Max Size

Hello All,

What is the max print size you have successfully scanned for 4x5 or 6x17 (6x17 if you have done that) with the Epson V750/SilverFast for print? I plan on having my local custom lab do a Chromira print. I have an order for a 56 inch wide print and while I would much rather not have to pay for a drum scan, I will if I have to. I've talked to a few professional 6x17ers that have went to 40" with it and said it was fine. But they have never tried to go larger. Not to say they wouldn't, they just haven't.

Thank you for your time in answering. Your input is appreciated.

-Brian

Depends entirely on the negative. If it is vague shapes in the fog, you could probably shoot it with your iPhone and do OK. If it is a field of grass that is only interesting if you can see each blade, then you better give Lenny or Bruce a call and get the best drum scan you can buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Richards

Depends entirely on the negative. If it is vague shapes in the fog, you could probably shoot it with your iPhone and do OK. If it is a field of grass that is only interesting if you can see each blade, then you better give Lenny or Bruce a call and get the best drum scan you can buy.

---

Well said Ed. Personally I think even carefully done wet scans on a 750 (I use one) are pretty humble compared to a drum scan at even a 16x20 enlargement.

Brian,

Haved you looked at any of the fractal geometrical enlargement software?

I know next to nothing about it, so will be interested if you have.

If you haven't can anyone else here throw in some infomation as to its quality?

Thanks,

Lachlan.

The best I have seen is Genuine Fractals. It does a good job in a pinch (like a magazine needing a serious crop), but is no substitute for a quality original scan or digital capture at or above the resolution you need.

It's not an image that needs cropping. It doesn't have huge amounts of space where ultra-fine detail like blades of glass by any means. Chrome is going to do an Imacon virtual drum scan for me for this one. I would say it's somewhere in the middle. I am planning on doing some tests via Lenny's service here soon, though. Right now I'm worried about either doing the scan on my machine or having Chrome do it on their Imacon for this specific image.

I have used GF and agree with Kirk.. I would rather not use it, but if you're not trying to go larger than about 200% over what your original image is, it's generally pretty nice. No examples on this computer to show you, though.

I agree with Kirk, we have GF at the newspaper and use it when an image is sent to us and just does not have the beef to be printed without GF. it is not a tool that should be counted on in your main workflow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings

The best I have seen is Genuine Fractals. It does a good job in a pinch (like a magazine needing a serious crop), but is no substitute for a quality original scan or digital capture at or above the resolution you need.

---

I have seen a 6x12 negative (not mine) scanned using an Epson 4990 and printed at 20x40" that would meet the standards of most people hanging art on their walls. Granted, I didn't compare that print to the same image scanned in a drum scanner, but then neither can anyone looking at the print on my wall. But the print does need good image clarity down into the details of the image, even when viewed through my bifocals, to work properly.

A 6x12 at 20x40" is about a 9x enlargement. That is probably at the edge of the acceptable range (according to the standard set by this print), but it's enough to make a 56" print from a 6x17 negative. And scanning at 2400 should give you enough pixels so that you won't need to upsample the image.

There is always a better quality method out there, but there is also the law of diminishing returns. Each new observable improvement in quality might increase the cost by a large multiple. I don't think the print I'm using as my reference and example in any way undermines the value of large format, even if a better print is possible (and I don't in any way argue that a better print is not possible).

And based on what I see for sale at craft shows and in most consumer-level galleries, it's already far superior.

Rick "perfection is unattainable" Denney

Culling from everything I've read 5x or so seems to be the limit from a good typical flatbet scanner such as an Epson v700 if one is picky about the final print. And this is if one is very careful and utilizes the best upgrades. I'll be shooting 4x10 or 5x12 and this translates to a 50-60" print scanned and printed at home... maybe a "bit" larger. It's not likely I'll want anything larger than this but, should I go mad one day and insist on it, I'll just have a very high quality drum scan made and have a commercial lab make a Lightjet print. For the few images from which I "might" want ultra-large prints it makes no economic sense to spend huge wads of cash to have this ability at home. High quality scans aren't cheap and neither are high quality wall-sized prints but you'd have to make a whole bunch of those to pay for the quipment. I can't imagine, as a hobbyist, ever needing a multi-thousand-dollar drum scanner nor a multi-thousand-dollar printer at home. Now... if I had a gazillion dollars to play with, that's quite another story.

The above stated, I'd like to see a crop of a 300dpi scan at 56" from your image. Curiousity always gets the best of me.

A 56" wide print of a 6x17 film is a little more than an 8X enlargement. I have a Microtek M1 which resolves fairly closely (maybe a bit more) than a V750 and I find it makes a quality print out to 4X or 5X. Beyond that, the image starts to break down. I've seen some Chrome prints from Imacon scans done at 6X and they looked good--not optical quality, but good. At 8X, I'd get a pro flatbed or drum scan unless you don't mind seeing digital artifacts at close viewing distances.

I fully understand the cost/benefit dilema. Here is my personal POV. I put allot of time massaging the files and fine tuning the print. I know from personal experience and taste (and side by side testing) that at 16x20, based on my own testing I can see significant differences that matter to me, in terms of tone, resolution, shadow detail etc. on a print from a drum scan (or pro flat bed or even an Imacon) and an Epson 750. Could anyone else see the difference? It doesn't matter. I would know the difference and it would haunt me, knowing I am putting all that work into a print that could be better for some extra dollars up front. Having said that I own a Creo Jazz and .......every year when I teach at SAIC I have access both to the latest Imacon and the latest Kodak/Creo scanners to use for free and a friend locally who will do a raw Imacon scan for $15. So I have resources that others do not. Also my work does sell. So even a onetime investment in a primo drum scan is a business expense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings

I fully understand the cost/benefit dilema. Here is my personal POV. I put allot of time massaging the files and fine tuning the print. I know from personal experience and taste (and side by side testing) that at 16x20, based on my own testing I can see significant differences that matter to me, in terms of tone, resolution, shadow detail etc. on a print from a drum scan (or pro flat bed or even an Imacon) and an Epson 750.

---

Kirk,

Are you talking about your personal B&W work, or your professional color work?

Sandy King

Sorry for not being clear. I am talking about my personal b&w work. Virtually all the color professional work is shot digitally and delivered as files.

Am I correct in that we are talking about scanning a negative and not a chrome? If so, optimizing the scan for the appearance of grain might be more important in a very large print than the amount of detail and you might find some trade-offs with different methods of scanning. For example, a fluid mount scan on the Epson 750 will likely have less grain than a scan with an Imacon, but will probably not be as sharp. A drum scan of a color negative can also give a lot of grain if not done correctly. I have had several different drum scans made of the same color negative film and the grain was much finer in some than in others. I personally believe that the best scan you can get of a color negative is with a fluid mount on a professional flatbed like the Creo Eversmart Supreme, IQSmart3, or Cezanne, and this needs to be done at over 4000 ppi to be sure to get most of the detail from the negative.

Sandy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_A

What is the max print size you have successfully scanned for 4x5 or 6x17 (6x17 if you have done that) with the Epson V750/SilverFast for print? I plan on having my local custom lab do a Chromira print. I have an order for a 56 inch wide print and while I would much rather not have to pay for a drum scan, I will if I have to.

---

But you don't have to. There's nothing physically stopping you from going as large as you want from whatever scanner you want to use. If you are proud of the final print -- if it sufficiently expresses your vision for your image, then that's all you really need, yes?

That said, clearly some scans are of higher quality than others. The quality differences are real. And of course there are price considerations too.

When, for you, is it worth it to drum scan? No one can tell you; that's a decision you have to make. It all comes down to your image, your vision for it, and how you think is the best way to obtain that vision in a print.

Sandy, I have thought we were talking about b&w, but looking back I am not positive.

With Imacon scans of landscapes, I have devised a b&w work flow that solves the tendency to over-sharpen and emphasize graininess. Whether I am having my friend do it at his place or I am dong it at SAIC, I just do 3f raw files at the scanner. At home then I process the file twice, identical except for the sharpening. On one I do some healthy capture sharpening (I really like their sharpening algorithm in Imacon software) on the other I do minimal sharpening. I layer the two files in PS and blend them using the minimally sharpened one for the sky. Grain to me is most objectionable in the sky and this allows me to have virtually grainless skies. Final sharpening is done with a high pass which again does not emphasize grain. The result is a creamy smoothness in the sky and rich detail in the ground or building where grain emphasizes detail, a juxtaposition that I have become very fond of. The same technique can be done many ways in the digital workflow, such as by applying slight Gausian Blur to the sky, but I personally like it the best when I can control it in two scans.

Jeez... I'm so far behind the hybrid workflow and have "much to learn" and yet so "little to know". It's a matter of "personal/practical experience" from what I can tell. Cripes!!

Kirk,

Interesting work flow. Good example of why a good scan, though important, is only the first step in making a fine print.

BTW, I have heard of a few people who fluid mount with the Imacon. Sounds like it would be a bit more complicated than with a flatbed.

Sandy King

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

Kirk,

Interesting work flow. Good example of why a good scan, though important, is only the first step in making a fine print.

BTW, I have heard of a few people who fluid mount with the Imacon. Sounds like it would be a bit more complicated than with a flatbed.

Sandy King

---

I can't imagine how that would work? As the film is suspended in a flexible holder which is curved to simulate a drum scan drum (hence virtual drum scan). So ....what....one would just wet the film with scanning fluid?

Kirk,

Stephen Schaub (http://figitalrevolution.com/) described to me how he fluid mounted with the Imacon a year or so ago in a telephone conversation. Unfortunately I have forgotten the details but he may have some information about this on his web site.

Sandy

I have a v700 which I've gotten familiar with in the last year. It does a lot for the price and is a handy tool for reviewing a day's results quickly.
I had a print order recently for several 20x24's, though, so I decided to have drum scans produced and prints made, and ended up being not all that impressed. The negatives were ones that I've printed for the last 20 years, so I knew how should look with the right treatment. I've gotten better prints out of the darkroom and out of my v700 than what I got from this service.
I've read a ton of threads on this subject and am willing to be convinced of the benefit of spending money on drum scans, but have yet to really see an a/b comparison that really settles it in my mind. Respectfully...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mandoman7

........
I had a print order recently for several 20x24's, though, so I decided to have drum scans produced and prints made, and ended up being not all that impressed.......

I've gotten better prints out of the darkroom and out of my v700 than what I got from this service.......


I've read a ton of threads on this subject and am willing to be convinced of the benefit of spending money on drum scans, but have yet to really see an a/b comparison that really settles it in my mind. Respectfully...

---

A very large part of that will fall on the lap of the operator of the scanner.
I had some drum scans made a 6x9 C-41 image, intended use was to make 6 foot prints to be mounted in the board room of the company. I could not make an 8x10 with those crap scans!
I went to another shop and they scanned the same image on the type of machine and they were beautiful! Night and day difference.
The prints are up and look great. Don't base drums scans on one shop, clearly the is can be a huge difference from one scan house to the next.

Thanks for all the feedback here guys. I've noticed in other threads that the scanner operator plays a huge role in all of this, too. That's pretty good information to go off of. This time I went with the Imacon virtual drum scan and I'm sure it'll be happy there. It's more of an "artistic" shot with not a lot of sharpness required and after the scan just same basic levels and curve adjustments for their guy over there. Again, thanks for the input so far!

There are definitely other shots that I'd love to see how sharp and big these drum scans can be. Hopefully will see that soon!

-Brian

I use Qimage for uprezing and my clients have been satisfied with their 96" prints. But then I'm not in the big city where we see that many drum scans in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Lockrey

I use Qimage for uprezing and my clients have been satisfied with their 96" prints. But then I'm not in the big city where we see that many drum scans in the first place.

---

I was just talking to someone that lives in California and the closest lab to him only do LF/MF E6 like once a week. I guess I'm spoiled here in DC where our lab here does it 2-3 times per DAY during the week. I can get drum scans here for about $90. Haven't known anyone that has got any from here (Any local DC people that use Chrome in Georgetown that could give some feedback here?) but the rest of their services are outstanding and above what any lab I've EVER dealt with will ever do. My aunt had some work there - a very large order - and they were just in the slightest way messed up. They took them all back and and did them over at no fee. Most labs (That I've worked with) would have said, oh well, close enough. I might try them if I am in a pinch but there are a few people here that can come close to the cost, so I'd rather give onea ya'll the business in that respect. But for my prints and developing, I always trust them to do it right the first time or fix their problem without additional fees/crap.

I ordered my 56" print from them with the Imacon scan, so we'll see how that works out. If it's anything like my prior services done there, I will not be disappointed. This one is a LightJet print. I'll let you guys know how the Imacon scan goes. To keep the scan, I'd have to pay additional fees, but that's fine. The price of the print is the same with or without the scan, so that's kinda nice in some ways. I may buy it later if I need it again in the future. Anyways, I'll let ya'll know how it turns out. Again, thanks for the input!

Greg,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Lockrey

I use Qimage for uprezing and my clients have been satisfied with their 96" prints.

---

I'm also a Qimage Studio Edition user and I'm curious what is your initial image size to achieve 96" prints ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steaphany

Greg,



I'm also a Qimage Studio Edition user and I'm curious what is your initial image size to achieve 96" prints ?

---

I made one display poster for a trade show that began life as a 8x10" 300 dpi and made a 8x10' print on vinyl. The guy that designed the poster came in from Chicago to see me make the print from that file and had a much larger one ready to use just in case it didn't work out. We were both pleasently surprized. But generally I like to use 300 mb files or better for those larger pieces.

I made this poster with just a 5 mp camera (Oly E-20) copied from a 16x20 b&w and enlarged to 6x8'. That was about ten years ago. You would have no problem counting the bricks. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_A

I guess I'm spoiled here in DC where our lab here does it 2-3 times per DAY during the week.

---

Who do you use? I live in Loudoun County and there's nobody out here even running medium format, let alone large format, within easy driving distance.

Of course, I think I'd rather mail it out than drive into the District!

Rick "who can get to Baltimore more easily than DC on most days" Denney

Rick,

Chrome Imaging (http://www.ChromeImaging.com) in Georgetown. They're top notch, imho. They also do FedEx/UPS and messenger service - I'm not sure how far they go outside of the District. Probably just Arlington. There's a place in Manassas two miles from me that runs every few days but my experiences with them have been nothing short of horrible. I won't even mention their name. Chrome is awesome though. Absolutely awesome. Customer service is always A+ and quality of product is always A+. They also do about everything: From processing to digital neg production, a wide selection of print types to books, from regular flatbed scans to drum scans. It's the type of place that even if it's not on their list of services, I'm sure they'd find a way to provide it. I think this is going to be one of the few things I miss out of this area after we move here in early 2010. Another thing I like about them is the very little employee turnover there - I walk in and they know (Or at least have some sort of idea) what I like and how I like it even after almost five years of going there - like a good bartender. :D Where around this hell hole --err DC do you live?

-B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

Who do you use? I live in Loudoun County and there's nobody out here even running medium format, let alone large format, within easy driving distance.

Of course, I think I'd rather mail it out than drive into the District!

Rick "who can get to Baltimore more easily than DC on most days" Denney

---

I've scanned 4x5 b&w film on an Epson 4990 (essentially the same scanner as the 700/750) and printed up to roughly 16x20 and been happy with the results. I've never printed at your planned size though.

One of the things that often gets left out of these discussions is the talent of the person operating the scanner, whether a drum or Epson flat bed. Just because film is scanned on a drum scanner doesn't automatically make it better than the same film scanned on a 700/750. The drum scans I had made some years ago were o.k., they pulled a very little bit more detail out of the shadows than I did but otherwise they were about the same. Which leads me to think the person who did the scanning (not anyone who participates here) just wasn't that good or didn't want to take the time to make a really good drum scan.

As a matter of interest, Costco will now make a 30x40 print for $9. Before you laugh, a friend of mine had one made and it was surprisingly good. However, his was from a Canon 5D Mark II camera, I don't know whether they can handle the file size of a 4x5 scan at max rez. I'm going to give it a try just to see what they can do. I figure for $9 it will be hard to go too far wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_A

Where around this hell hole --err DC do you live?

---

Thanks for the reference to Chrome. I will look them up if I need rush service, and otherwise might save up stuff to take to them in batches, when it would make the driving more worth the trouble.

I live in Loudoun County, about 45 miles northwest of DC, in the part of Northern Virginia that is not a hell hole, as long as you never need to buy anything and as long as you don't have to commute to DC, which thank God I don't. Think Harper's Ferry and then back up about five miles.

Rick "who still has a pile of A&I mailers to work through" Denney

As a drum scan skeptic, I have to give a testimonial to them now after having seen such a difference from what I got from my Epson 4990 and the drum scan I had made. I had an image shot on 4X5 Velvia 50 sheet film that had a lot of detail. I spent nearly a day trying to coax a good scan from my 4990. I got good results but it was obvious that there was more detail on the film. I finally gave up and got it drum scanned to 300MB and got an excellent 16X20 print out of it. I am sure the scanner could generate more pixels and a much bigger image. The superiority of the drum scan was quite evident. However, I think in this case since the film was such a high resolution film to start with and since the impact of the image depended on the detail viewers could see up close rather than the composition, the drum scan was called for. Different combinations of image and film and output would not be nearly as demanding.

Rick,

Ahh, cool. I'm not that far from you then. I'm in Manassas. As far as buying camera gear, just go down to the Penn in Fairlakes. They have a lot of good LF gear and they can generally get them in from other stores for you to check out within a day or two. Same with Leica gear if that floats your boat. I used to work at that one and started at the one in Springfield.

They'll do your 4x5 stuff, but they just send it out to a lab that I have found is not good. Lots of scratched negs. Plus the Penn in Fairlakes you can generally get whatever kind of film you want brought in there, although I've found it much cheaper to use B&H. But if you need some 4x5 Tmax or a couple of times of Ilford they generally have it in stock at all times for the LF class they teach at NOVA Alexandria.

-Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

Thanks for the reference to Chrome. I will look them up if I need rush service, and otherwise might save up stuff to take to them in batches, when it would make the driving more worth the trouble.

I live in Loudoun County, about 45 miles northwest of DC, in the part of Northern Virginia that is not a hell hole, as long as you never need to buy anything and as long as you don't have to commute to DC, which thank God I don't. Think Harper's Ferry and then back up about five miles.

Rick "who still has a pile of A&I mailers to work through" Denney

---