Anyone want to post a really great large format scan?

[ndrs]

Well, why not.
I don't mind sharing a couple of raw drum scans from 4x5 transparencies @ 4861x6148 and 5291 × 6779. Not really high-end, dry-mount scanned on Screen DT-S1030AI. No post-processing. I must add that I'm still learning to get something usable out of this machine and that I find scanning deeply depressing.

I'll not share them publicly, though. Send me a PM and I'll reply with the link.

[Light Guru]

Not on my Internet connection it wouldn't. Besides, you can start a download in a separate window and come back to it later when it is done.

It's not just your Internet connection that is part of the equation. It also has to do with Internet connection of the server its hosted on.

The file size could easily be 1GB or more.

[Light Guru]

So maybe you do not have quite of an interest in the subject at all?
On the other hand, there is enough of info available on the web already, including overviews and 100% res crops from both High End flatbed and drum scanners. Some of the scans are even presented side by side.

Vary good point.

I think the OP does not just want to see one I think he wants to try and edit one.

[Ken Lee]

A really great scan is required to the degree that the photo in question needs to be rescued (too dense, too thin, wrongly processed) and enlarged (too small).

The smaller the image, the greater the strain throughout the entire workflow - not just at scanning time. 4x5 is really at the entry-level. If we're struggling to squeeze data out of the image (fretting over lenses, grain, developers, scanners, sharpening algorithms) it may be a signal that the image is too small in the first place.

One way to get a more ultimate scan is to shoot larger film. There's more effort in the beginning, but there's less struggle in the end. We can get superb results with a modest lens, modest tripod, modest film, a modest scanner and... a modest scanner operator

[Nathan Potter]

Pauls' request is entirely reasonable. I've been doing just the opposite - namely downloading large digital camera files from various sources (including his of the relic building interior) in order to assess the quality obtainable from such. The Nikon site has a couple of outstanding images for download. Certainly one image from a Foveon sensor posted recently by? on the other endless thread about this subject is one of the most detailed images I've seen from any small format sensor and analyzing it using my Wild M3 stereo microscope after printing a section shows detail that makes me suspect it may be a stitched composite; the window pane sashes have detail that is considerable finer than what should be possible from a 10µm pixel.

The same logic holds for transmitting, viewing and printing a scanned LF film. I can output a 56 X72 inch print but print only an 8X10 section for analysis. Of course there are a bunch of variables related to the scanner, quality of the original film, etc. but they can be documented. If I had a very high quality scanner I would oblige Pauls' request but I'm really only using a V750 Epson which is inadequate for his purposes. There are a number of methods for transmitting very large files in reasonable times.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[John NYC]

It's not just your Internet connection that is part of the equation. It also has to do with Internet connection of the server its hosted on.

The file size could easily be 1GB or more.

I understand that. Hopefully anyone making scans of that size and offering them would not be hosting them somewhere ridiculous.

[Greg Miller]

It's not just your Internet connection that is part of the equation. It also has to do with Internet connection of the server its hosted on.

The file size could easily be 1GB or more.

It isn't that hard. A 1GB file can be uploaded in less than 3 hours with a typical ISP (2 hours 15 minutes would be more likely). Download would be less than 20 minutes. I upload/download data 10GB or more all the time - so I know from actual experience.

[Light Guru]

It isn't that hard. A 1GB file can be uploaded in less than 3 hours with a typical ISP (2 hours 15 minutes would be more likely). Download would be less than 20 minutes. I upload/download data 10GB or more all the time - so I know from actual experience.

Yes it can but name a website that will allow you to display a file that big on the website. That's my point.

I know you can send files but the my earlier comment was about posting the image to make it viewable on a web page, and that is simply not feasible with a 1gb file. A free flicker account limits you to a total of 300mb of total images a month and a 20mb size limit per image.

Yes you can share a "file" but no you could not make that 1gb file viewable on a web page.

[Andrea Gazzoni]

Paul I'd gladly help.
The best option is maybe working on one of your negatives. I am not a pro, I just operate two drum scanners at home. Drop me a message so we can arrange.
Andrea

[Greg Miller]

Yes it can but name a website that will allow you to display a file that big on the website. That's my point.

I know you can send files but the my earlier comment was about posting the image to make it viewable on a web page, and that is simply not feasible with a 1gb file. A free flicker account limits you to a total of 300mb of total images a month and a 20mb size limit per image.

Yes you can share a "file" but no you could not make that 1gb file viewable on a web page.

Where did Paul say we wanted a "file viewable on a web page"? His request was "I'd love to see examples of the best of what's possible". That's easily achieved by making the file available via download - where the file can then be viewed in Photoshop.