Would you print 30x42" color from 5x7 scanned by v700?

[Kirk Gittings]

"I can't believe some of these guys have said no because there's not reason not to. Why not?"

You want to translate that ?

[Lenny Eiger]

We are here once again. A guy who knows a guy who knows a guy once had a scan done on an Epson 22,000. (No, there isn't one.)

I once printed a 6 foot wide image for a local photographer, on canvas, from a digital file (early Nikon) that ended up being at 90 dpi. He loved it, it was beyond his expectations (and mine). They are hanging in a local office building. I was surprised how good things can look at that level. It doesn't mean I want to recommend it.

Drum scans are better at a full dynamic range, reproducing subtle tones and sharpness. There's no argument.

There is only one question. For your best work, do you want to use the best scan possible? Is print quality of major importance to you? If it isn't, then don't go to the expense. If you want to make the most exquisite prints you can, then by all means do.

The prints for the office building were definitely good enough. But "good enough" is a business principle, "good enough for the purpose they were for", or "good enough for what I was getting paid", etc. Nothing wrong with it. However, when it comes to fine art, we all have the places in our aesthetic where we make no compromise. For me, printing of my artwork is one of those places. That isn't true for everyone. For some its the depth of field falloff, the print doesn't matter than much. Everyone gets to choose, and this is part of the expression.

Of course, if you want to see what a drum scan can do, get one done and you'll have something to compare with. Then you can make your own judgement...

Lenny

[Heroique]

…I’d liked to have drum scanned her work, side by side a discriminating eye may find a difference, but on their own these are stunning prints [from Epson v700/v750] with no impression of anything lacking. Proper technique, and in particular, careful sharpening practices are critical…

Very interesting, and to add, I hope, just a few more practical remarks about Epson consumer flatbeds – which I think can generate bigger (excellent) prints than people commonly report here. Here’s one of the very few (4x5) color negatives – ISO-160 – from which I’ve made big prints. It’s a careful dry-mount scan on a 4990, not an especially challenging one, w/ the print (at 300 dpi) approaching 30” on the long side, and it’s, well, okay! And so say my meanest viewers, when viewing it either close-up or far-away. And yes, there is grain when close-up. Maybe 5x7 film would have offered less. However, compared to similar prints from trouble-free Fuji-64 + 85b transparencies, this one just doesn’t compare, and when I have those Fuji-64 prints in mind, I’m less willing to use an exclamation point when I say this one is “okay!” Nonetheless, based on my personal (and pleasing) results w/ this ISO-160 film, I still say try the Porta-160 on your v700 (keeping Tyler’s tips in mind) and let us know what happens. The final result might fly above your expectations. And if you drum scan it too, please let us know how you’d compare the prints. (BTW, what would be really helpful is to see a quick scan of the Porta-160 film, if it’s possible.)

Tachi 4x5
Fuji A 240mm/9
Old Fuji Pro 160s
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

[sanking]

I own a drum scanner and an Epson V700 and have compared scans and actual prints several times from 5X7" negatives. Never chromes. In absolute terms there is no question but that you will get better quality from a drum scanner than from the Epson V700. However, when I have taken the the trouble to adjust the V700 for focus, and fluid mount, there has not been much difference in actual print quality (even on very close examination) between the drum scanner and V700 at 24" X 32" with inkjet printing. In my opinion the actual methodology used in scanning, along with the method of post-processing, plays a much bigger role in final image quality when comparing 5X7" negatives at this print size than whether the scan is done with a V700, drum scanner or other high end flatbed like the Cezanne or Eversmart.

Sandy

[mandoman7]

I think its safe to assume that most people here are concerned about print quality by virtue of the fact that they are bothering with large format. But even though we are willing to go to excesses to get a better print, that doesn't necessarily translate to spending top money at every step of production. Everyone would prefer to not make compromises in their art, but the real world dictates that we are often having to do the best with what we have. I would guess that you'll find interesting compromises in much of the great art that we admire, as the dedicated practitioners are often relegated to working with simple tools and materials. You strive for the best, but work with what you have, in the end.