printing from transparencies

[el pescador]

Hope you can give me some advice/bring me up to speed on hardware/methods of printing from transparencies. For the last few years I,ve been concentrating on MF/LF black and white photography in my own wet darkroom. Years back I used to do stock photography and everything was on velvia, which I loved. I,m wondering what would be involved in setting up for printing from velvia transparencies. I probably wouldn,t want to print much larger than 20x16. Is it possible to scan transparencies satisfactorally with a flat bed scanner (Epson v700?) And which printer? Epson seem to get good reviews. Is this even a good idea or should I be looking at different film/methods to produce good colour prints? Thanks inadvance

[Jim Jones]

I've been using an Epson V700 scanner and 3800 printer for five or six years now, and am completely satisfied. The printer has produced maybe 6000 B&W and color prints with no significant problems. Others with very high expectations may demand even higher performance, but most should be satisfied with the Epson setup.

[Lenny Eiger]

There have been threads recently about the best rental darkrooms in different cities where one can rent scanner time, etc. I wouldn't scan a 35mm slide on a 750 and expect it to print at 16x20 (or 20x16). You have to make a judgment about the level of print quality you want. I think the Epson printer is the right way to go. However, for myself, I would go a level or two up on the scanner.

Jim is satisfied, however, and he's older than me... ;-) You are going to have to make up your own mind. Best is to test it. If you are somewhere remote, then hire someone to do a consumer flatbed scan and someone else to do a better scan, and see what they are like. The Epson flatbed scanner is not cheap....

Lenny

[el pescador]

There have been threads recently about the best rental darkrooms in different cities where one can rent scanner time, etc. I wouldn't scan a 35mm slide on a 750 and expect it to print at 16x20 (or 20x16). You have to make a judgment about the level of print quality you want. I think the Epson printer is the right way to go. However, for myself, I would go a level or two up on the scanner.

Jim is satisfied, however, and he's older than me... ;-) You are going to have to make up your own mind. Best is to test it. If you are somewhere remote, then hire someone to do a consumer flatbed scan and someone else to do a better scan, and see what they are like. The Epson flatbed scanner is not cheap....

Lenny

I would only be thinking of scanning 6x9, 6x12 and 4x5, so was hoping the v700 would be OK for this

[Heroique]

A Fuji machine, say at Costco, can do also do affordable wonders.

My Epson 4990, the predecessor to the V700/750, scans all 4x5 Velvia emulsions beautifully, esp. if DR challenges are minimal.

After light-duty PS processing, it's off for wet processing on Fuji crystal archive paper, often larger than 11x14, and beautiful print results. Up to 16x20 can be done acceptably well w/ an ideal production chain – from exposure choice, to scanning, to PS, to print.

Personally, my favorite transparency when prints go big is Fuji-64T.

[Lenny Eiger]

I would only be thinking of scanning 6x9, 6x12 and 4x5, so was hoping the v700 would be OK for this

It definitely would help. However, you still have to decide on your personal sense of what kind of quality you want to have in a print. Printing is something that is very important to some folks and less so to others. That's not a value judgement, everyone's sense of what's important is different within their own personal aesthetic.

Personally, the Epson flatbed scanners offend me, I won't use them. There are many of us that spend a lot of money to purchase a Mamiya 7 II, with some of the sharpest lenses made, and then scan on a consumer flatbed with plastic lenses. This forum is filled with users that get all excited about an Apo Sironar S, or Schneider Super Symmar, Commercial Ektar, G-Claron, etc. Again, why put that result of that thru a plastic lens? However, that's a sentiment that makes sense to me, and is NOT shared by everyone. We are all different.

My only suggestion is that you not spend the $700-$900 on a scanner until you see the results from it and judge them to be good for you. You can also look at the other options. Then you won't be working in the realm of "hope" but you'll be able to make an informed decision, one that's right for you.

Lenny

[goamules]

I asked a year ago, where can one get color wet printed. I got no answers, if I recall correctly. Of course Kodak and Fuji will stop making transparency film, there is no infrastructure to make prints from it. My local Artiste lab will scan it for you, for a small fortune, on a not so great scanner, then print it on a bubble jet. Where is the advantage of using 18 dollar sheets of color film when you can't even get it on the wall better than a soccer mom's digital snap?

[Tin Can]

Don't forget your whole work flow comes into play. It's not just a scanner and a printer, you need a calibrated monitor, a powerful enough computer, the right software and the skills to operate all that stuff, including good eyes and personal judgement. Room lighting comes to mind also, both for viewing the monitor and any prints.

It's not easy, whichever route you take.

Then we have different inks for some printers and which paper, there are many variables that all can ruin your week.

Good luck.

[el pescador]

wow this is all pretty depressing, i'd assumed/hoped that in the 10 years since i shot stocks on velvia, technology would have moved forward and made it possible to produce good prints from transparencies at home. This seems to be backing up my theory that everyman and his dog has a camera they carry with them in the shape of a phone or tablet but no one actually prints the images.
I sell the b&w images i produce in my darkroom and was looking to add some colour images to my sales, but this seems to be a non starter. I'm guessing (i hope someone will confirm or deny this), that i could use the set up mentioned to proof the images at home and then if they were worth it I could get them drum scanned and print from those scans, or even send the images out for printing to larger sizes?
Hope someone on the forum who sells their colour images could say how they go about producing prints or is this really a non starter?

[Jim Jones]

The only film I routinely scan is 4x5 B&W on the Epson V700. My prints sell in an arts & crafts fair, and to individuals. Quality galleries and discriminating buyers should be more demanding. 6x9 scans would have more limited printing potential, and 35mm scans would be for little more than posting online.

[biedron]

I don't think things are as bleak as that.

If you are generally not going to print larger than 16x20, then scanning the images yourself with a V700/V750 and printing at home on an inkjet is probably more than acceptable - better than just good enough for proofs. For those extra special ones that you want to print larger, or just to go for the ultimate quality, outsource the scanning and perhaps the printing.

Bob


wow this is all pretty depressing, i'd assumed/hoped that in the 10 years since i shot stocks on velvia, technology would have moved forward and made it possible to produce good prints from transparencies at home. This seems to be backing up my theory that everyman and his dog has a camera they carry with them in the shape of a phone or tablet but no one actually prints the images.
I sell the b&w images i produce in my darkroom and was looking to add some colour images to my sales, but this seems to be a non starter. I'm guessing (i hope someone will confirm or deny this), that i could use the set up mentioned to proof the images at home and then if they were worth it I could get them drum scanned and print from those scans, or even send the images out for printing to larger sizes?
Hope someone on the forum who sells their colour images could say how they go about producing prints or is this really a non starter?

[Lenny Eiger]

I asked a year ago, where can one get color wet printed. I got no answers, if I recall correctly. Of course Kodak and Fuji will stop making transparency film, there is no infrastructure to make prints from it. My local Artiste lab will scan it for you, for a small fortune, on a not so great scanner, then print it on a bubble jet. Where is the advantage of using 18 dollar sheets of color film when you can't even get it on the wall better than a soccer mom's digital snap?

I could just as easily troll everyone and say wet printing is a joke. The truth is that a soccer mom can shoot film and do wet prints from it that are as bad as can be. I worked in a professional lab once and saw the most awful stuff from photographers who called themselves pros. Use a light meter, how does one do that? The other truth is that by all accounts, inkjet printing is better in a many ways than wet printing. So much so that it comes down to personal choice. In fact, wet wouldn't be my choice, and I have been printing professionally in a plethora of different styles for more than 30 years. I know what a good print looks like.

There is no reason to dissuade the OP from trying to print himself... A good print comes from someone working at it until its right, not from the materials.

Lenny

[djdister]

wow this is all pretty depressing, i'd assumed/hoped that in the 10 years since i shot stocks on velvia, technology would have moved forward and made it possible to produce good prints from transparencies at home. This seems to be backing up my theory that everyman and his dog has a camera they carry with them in the shape of a phone or tablet but no one actually prints the images.
I sell the b&w images i produce in my darkroom and was looking to add some colour images to my sales, but this seems to be a non starter. I'm guessing (i hope someone will confirm or deny this), that i could use the set up mentioned to proof the images at home and then if they were worth it I could get them drum scanned and print from those scans, or even send the images out for printing to larger sizes?
Hope someone on the forum who sells their colour images could say how they go about producing prints or is this really a non starter?

I've had very good success scanning 4x5 and 5x7 negs and positives on my Epson V750, and get very nice prints at home using my Epson 3880 printer. Color positives give better scans than color negs in my practice, so there is no reason you shouldn't be able to get decent enough prints with a home setup. If you are selling your prints for upwards of $1,000, then you should rely on drum scans and a professional printer.

[Heroique]

"Excellent wet printing," as a seasoned image maker would define it, is possible indeed if all links in the chain are ideal, and one doesn't try to jump the fence of the inherent limitations.

A soccer mom isn't working with these things in mind, or at least not the ones I know. ;^)

Oft-overlooked links: the suitability of the image to print, a solid grasp of scanning (4990/v700/v750), a calibrated monitor, the great potential of digital processing, even a flexible relationship with a knowledgeable Fuji machine operator – this last is certainly not typical, but neither is it rare in my experience. These are only a few of the links that make excellence possible, and as Lenny suggests above, it takes a printer who improves his or her knowledge and workflow up to the boundary of what's possible with the equipment.

[goamules]

My hyperbole knows no bounds. But I'll try to back it off a little, and say printing from transparencies can be done, it's just different than before. I suppose. I only had one scanned and printed, and it wasn't that expensive, but I'd say $30-60 dollars if I recall. It's about 16x20.

[riooso]

For years I have been using the V700 to do first scans so that I can print up to 16X20 from 4X5 slides. Kinda a big proof, if you will. I then pick the best of these that I think are worth a drum scan. Shops offer drum scans at a very reasonable price sometimes so get on their e-mail lists. I can't remember the cost exactly but somewhere for around $35 I got a 270 Meg Tiff file, which is good enough for a 40x30 at 275 dpi print. That is not to bad for an image that you really want to have the extra detail and dynamic range.

Take Care,
Richard

[Lenny Eiger]

My hyperbole knows no bounds. But I'll try to back it off a little, and say printing from transparencies can be done, it's just different than before

Garrett,

It certainly is different. I popped in to the link in your signature. You seem like a nice guy, with a nice family. I'm going camping with my family this coming week, it will look a lot like some of those photos. I'll offer this.

When I first came here I had a lot of opinions, pissed off a lot of people. I paid dearly for many of my lessons (like a lot of us) and I was stuck on what I thought I knew. Then I got some authoritative-sounding advice from someone who had been doing photography for three weeks and that really did it. I was a pain for some time.

I've mellowed a bit. Maybe not enough. But I find myself more interested in community than not these days. The large format photographers seem to be the only ones that understand what I am trying to do in my own work. I am always happy to meet them in the field. Sure, I'm still very interested that the newbies have accurate info. But I'd rather have friends than be right. Please realize I'm not writing this about you. It's about me, and about all of us.

This is a special place. It isn't like photo.net, or apug, or luminous. I've met a bunch of the folks here over time, mostly locals, but even one guy who came all the way from Iceland to visit. They've all been great. I'm happy to be here. I'm going to try and do it better...

Next time you're in CA, come on by...

Lenny

[angusparker]

I think the Epson v750 / 3800 combination excels at 4x5 up to 8x10 and the larger pano MF sizes like 6x12 or 6x17 assuming you want detail in a print 16x20 and up in size. For any film size smaller I would suggest getting a dedicated MF scanner (mostly discontinued now) or having your best work professionally drum scanned. Another consideration is the type of film used. For MF I've found that my best enlarged images come from dye based films i.e. E6 and C41 which give no grain when compared to traditional B&W film.