

Perhaps I've given the impression in the original post that I'm a newbie to digital, which isn't quite the case, just the home scanning side. I have a Dell IPS monitor which is calibrated and of course I assessed the image you provided in PS. We've acknowledged that an 8" print is possible in terms of resolution, but for me, colour detail is the biggest concern. As I mentioned, I'm coming from black and white and wouldn't be shooting colour at all if the work didn't depend on it.

I'll spend some more time playing with your image in PS (as long as you don't mind!) and see how I feel in a little while.

Les Sarile said:

Now with regards to diffraction and frosted glass etc, comes your part "to master my technique". This is where the post work comes in to suit your taste or your end goal.

Click to expand...

For me this is the most exciting part of the potential investment, and you're right, it's important to remember.

Thanks again.

No offense taken and use the example as you see fit.

To be sure, I have scanned over 20,000 frames of various films ranging from 110 film shot with plastic lens Instamatics to 4X5 WWII b&w - all brands, types, scenes, under various lightings - even other peoples films, using practically all the different desktop dedicated film & flatbeds, minilabs (Noritsu, Fuji, Agfa, Durst), various drum scanners as well as Imacon scanners and DSLR "scan". I can only tell you that even with all the scanning I have done, the best thing will still have to be you conducting some scans on your own for your end use . . .

BTW, I have also taken some sample film brands/types and had optical poster prints made - 20" X 30", so I can reference what are expected results from my scans of 35mm film. More recently, I also had same size prints made with various papers, various inks on various Epson printers. This way I know what will show up on print - depending on size, as opposed to what can only be seen on screen.