Choice of film for scanning for very large prints

[redrockcoulee]

My wife is an installation artist (as well as a printmaker, painter, etc etc and photographer) She is having an exhibition in the local public gallery this coming winter and the curator wants along with and in part instead of her installation large prints of the shadows from her installation. She wants 60 by 90 inch prints. I think she needs 8 or 10 prints. We (as in me the helper and she the presser of the shutter) are planning on using a 69 back on the 4X5 She Hao view camera and a 90 Caltar lens to shot the images and scan them with Nikon CS 8000 using Scanscience fluid scan.



See if the image gets attached. Trying to show what she will be photographing and enlarging to the 60 by 90 size. the printing will either be done by herself at a self directed workshop or else sent to Toronto for Elevator to print. The workshop works out slightly less expensive and she will be in intensive learning for two weeks on digital printing and we both could use the knowledge and saves money on shipping the final product.

My question is given that it is of shadows which of these two films would be our best options Velvia 50 transparacey film or Portra 106 NC negative film?

[Preston]

You will get a greater dynamic range with the color neg, and hence, a bit better gradation of tone, especially in the low values, where Velveeta tends to block up. If you'd like to use a transparency film, Astia 100F works nicely. It's less contrasty than Velvia, the color is more neutral, and it has a wider dynamic range, as well.

The downside of shooting color neg, is that you'd be forced to scan allthe film in order to pick the best. With a transparency film, of course, you'd see the best ones right away on the light table.

Just thought I'd mention it, but those are mighty big prints to be made from a 6x9!

Sounds like an interesting project.

-Preston

[Peter De Smidt]

Boy, those are big prints. If you need to use 120 film, perhaps because of the Nikon scanner, you might consider turning the back vertical. Then take shots using front and rear shift, overlapping each frame by about 1/3, using perhaps 3 or 4 frames for the entire image. Scan each frame and combine the scans in Photoshop. You better have a powerful computer to handle the huge files. You will have to be careful about running out of coverage with that lens. You might want to use a longer lens if you use this approach.

Another option would be to pivot the camera around the entrance pupil of the lens and stitch the shots using Photoshop or any of the stitching programs, such as Autopano pro.

A third option would be to do the same thing with 4x5 but have the negs drum scanned, using either the shift method or the pivot method.

You would probably want to use Astia (or any super-fine grained film.) If you're in a studio, shooting slide film should be no problem, as you can control the dynamic range of the image through lighting.

A fourth option would be to use a 3d panoramic head, such as the larger Nodal Ninja, and shoot a very high res mosaic, i.e. overlapping frames in a checkerboard pattern, using a dSlr. In that case, you wouldn't need to do any scanning. You could also use a very high quality lens, for example a lens that is diffraction limited at, say, F4, as opposed to a large format lenses limit at F16 or F22. For example, I recently shot an old brick wall with many years of painted advertisements on it using a Dslr and a homemade 3d panoramic head. The image will print at 6 feet long at 360 dpi with no interpolation.

[redrockcoulee]

There are my wife's images, normally I print from the 4X5 or the Hasselblad onto a 8X10 paper with large white borders around them :)

Stitching may not work as the images are of shadows created by her installation and the shadows are made onto and through large paper banners she has made and are slowly moving in the air (Dana never makes things easy). The curator based her opinion of large images on some 24 X 36 images made from jpegs from a D1X.

We do have access to a V750 scanner with fluid scanning but not sure about holders. If stitching I think using the Hasselblad might be easier and if the subject was stationary have access to a manfrotto panaromic head but the slow movement will be the problem. The only 8X10 have access to is an Arca Swiss but it has not been used for over a decade so not sure about it or its lenses and I do think there are film holders for it. Other camera choices are the Hasselblad, a 5X7 Seneca Improved and a Nikon D3.

Would a scanned 4X5 or 5X7 on a Epson V750 be better than a 69 on a Nikon 8000? In some ways the grainness works with these images but we do want them to look decent and not like billboards as the gallery is not that big and people will view them up relatively close. The one advantage is that there will be low light levels so the shadows from the installation work as well. If colour was not important I would use the 4X5 Technical Pan as still have over 60 sheets of it and developer but nothing in life is easy is it? I think for her budget that drum scans may be out of the question unfortuantely and the other disadvange is 4X5 negative film and any thing larger than 4X5 must be sent out of town for processing.

Thanks for all the comments so far.

[Peter De Smidt]

Subject movement will also be a problem for 4x5 and 8x10, given their typically long exposure times with natural light. (These are going to be lit with natural light, right?) If you could use flash, which would freeze the motion, the Seneca might be the best choice, as it's aspect ratio is the same as 6x9, but the film is much bigger. You could always rent a lens if needed.

Stitching with movement would be a huge pain. Probably the easiest thing to do would be to use the D3 and take multiple shots at every frame of the stitch, the idea being to pick the ones that match up best. This could be really tedious.

[redrockcoulee]

Subject movement will also be a problem for 4x5 and 8x10, given their typically long exposure times with natural light. (These are going to be lit with natural light, right?) If you could use flash, which would freeze the motion, the Seneca might be the best choice, as it's aspect ratio is the same as 6x9, but the film is much bigger. You could always rent a lens if needed.

Stitching with movement would be a huge pain. Probably the easiest thing to do would be to use the D3 and take multiple shots at every frame of the stitch, the idea being to pick the ones that match up best. This could be really tedious.

Not natural light. Last time she used halogen lights. The set up is she has made items that hang from the ceiling like a mobile and then shines lights through banners made of tissue paper and the resultant shadow is on another banner of tissue paper. It is those shadows that she needs to photograph.

The D3 idea sounds like she will not need by help with the stiching, I do not have her patience :)

[redrockcoulee]

Another example of her past work this one shows what the banners themselves look like

[sanking]

Would a scanned 4X5 or 5X7 on a Epson V750 be better than a 69 on a Nikon 8000?


Hard to say because the final quality will depend on both how well the fillm is scanned and on how the file is worked. My inclination is that you would do about as well with 6X9cm scanning with the Nikon 8000 as with 4X5 scanning with the Epson V750. 5X7 will probably give a bump in image quality, even scanning with the V750.


Sandy King

[John Berry]

What about fractals?

[anchored]

I do believe such large prints can indeed be made from a 6x9 transparency easy enough as long as one is extremely careful with an editing done on the image.

However, I do not believe such size prints can be attained with any quality at all using an Epson V750 scanner. Would suggest having images drum scanned at high resolution, and will need a very powerful computer in order to post-process the very large files.

Would also suggest using Astia transparency... it's the smallest grain color transparency film available (smaller grain than Velvia 50).

[Tom Monego]

I have always had the best luck with Kodak or Fuji ISO 64 Tungsten films. I have gone to 60 inch from 6x9. 4x5 would be better, my reason for 6x9 was I needed movements with a 120 AM Apo Nikkor with a pen sized instrument.
The tungsten films have excellent color reproduction (under the right light source), are almost grainless and have good dynamic range for a transparency film. The Kodak and Fuji are very close colorwise I have used them interchangeably.
Negative film maybe slightly better but I prefer to scan with a transparency film as you have a direct comparison with the original.

Tom

[Bob McCarthy]

My suggestion would be to shoot the scene with the biggest piece of film convenient to the process. That would gather the most information.

Then experiment with the scanning process to determine the minimum scanner capability that produces the output you desire. If its a V750 your done. If it requires a more information dense scan, step up until you find your known endpoint.

Scan once, print many.

60" print is going to take a big - well scanned negative to gain maximum detail. How important is that to the client??

Lots of ways to scan, imacon for example. The creo IQ and screen cezanne approach the drum scan and may be cheaper to find a source for local scanning that's relatively inexpensive.

bob

[Bob McCarthy]

Just read the original post, a desired output of 60x90 inch print. That's massive for a 6x9 negative/slide. At least 30X, even a drum scan will be challenged unless the small detail is not important.

Even a 4x5 is going to be challenged as that's likely over 15X.

If the viewpoint is not close-up and your printing at 180 dpi, your walking the edge with anything but the best.


bob

[Robert Fisher]

Bob, I concur with you 100%. I have had many drum scans fron 6x9 tranny film via Fuji GW/GSW bodies. When shooting I used absolutely ever step/precaution in the "book" to insure razor sharp images. As a consequence, I have a number of great 24x36 Light Jet prints. HOWEVER, I have a 60" wide print (via the same process) which looks great (well not great but "ok") from 10-12 feet away but is grossly inadequate from closer distances. BUT, perhaps others are not as demanding OR perhaps in this application the prints will be viewed from a distance. This is from my personal experience and I am SURE that others will disagree.

[Greg Gibbons]

...We do have access to a V750 scanner with fluid scanning but not sure about holders. ...

... the other disadvange is 4X5 negative film and any thing larger than 4X5 must be sent out of town for processing.
.

If you have access to a V750, why can't you do 4x5 negatives? I thought it would scan negative film, as well as 8x10.

I don't have an Epson scanner, but is a 4x5 scanned on a v750 really inferior to a 6x9, even though the 4x5 is twice the size?

[domaz]

I think if you are making prints that big it may be worth it to pay for a real scan- by that I mean a drum scan. Consumer grade scanners just aren't going to cut it.

[Peter De Smidt]

A 90mm LF optic with a roll film back won't be near as sharp as, say, a Mamiya 7 or Fuji GSW690 will be.

[Bob McCarthy]

I noticed the curator was happy with 24x36 inch images from a D1X, The D1X was a 6 megapixel camera and that implies the standard of acceptability is very low.

If that is the case, then almost anything you use will work. Hell with plenty of light a current P&S will work if you don't push the ISO above base.

There must not be any fine detail in the expected shot.

Is that correct?

bob

[redrockcoulee]

I noticed the curator was happy with 24x36 inch images from a D1X, The D1X was a 6 megapixel camera and that implies the standard of acceptability is very low.

If that is the case, then almost anything you use will work. Hell with plenty of light a current P&S will work if you don't push the ISO above base.

There must not be any fine detail in the expected shot.

Is that correct?

bob

Found out that for the sample shots some were on the D200 and some on D1X. The images are not fine detail landscape or still life but of shadows on rough textured fluttering paper banners. The curator wants the feeling of being in the installation to show on the images and yes there has to be some quality to it but not the same as if it was a photographic show. IMHO the 24 X36 prints were very good at doing just that. The curator was not the first person to suggest large prints of the shadows although the others who were fine art instructors in the States and Europe suggested large format. The objects to be photographed are shadows created in a relatively dark space. With bright lighting there would be no reason to take any photographs at all.

I do not think it is low standards but a method of extracting a sense of being there that she wishes for very large prints to be included in the show. If I put in for a photography show of images that size from even a 4X5 it would be rejected as of too low quality of work but again it is a part of an installation piece. The viewer is supposed to feel like they are part of the piece rather than are looking at photographic prints if that makes any sense.

Thanks

[Bob McCarthy]

Reading your post, gives me a feel for what you're looking for. It's not sharp edges and micro detail, but smoothness, lack of grain and good dynamic range that appears to be what's desired.

If your going to use film, then not only fine grain is warranted, but as low a enlargement ratio as possible makes sense.

Why, for maximum "smoothness" you don't want to see the grain. Ultimate sharpness is not required. I would suggest using the 4x5 with the Epson 750 would be adequate along with the finest grain film you have available.

I hate to bring this up on a film centric site, but this is a perfect subject for a digital camera and suggest you try that first to see if you can get an acceptable image. A digital camera does not even come close on micro detail as our sheet film cameras, but the lack of grain maked for smooth images.

A D200 has a 10 megapixel sensor, not much in this day and age. You can do much better. With a good scaling program, you can make some really big prints.

Anyway, the 4x5 with the Epson 750, I believe, will get the job done.

bob

[redrockcoulee]

Reading your post, gives me a feel for what you're looking for. It's not sharp edges and micro detail, but smoothness, lack of grain and good dynamic range that appears to be what's desired.

If your going to use film, then not only fine grain is warranted, but as low a enlargement ratio as possible makes sense.

Why, for maximum "smoothness" you don't want to see the grain. Ultimate sharpness is not required. I would suggest using the 4x5 with the Epson 750 would be adequate along with the finest grain film you have available.

I hate to bring this up on a film centric site, but this is a perfect subject for a digital camera and suggest you try that first to see if you can get an acceptable image. A digital camera does not even come close on micro detail as our sheet film cameras, but the lack of grain maked for smooth images.

A D200 has a 10 megapixel sensor, not much in this day and age. You can do much better. With a good scaling program, you can make some really big prints.

Anyway, the 4x5 with the Epson 750, I believe, will get the job done.

bob

Thanks. If we were to go digital we do have access to a friend's D3 which although only 2 Megapixels larger is of course full frame with the larger pixels. My wife does plan on shooting the installation with the D3 or D200/K10D we have access to and select the best angles or views for the film shots. I have even considered renting a back for the Hasselblad but that is as expensive as drum scans due to the days travel from a rental place. In addition if she goes to the workshop they have Genuine Fractuals to assist but does not that work as well for scanned images? Never used the program so do not know.

[sanking]

Thanks. If we were to go digital we do have access to a friend's D3 which although only 2 Megapixels larger is of course full frame with the larger pixels. My wife does plan on shooting the installation with the D3 or D200/K10D we have access to and select the best angles or views for the film shots. I have even considered renting a back for the Hasselblad but that is as expensive as drum scans due to the days travel from a rental place. In addition if she goes to the workshop they have Genuine Fractuals to assist but does not that work as well for scanned images? Never used the program so do not know.

In your first messae you wrote that your wife planned on "using a 69 back on the 4X5 She Hao view camera and a 90 Caltar lens to shot the images and scan them with Nikon CS 8000 using Scanscience fluid scan."

I think that work flow should give better results than shooting 4X5 and scanning with an Epson V750. And if you use color negative film I believe the Nikon CS 8000 should give you results very comparable to a drum scan. The CS 8000 should give you about 4000 ppi, with effective resolution of about 70 lp/mm, which is probably more than you can capture with the 6X9 back on the Shen Hao. A 6X9 cm negative scanned at 4000 spi will give you a file of more than 100 mp, which should give better results in a large print than a P45 or P60 Phase Back on the Hasselblad.

However, what I would suggest is that you expose and develop a test image, scan it on the CS 8000, then send it to a couple of places for a drum scan. Have someone make really large prints from the three scans, and evaluate the results.

And if you plan to have the prints made by Elevator Digital you may want to have them make one of your scans. I understand they have, or will have soon, an ICG drum scanner at the site.

My personal opinion is that if you shoot color negative film you will do just about as well with the CS 8000 as with the drum scans, but I could be wrong. And as you have seen, these scanner questions become very contentious. It seems that "scanner opinions" have replaced the "pyro" wars as the number one spark that may start a flame war on the LF forum.


Sandy

[venchka]

Not to start anything contentious.......

I would suggest Kodak Ektar 100 as one color negative film to evaluate. The color palette and saturation may or may not be to your liking. The absence of grain, smooth tonality, dynamic range and scanned appearance is quite nice. The film was made for scanning. In 120 format and a Hasselblad 501/80mm Planar combination it is stunning. Even with my ancient $150 Epson 1680 scanner. A good scanner would only make it better.

[bagdad child]

Not to start anything contentious.......

I would suggest Kodak Ektar 100 as one color negative film to evaluate. The color palette and saturation may or may not be to your liking. The absence of grain, smooth tonality, dynamic range and scanned appearance is quite nice.

I agree, Ektar is a nice film thats easy to scan. It does easily block up the shadows though if it's not exposed enough. Another film I can recommend is Fuji Pro160S which has incredible dynamic range. The color palette isn't really important if you scan unless you want to keep the images as "true" as possible with regard to the film characteristics.

Another good slide film to consider is Kodak 100GX. I have found it to have surpisingly much exposure latitude for a slide film.

Chris

[Gordon Moat]

I have a similar camera set-up with Linhof 56x72 back and a Rodenstock 90mm f6.8, so I am guessing your Caltar is very similar. You will gain a little bit by going with f11 over f16, which will help out your shots. You did not mention lighting conditions, though that is something to consider when correcting your work later in post processing, or if doing corrections while scanning. However, it helps to be as close as possible when you do the shots, which might mean some filter usage, like an 82A or 82B.

You may consider using a Kodak, Gretag, or similar colour chart in some of your images. That could be useful for doing corrections in post. It would help with the consistency between shots, especially if changing daylight conditions might influence interior illumination during the time needed to capture the images.

I would also recommend Fuji Astia 100F or Kodak E100G, since they are very neutral in colour rendering. Kodak Ektar, while quite a nice film, tends to boost saturation a little, so I would not recommend using that.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[redrockcoulee]

A mid report update:

According to an email from my wife the images she has had printed up look great except a little softer on the edges but that it enhances the feeling of movement in the images. She ended up shooting 5 or 6 rolls of Portra 130 NC on a FujuGX680 original model. She also shot about 200 images with a D2X and 500 or so on a D3. She does not understand why we all tell her that digital was designed especially for her :) Dana used to take a camera with a brand new roll of 36 exposures to photograph a rock or a tree and come back telling me the camera stopped working after a couple of shoots and I would point out no it stopped working after 36 shots when the roll was finished.

The film apparently worked out the best for enlarging. She told me that the blacks are rich blacks with detail in them and she is pleased with the results. And that she learnt lots in her two week residency spent mostly scanning and some printing. Thanks to everyone here who gave their valuable suggestions.

Her show is in February here in Medicine Hat which is a winter vacation spot for those living in places like Regina or Winnipeg. I will post images of the installation in the announcement section when it is hung.

The Fuji GX680 is a wonderful studio camera with all kinds of movement possible. It can be handheld in much the same way as a 27 inch TV can be. The battery packs are impossible to obtain and there are expensive alternatives but we sent the pack in at the local Battery Direct and they had it rebuilt as apparently there are only AA batteries in there anyways at a cost of $40. Not that the camera will be used until the next time we borrow it but it is nice to know that it is there to use.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm glad it's working out.