PDA

View Full Version : Scanning a 5x7 color E6 - Questions on printing



goamules
25-Apr-2013, 07:35
Hi, I do wet darkroom, but bought a box of Fuji Provia 100F transparency film before thinking of how to process it. Smart, I know. But my town has a pro processing company, and they developed a couple 5x7s that look good. Then I discovered the only real way to get a print is to do a drum scan, which they are doing for one 5x7.

Here's where my lack of knowledge hurts, they started asking "what size scan?...resolution...blah". Rather than trying to get smart and come back, I asked for their recommendation if I wanted a "really big" print. Hey, if I'm going to see how this landscape looks with a goldrim dagor, I want it big! I told him 20x24. So he said he'd scan it for a 200MB file, let me preview, then talk about the printing.

Questions: is this a good DPI or whatever for a 5x7 to be printed 20x24? Should I print a little smaller? Or would it look great even larger?

Thanks!

Nathan Potter
25-Apr-2013, 10:18
It really depends upon what you are after in the print. A 20 X 24 will be about a 4X enlargement from a 5X7 film. From a strictly resolution point of view (if that matters) you might want to shoot for the smallest clear detail on the digital print to be about 100µm (0.1 mm.). If so you need the finest detail on the film to be about 1/4 of 100 µm or 25 µm. That's tough in 5X7 LF.

I scan with a V750 with a practical, real resolution of about 1500 spi. For a 5X7 this yields a 300 MB file. For my taste it is inadequate for a 20X24 inch print from 4X5 film but just makes it for a 5X7 film.

Providing your film is sharp enough (25 µm detail or so) then for the best results I'd go with a 400MB file size on a scanner with real resolution of say 2000 spi (spot size equivalent of 12 µm).

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Daniel Stone
25-Apr-2013, 10:42
Personally, I'd opt for a 400mb sized scan if you can afford it.
Having a larger file will allow you to ”down-res”, if needed. ”Up-res'ing”” generally is not recommended.
Most labs I've come across double prices for double the mb size-wise of the end file.
Good labs don't ;)
EDIT: Basically, they have an incremental pricing structure if they offer tiered-res scans at different prices

Best of luck,
Dan

Lenny Eiger
25-Apr-2013, 11:07
Here's where my lack of knowledge hurts, they started asking "what size scan?...resolution...blah". Rather than trying to get smart and come back, I asked for their recommendation if I wanted a "really big" print. Hey, if I'm going to see how this landscape looks with a goldrim dagor, I want it big! I told him 20x24. So he said he'd scan it for a 200MB file, let me preview, then talk about the printing.

Questions: is this a good DPI or whatever for a 5x7 to be printed 20x24? Should I print a little smaller? Or would it look great even larger?

Thanks!


Garrett,
Forgive me, but I am going to be a little rough here. It's a pet peeve... If this guy is really terrific I apologize in advance...
<rant>
Personally, I wouldn't let them scan my film. 200mb is not a large file, its a toy. I've supplied files to my clients of up to 25 Gigabytes - that's a large file. One of my clients likes to get 8000 ppi scans from 4x5's, they come in at about 6.5 Gigs. While those are exceptions, I usually do 5x7's to 2.5-3 Gigabytes, either 2666 or 4000ppi. When you convert it down, you get between 700 mb and a Gig of b&w, single channel. This gives you plenty of space to crop, do all sorts of adjustments and archive the file, knowing you have gotten everything in to the digital realm that's possible.

I am against the sale of scans by the megabyte. Once the scan is on the drum, and the corrections completed, the difference between 200mb and 400mb is minimal.

This kind of answer (the 200mb) puts your supplier in the category of a lab, not a custom scanner operator. The question is, do they simply "set points" for the b&w settings, or do they actually know how to curve the scan so that it gets you what you need, for the kind of print that you are wanting to do? Many labs see these sorts of things as a commodity and have an inexperienced person doing the scans.

A drum scan is not automatic process where you just put it on the drum and the scanner does the rest. All of the top scanners agree; the operator is the key ingredient, much more than the differences from one drum scanner to the next.
</rant>

Just my 5 cents...

Lenny

Tin Can
25-Apr-2013, 11:15
now we are talking!

Tyler Boley
25-Apr-2013, 11:25
a 200mb 8 bit RGB scan will get you to about a print the size you asked about at the native resolution of an Epson print at 1440 settings. I'd prefer larger for a variety of reasons.. if post scan editing is required it would be nice to have gotten a 16 bit file, which at a particular PPI setting will double the MB size right off. Did they state what bit depth that file will be at that size?
Also, it would better take advantage of higher quality print settings (if utilized) if it were at least 720 PPI at the final print size WITHOUT resampling. Of course if you want the option later for larger prints it's limiting to have paid for a scan that won't get you there...
Tyler

goamules
25-Apr-2013, 12:24
My gosh, this is why I've not gotten smart on any of this. Trust me, I know technology when I need to, I'm a former UNIX engineer, electronics tech, and even worked with gov imagery years ago. But I have not kept up with digital for imaging. So talking about microfarads and electron hole flow and shooting for 25GB files and such is a lot of info. I definitely should have asked about bit depth, I know about that. I just called them back, now writing more:

But thanks to all the inputs, it sounds like I'm hearing from the forum:

1. Bigger, bigger, bigger is needed. Scan so large you can barely fit it on a hard drive. (Man - I wish SOMEONE did color wet darkroom)
2. If I want a "really good, really big" print from Color E-6, it's going to cost over $100. For one print. (Man - I wish I had gotten neg film to do a contact print!)

They say they are doing 8bit for the 200mb file. They can change it to 16bit if I want. They say "the printing is in 8bit" When I pushed the shop on the phone, they are saying "an 8bit, 300ppi, 200MB file is "sufficient." They didn't tell me SPI, but I said "my pro friends are saying 300ppi is not enough". They are saying it is.....

I asked similar questions a year ago on this forum, "where do you get color printed, wet?" and got silence. I guess printing LF film in color is extremely expensive and cost prohibitive?

Tyler Boley
25-Apr-2013, 12:56
unfortunately you will get a lot of conflicting information, seems everyone is an expert on the internet.. including me!! :rolleyes:
Don't have them change to a 16 bit file for you, it has to have been scanned in hi bit in the first place for it to be of real advantage. I didn't mention anything about printing being in 8 bit, only that if much photoshop work is done after the scan, hi bit is better, but I think this issue is irrlevant at this point for you, sorry to have muddied the waters.
The fact is, a 300ppi file at print size is "sufficient".. and at what point more is really noticeable depends on a wide variety of unknowns about the film, the image, the type of printer, eyesight, expectations, etc.. I think there are more important issues about whether your print will be satisfactory to you then whether there is more than 300ppi available... color correction and file prep, choice of print materials, type of print, etc etc..
Have you seen their work? Are you impressed? Maybe that and a good feeling about their service to you are more important than file size at this point, as long as it is AT LEAST that...
Tyler

goamules
25-Apr-2013, 12:59
Good points. Yeah, I've been in there before, all they do is large prints, alternative, Impossible Project, etc. The tech I talked to had an MFA and has been shooting for years. They have developed all my LF color, just a few sheets in total. I've just never scanned them or printed yet. They will let me "proof" the scan, before printing, etc. I guess I'll try one first, and see where to go from there.

Tin Can
25-Apr-2013, 13:18
You always have to pay to play, this is an expensive sport.

Please update!




Good points. Yeah, I've been in there before, all they do is large prints, alternative, Impossible Project, etc. The tech I talked to had an MFA and has been shooting for years. They have developed all my LF color, just a few sheets in total. I've just never scanned them or printed yet. They will let me "proof" the scan, before printing, etc. I guess I'll try one first, and see where to go from there.

polyglot
25-Apr-2013, 18:26
You want a 16-bit scan in order to manipulate curves and (more importantly) to capture the whole dynamic range of the chrome! 8 bits is all that paper can represent, but you need at least 12 to capture a modern chrome that goes all the way to blacks and whites. Proposing to scan a chrome at 8 bits is the first sign you want to get someone else to do it.

As to resolution, MB is a really bad measure because it makes assumptions about bit-depth and number of colour channels. What you need to know is how many pixels per inch (ppi) that it was scanned at. The number of pixels you need depend (obviously) on how big you print.

300dpi in the print is acceptable, aiming for more like 500 is better. You want your print 20" on the short side, that's a 4x magnification from 5x7", which means you want about 2000ppi from the film scan. A good film scanner (e.g. my old SprintScan 45U) will do 2500dpi natively, so I would expect better than that from a lab, particularly considering that 2000dpi will not image all the way down to the grain. 4000dpi is getting to the point where probably you have captured most of what's on the film.

Say you get a 2000dpi scan, that's 5x7x2000x2000=140MP. Assuming it's an 8-bit RGB, that's a 420MB file. At 4000dpi and 16 bits (which is what I would recommend if you're bothering to pay someone to run a drum scanner), it's a ~3.4GB file.

Like Lenny says, charging per MB is rudeness. It doesn't cost them any less to skimp on the scan because there's still the same labour (mounting on the drum, waiting for the scanner, adjusting colours) involved. And given that we're talking about a $100+ service and under 4GB of data, the cost of a single 50c DVD-R for output is irrelevant.

Scanning is slow and expensive. Only do it once per frame and make sure you get data out of that it will suffice for all future purposes.

SergeyT
26-Apr-2013, 09:50
1. Go for 24x30 at 600 dpi. Sharpening is OFF. 8 bit is fine for as long as they set the endpoints correctly and bring up your shadows to the acceptable level during the scan not after.
2. Process your file to your linking and save as a copy.
3. Open the saved copy, re-size to 8x10 at the max printers input resolution, sharpen and save in a separate file.
4. Make an 8x10 proof print. If you like it - print large, if not go to step#2
** You may want to try different printers Inkjet, Lightjet... as there are noticeable difference in print appearance

SergeyT.

Tyler Boley
26-Apr-2013, 12:21
well my drum scan prices are related to file size.. many pleasant comments here..
I hope there is some clarity in here somewhere for Garrett.
Tyler

Tin Can
26-Apr-2013, 12:29
Time is money.

How long does a drum scan take?

Lower rez and absolute max?

I am sure it is also related to image initial size, so what are the physical size limits?

I once had two 35mm color negs scanned at a top Chicago service bureau. I didn't ask how much. I believe it was $60 each. OK, but they looked no better than what my Nikon CoolScan once did... Kinda put me off that route.

Lenny Eiger
26-Apr-2013, 14:12
All drum scans take time to mount. One can figure 10-12 minutes to mount a drum. Then there is preview and setup of each image (color correction, any adjustments, etc.). This can take 2-15 mins per image, depending on the difficulty. Once that's done, then there's scanning time

I don't do low rez scans so I can't speak to that, but here's my high rez chart. There is an insane rez level, but that's very rare.

35mm 8000 ppi about 20 mins per
med format 8000 ppi about 45 mins per - up to 6x7
4x5 4000 ppi about 25 mins per
8x10 2666 ppi about 35 mins per

The scanner previews at about 740 ppi. If I scanned at less than 2000 it would be about 2-5 mins per for the smaller scans.

After the scan, one has to look at it, possibly rotate it slightly to get it square, and spot it. We do a quick spot, that covers most everything, at 66%. It's supposed to be a 10 min task that makes sure anything created here is taken care of. (If not its rescanned.) However, it often goes over. We like to provide clean scans when we can.

Sometimes I'll throw a curve adjustment layer on it just to make sure the person can make the print they want to make. Everything is guaranteed.

I figure its about an hour per scan... what you are paying for is the expertise of the scanner operator getting the image scanned so that you can make the kind of print you want to make. The on-the-scanner time is a small part of that.

Lenny

Tin Can
26-Apr-2013, 14:32
Lenny, thanks for the explanation. It explains a lot.

Time is money, and that makes your rates very reasonable. The machine is very expensive, no doubt, and would need maintenance as any machine will.

Combine all fixed costs and high end scanning could be a very hard way to make a living.

I hope someday, I produce an image worthy of that type scan.

I better get cracking!



All drum scans take time to mount. One can figure 10-12 minutes to mount a drum. Then there is preview and setup of each image (color correction, any adjustments, etc.). This can take 2-15 mins per image, depending on the difficulty. Once that's done, then there's scanning time

I don't do low rez scans so I can't speak to that, but here's my high rez chart. There is an insane rez level, but that's very rare.

35mm 8000 ppi about 20 mins per
med format 8000 ppi about 45 mins per - up to 6x7
4x5 4000 ppi about 25 mins per
8x10 2666 ppi about 35 mins per

The scanner previews at about 740 ppi. If I scanned at less than 2000 it would be about 2-5 mins per for the smaller scans.

After the scan, one has to look at it, possibly rotate it slightly to get it square, and spot it. We do a quick spot, that covers most everything, at 66%. It's supposed to be a 10 min task that makes sure anything created here is taken care of. (If not its rescanned.) However, it often goes over. We like to provide clean scans when we can.

Sometimes I'll throw a curve adjustment layer on it just to make sure the person can make the print they want to make. Everything is guaranteed.

I figure its about an hour per scan... what you are paying for is the expertise of the scanner operator getting the image scanned so that you can make the kind of print you want to make. The on-the-scanner time is a small part of that.

Lenny

goamules
26-Apr-2013, 17:14
Thanks for all the info, which I'm using to adjust my order and future plans. Yes, there is some conflicting responses, but I'm zeroing in.

I didn't see your rates Lenny, but would like to compare. Update...just found them on your website. Yeah, maybe I'll get what I pay for. I'm planning on getting an A-B comparison with what this local place can do, and an out of state place (that has already contacted me). Maybe I can do an A-B-C....

Jim Andrada
26-Apr-2013, 18:28
Hi Garrett

Good to know you're using the 5 x 7 Provia. I used a few sheets myself and it's quite nice.

Are you sure it's really a DRUM scan as opposed to a flatbed scan? The file sizes seem awfully small for a drum scan. I scanned mine on an Epson 750 wet mounted and they came in just under 1GB at (a perhaps slightly optimistic) 2400 ppi.

Lenny Eiger
26-Apr-2013, 19:24
Thanks for all the info, which I'm using to adjust my order and future plans. Yes, there is some conflicting responses, but I'm zeroing in.

I didn't see your rates Lenny, but would like to compare. Update...just found them on your website. Yeah, maybe I'll get what I pay for. I'm planning on getting an A-B comparison with what this local place can do, and an out of state place (that has already contacted me). Maybe I can do an A-B-C....

Garrett, I hope you don't mean you are comparing on price. I'm not the cheapest, nor the most expensive. If you want to compare something, make sure its the quality, and even more important than that, the working relationship. It's important that the person you work with be a photographer, or a very experience scanner operator, someone that understands the process from a photographic point of view; and someone that listens to you and considers what you are trying to accomplish when they scan your work.

Lenny